[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate Councilor Leming for bringing this up today. And I also want to thank the residents for communicating their concerns to us. And thank you to Commissioner McGivern for being on the line to talk about this with us this evening. I just want to say at the outset, you know, if I were in the position of these residents who are having their long standing waste removal service revoked. I feel your pain. If I was used to getting service for no additional cost and now there's an additional cost I'd be extremely frustrated. So I feel for you and I'm glad that we're having this conversation. At the same time, I was also the Councilor that served on the solid waste task force that Commissioner McGibbon referenced, where we were talking about the principles that we wanted to go into this new contract. As we prepared for a contract that would hopefully last us a long time and be as efficient as economical as possible. It's in this environment where there's ever fiercer competition for limited city resources and trash specifically is getting really, really expensive year over year, which I know we we've seen in every operating budget for the past several years. As I remember from our conversations on the Solid Waste Task Force and when the output of the Solid Waste Task Force was brought to this council, if I'm remembering correctly, and the task force was two long years ago, but I'm sure that Commissioner McEvern can correct me, if I'm mischaracterizing anything, there are some logistical reasons that multi-unit buildings like condos, it doesn't make as much sense for them to be in the same trash system as the rest of the city. For example, sometimes, Properties that are set up like this don't use barrels at all. They use dumpsters. It's a separate system. But I think we all agree here that we need parity in who's getting what. And we don't want some condo dwellers getting service and others getting not. It seems to me that the operative issue here is the communication and that sense of a lack of fairness. some residents observing that they're having their service revoked while they're looking across the street and saying there's a unit that seems really similar to mine that gets to keep its service and it's really not clear what that algorithm is that's making the distinction. So you know I really appreciate Commissioner McGibbon's perspective on this and I think that you know this is a unglamorous issue with a lot of growing pains but we all want to get to a place where as a city we can afford our extremely expensive waste contract and as individual households everybody is getting what they need and not paying through the nose and I think a really important place to start is getting some better communication from the administration to this council with clearer broken down information on why Some units are seeing their service revoked, while others that seem really similar are not. And if there are cases of unfairness where this, I think, a policy that was conceived with the best of intentions is hitting some snags, then I think we should move that conversation forward and see how can we make some targeted tweaks so that people who deserve equal levels of service are not inadvertently getting left out. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I just briefly wanted to state that I think I agree with Councilors Scarpelli and President Bears on this. I think it would probably leave all councilors with a greater feeling of involvement and peace of mind as we advance potential applicants for this role in the process if we've had a chance to not only review resumes at the beginning but meet once confidentially to discuss them. I know that solicitor Foley is on the line and if there's something I'm missing here for why it wouldn't be possible for us to have that conversation in an executive session confidentially without the names of resumes being published, you know, in much the same way that we have executive sessions on other matters concerning personnel or specific names that are never an agenda and always confidential. I'd like to hear that explanation because right now I think that I would also, it would be nice to begin this process just as a council and be able to discuss our first steps before proceeding. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I don't necessarily agree with Mayor Lungo-Koehn's decision to raise this particular zoning of this particular intersection once again. However, I don't think that we should deprive the residents of their another opportunity to weigh in on it and go through the statutorily required multi-step public participation that is required for any proposed zoning amendment. So I'd be happy to make a motion to refer this paper to the Community Development Board so that they can open a public hearing on it and we can take the process forward from there.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to take paper 25-105 from the table and approve for third reading.
[Kit Collins]: Was that to me? I think my internet is shorting out.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, I think I lost audio for a split second. Please let me know if I start to break up. Thank you for the chance to speak. I also didn't receive the letter from the administration. Seems like something must have happened in our email inboxes or something. I won't speculate on that. But I haven't had a chance to review it in detail, but I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli for reading it out loud because I haven't gotten a chance to read it. Um, and I agree with what much of what has been shared in the past several minutes by my fellow Councilors, and I don't want to belabor the point, um, but I would be remiss not to say that in my four years of experience on this body, the, uh, sending a concern at the very last minute before a meeting is a pattern I've seen from Mayor Longo Curran's administration over and over again. Um, and it's, it's frustrating, but I don't think it's something that We need to, on that alone, let it interrupt the work of this council. More importantly, and again, I don't want to belabor points made by my fellow Councilors already, the point shared in the letter that arrived today or yesterday or inboxes, I'm not really sure which, strike me as very similar to points made by the administration, concerns raised by the administration. A couple of months or I guess a month earlier into this process when we were taking earlier votes and having earlier discussions on the ordinance. And of course I appreciate any good faith and thorough participation in discussion of the ordinance and I think that that's fine. I think that raising concerns is fine. It's just that I think that we've already talked about all those concerns that have been raised. I don't think that it is correct to assume the premise that a values-aligned local investments ordinance will lose us money. I think that that is kind of irrationally pessimistic. I think that's pessimistic beyond reason. We have no reason to think that. There's a plethora of profitable industries that we could invest in that aren't things that are anathema to both our values and the safety and the thriving of our residents here in Medford. And I don't think that it is correct or rational for us to make a decision based on an alternative premise. In addition, I think that a lot of the concerns about the difficulty to implement this and the stakeholders that would be need to involved in this, those have been discussed. I want to, again, tip my hat to President Bears for the thorough process that went into this ordinance and making sure to discuss it with everybody who might be involved in this ordinance. And I think the other premise that is missing from the concerns from the administration include that Everything I've heard in these chambers leads me to believe that this ordinance is proactive. It's not like we have to get rid of millions and millions and millions of dollars in ethically objectionable industries, and that's a good thing. So I don't think it's correct to make a decision on the premise that this would be an incredibly difficult lift for us to achieve anyway. I think we can go into this optimistically, and with excitement to say we're already in a pretty good place it seems when it comes to making sure that our investments are aligned with our values and this the structure of this ordinance will just make us give us another tool to ensure that that is the case right now and into the future. So with that I'm looking forward to taking a final vote on this tonight. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro for putting this on the agenda and I want to thank you too specifically for the work that you do here in our city. I love the idea of not just recognizing but celebrating National Recovery Month, obviously recovery is incredibly difficult, incredibly challenging. Every experience is different for everybody, but I have so much respect to those who commit to going through it and those who commit to helping others up that ladder as well. So it's not a thing to take lightly, but it is a thing to take joy in and to really say to all of our many, many friends and families and neighbors who have direct experience or experience of somebody in their community going through that to say, we see you, we celebrate you. Not to say it's not hard, but it can be joyful too. So thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for being here. I think obviously there's a balance to be had here between being reasonably responsive to complaints and requests and noise concerns. All of us here live in residences. We know how upsetting it is when it's loud and you're trying to work, you're trying to sleep. And we have to balance that with letting a commercial district be a commercial district. I know that going from 11 p.m. every night to 2 a.m. every night in one fell swoop is a pretty big swing. I think that there's a balance to be struck here. I would make a motion to amend this proposal to 7 a.m. through 2 a.m. Thursday through Saturday, and 7 a.m. through midnight Sunday through Wednesday, and to put a 30-, 60-, and 90-day review on that.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sorry. Uh, never mind. Your hours online were different. Maybe I didn't see it here. Um, in that case, I would support extending the two a.m. closure to Thursday through Saturday and leaving the other days the week as is.
[Kit Collins]: Sure. Thank you. I just wanted to note that it sounds like at every step, Great American Beer Hall has tried to be responsive to specific suggestions and solutions that have been proposed to the business, and I do want to note that, and that gives me a feeling of optimism that if we kind of collaboratively reorient toward solutions that maybe, you know, I think the effort is there. What we need to do now is make sure that the You know, the noise amelioration is really we're using the strategies that work the best. I heard it's heartening to know that we have an actual AV engineer in the community I'm sure he's not the only one. Maybe a next step here is to take a look at what are the interventions that are really making a difference what are the ones that seem like they should make a difference but because of sound waves. They're not having the effect that they should. Um, I've been to, uh, many a, you know, brewery style event hall myself that is just incredibly loud because of how the walls are and how echoey it is. So it seems like there's, um, ground here that we haven't tread on yet that might be having a bigger effect, um, than what's already been tried. So maybe we can, I think if there's a strong commitment and review period that we can try the things that seem like they'll have a better success rate, maybe we can have the extended hours with decreased complaints at the same time.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears, I would motion to suspend the rules to take 25-141 and 25-142 out of order.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears that says a lot of what I was going to say, just for history state for clarity. This is on the agenda because it was tabled to the state. The last time I was on the agenda, and the circumstances surrounding the zoning project are largely the same, the zoning consultant the contract with the zoning consultant ended at the end of the previous fiscal year. We don't have a new one. In addition, I understand the CDB is working to fill a lot of spaces on the CDB right now so that they can resume meeting hold holding their public meetings and working through their queue of proposals which includes zoning and other things besides. I am eagerly awaiting an update from the mayor's office on when we can expect to see a renewed contract with the zoning consultant so that we can not only continue our zoning review which many Medford residents have invested hours and hours and hours of time into not to mention a lot of money over many years has gone into this, but that we can actually expand it more resources more communication more information and more opportunities for people to participate. So, with my motion to table, I hope that we can take it off the table within the next month or two.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think the text kind of says it all I learned about this bill and because it has been endorsed by the AFL CIO, and there's significant union organizing going on in support of it this year. Just to be perfectly clear, though, I think it's pretty clear from the text of the resolution itself, my advocacy for this bill and I think that our collective advocacy for this bill, it is not about advocating for AI in the workplace, it is meant to shore up protections and backstops for workers, including workers in our community, people who live here, people who just come here to work. in a scenario where AI proliferating in the workplace that's already happening and it would be naive to think it's not going to continue to happen more in the future. If workers are going to be forced to deal with AI and indeed to see AI take over more of their daily life at work, I think we should at least be advocating that it be mandatory that humans are not taken out of those workflows entirely. In addition, there are already many documented harms to people in many contexts, including a work context, for the type of surveillance that AI technologies can do. I think that threatens the role of the worker in the workplace. I also think that's like a very, very real documented, clear and present threat to people and workers from a civil liberties and just basic safety standpoint. So this is, I think, just a really common sense piece of Massachusetts legislation that is aimed just at protecting the existing role of workers at their jobs and making sure that new technologies, when they're introduced, they augment the worker, they don't replace the worker, they don't make the worker any less safe. So I hope that my fellow councillors will join with me in sending a clear signal to our state delegation that their constituents want to see them standing up for a scenario in which AI maybe complements our lives and does not threaten them. Thank you. Motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being with us tonight. I gotta say, I feel for the resident that this happened to. And applaud her for her persistence. It seems only fair that we try to expedite her being made whole at this juncture. I'd motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Just really quickly, I just wanted to say thank you for raising this like to the community and also to the council. I think it's true, even if this church has completely lost credibility with everybody who isn't a congregant, it is still important for the community and the city to loudly step up and say, wow, like, no, absolutely not. They've been pulling this stuff for years. This is probably the worst example of hate speech that I've seen from them or anywhere in Medford. But still, I think that we should do we can do what we can to condemn it because we should just, we should just always do that. So thank you again for putting this on our radar and be happy to work with you further to put something on a future city council agenda.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I believe this was our 25th zoning meeting in the Planning and Permitting Committee. At this meeting, we discussed, we had a very preliminary discussion of a framework for the Tufts Institutional Zone, and we kept that topic in committee for further discussion. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to suspend the rules to take 25-127, 25-128, 25-125, and 25-126. On the motion of Vice President Collins to suspend the rules to take papers 25-127, 25-128, 25-125, and 25-126. Seconded by.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to extend my thanks to the MBTA for their presentation tonight. You know, there are many people in Medford who rely on bus service to commute to get where they need to go. There are many, many bus stops in Medford where we know that maintenance and improvements are. urgently needed, especially when it comes to ADA upgrades. I appreciate the clarity around this and the updates on the timeline for the rollout. And I am eager to see the shot clock on these updates begin as soon as possible so that riders can begin to see a better experience at their bus stops. I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. While I am not in favor of slowing down this council's work on overhaul of our zoning ordinance, I do understand that the CBB is between CORA right now, between quorums right now. So I would recommend that we hold this referral until they are procedurally able to open their hearing on it. That would be a motion to table until our September 9th regular meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, we have different setups. Paper 25-015, offered by President Bears, Values Aligned Local Investments Ordinance. Is there a motion to waive reading of the ordinance for a summary by the proponent? Great, on the motion to waive reading of the ordinance in favor of a summary by the proponent, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, one opposed, one absent. Motion passes. Go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. First, I'll recognize our fellow councilors. Then we will go to public comment. After discussion amongst councilors is done, we'll hear public comment from both folks inside the room and on Zoom. I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli first.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go next to Councilor Lazzaro and then back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Rosario. We'll go back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'm sure we'll hear from more Councilors and also members of the public tonight that some people in the audience will feel the desire to respond to one way or the other. I suspect that we'll want to hear from a lot of people. So I ask folks to please keep your responses short so that we can make sure we hear from everybody in a timely manner. I like applauding as next is as much as the, what was that? Oh, Justin. I knew something was missing.
[Kit Collins]: All that to say, please keep your applause short or I'll ask people to stop applauding. I'll be recognizing Councilor Tseng. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Are there any other councillors who would like to discuss the matter further at this time before public comment? Seeing none, I know there are a lot of people in the audience who would like to speak on this matter. We will accept public comment both here at the podium and on Zoom. If you'd like to speak in person, please line up in a queue behind the podium. I will alternate between in-person and on Zoom. I will ask everybody to give their name and their address for the record. Sorry, let me turn myself up here. I will ask everybody to give their name and address for the record, and everybody will have exactly three minutes. We have a lot of people who want to talk tonight, so I will be holding us to that strict limit to make sure that we hear from everybody. We will begin at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: At the same time. Thank you. Am I out of time? You're out of time. Thank you for your comments. We will go next to Zoom. I'm going to ask Anne to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We'll go next to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll return to Zoom. We'll return to Zoom. Renee, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Please give your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Renee. We will go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: 1-1-2-1. And that's the only outburst from the audience that I will tolerate tonight. Thank you, Claire. We will go back to Zoom. Dennis, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Dennis, that's time. Thank you for your comments. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We will return to Zoom. David Harris, I will ask you to unmute. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks, David. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We will go back to Zoom. Zachary, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. We will return to Zoom. Munir, I'm going to ask you to unmute. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Excuse me, excuse me. We're not going to do outbursts from the audience. We're not going to do that. We'll return to Zoom. And for folks who are waiting to speak on Zoom, please prepare by having your full name in your Zoom username. I cannot call on people who don't have both the first and last name. This is a precaution against Zoom bombers. We will go to Please keep conversations. Please go outside if you're going to have side conversations. Andy, please take it outside if you're going to talk. Let's keep it quiet. We'll go to Miranda on Zoom. Miranda, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Miranda. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll return to Zoom. Owen, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. You will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We'll return to Zoom. Jennifer, I'm going to ask you to unmute. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Jennifer. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: That's time, Adrienne.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We will return to Zoom. Mike, I'm going to ask you to unmute. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We'll return to Zoom. Takeo, I'm going to ask you to unmute. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Takeo, you're breaking up.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go back to Zoom. Ken, I'm going to ask you to unmute. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We will go back to Zoom. Rachel, I'm going to ask to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll return to Zoom. Anna, I'm going to ask to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Councilors will have the opportunity to respond after a public comment. We will return to Zoom. Robert, I'm going to ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Bob. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We will return to Zoom. Evan, I'm going to ask to unmute you. Please state your name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We will return to the podium. Hello, my name's Maddie. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Go for it. You know the drill.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Can you address for the record, please?
[Kit Collins]: I'm gonna address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please. Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: So we're going to pause the podium for just a sec. Michael, I'm going to ask to unmute you. Please state your name and address for the record. And you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Michael. We'll turn to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: All right. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And councillors will have the opportunity to respond at their discretion after public comment. Name and address for the record, please. No, three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: I'll just add a point of information that city council meetings are always on Tuesdays at this time. And this matter was delayed initially because a councilor invoked a piece of mass general law to delay it. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Anybody who has already spoken will be given one additional minute to speak. Is there anybody in person or on Zoom who has not yet spoken? If so, please, who's first podium? We'll take you first. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your time. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record again, please.
[Kit Collins]: Please approach the podium. We'll have one additional minute as well. And your name again, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. One additional minute. I'm going to hold you to it, Micah.
[Kit Collins]: That's time, Micah. Thank you. All right, we'll go to you, Andy, and then we'll go back to repeat talkers on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Andy. We will return to Munir on Zoom for one additional minute and then back to the podium. Go ahead, Munir.
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, Nate. You'll have one additional minute.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Anyone to address for the record, please?
[Kit Collins]: Is there anybody else in person or on Zoom who would like to speak for the first or second time? I see one new speaker on Zoom, and I'm going to ask you to unmute. You will have three minutes. Oh, well, I'm hearing that you already spoke, so I'll give you one.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Seeing no further hands raised, I'll go back to my fellow Councilors, President Bears and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, and then I have a statement to read from Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan was not able to be here tonight, but she emailed comments on this ordinance to council leadership shortly before the meeting, and I missed it, so I apologize. I'm going to read her comments now to include them in the record. Councilor Callahan wrote, I aim as a city councilor to do what I believe most people here in Medford want, and I do my best to vote that way in general. But I also always keep in mind whether, by my vote, any harm could be done to any of our residents. In this values ordinance, there are many parts that are not controversial. I want to speak about the part that is controversial. We have been asked by some Palestinian Americans who live in Medford if our city can become neutral in the conflict between the current Israeli administration and the Palestinian people. I understand that both Palestinian Americans who live in Medford and Jewish Americans who live in Medford can feel that our vote can cause harm. I feel for both communities and I understand that both communities are feeling vulnerable and worried about the future. I believe that the majority of people in Medford would prefer that our public money become neutral. I also believe that becoming neutral is the way to cause the least amount of harm to our local community. While this conflict is far away, many people here have relatives in these countries, and currently 2 million people are in danger of starving to death. I am in favor of Medford becoming neutral in this destined but heart-wrenching conflict. I also want us to work to protect both these important communities here in our city, and I welcome all ideas for how we can do that. That was the statement from Councilor Callahan. I'll next recognize Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Leming. Thank you, Councilor Leming. We have a motion on the floor by President Bears that's been seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. I want to quickly share my thoughts before we move forward to the vote. Let me speak from the chair. I want to compliment my colleague. for the diligence in producing a thorough and carefully rendered first draft of this ordinance in June, and for further revising it into the current version, which I think uses tighter and more specific language to define the terms of our goals here as they relate to the city's financial instruments and to the specific harms from which I think broadly we all agree that we want Medford to be divested from. I will be supporting this tonight. I believe there is a clear moral mandate that is supported by many Medford residents, that we do not want our shared assets to be increased through investment in nakedly harmful enterprises, the type of which we would never want to see or experience anywhere near Medford or our surrounding communities. I don't think that we should govern In fear, I think that we should govern in values. As one councilor, this ordinance is certainly in accordance with my own values. And I believe the question of whether this will be net harmful to our city is settled and that this is well worth doing. Furthermore, and I feel like I say this a lot, but I also feel like it's important to say, so I'm going to keep saying it even though it's uncomfortable. As a Jew, as the only Jewish member of this body, I grow increasingly weary with having to defend justice and security-oriented policies from accusations of anti-Semitism. As one person, this policy is foundationally aligned with my Jewish faith and with the imperative to repair the world, tikkun olam, the value with which I was raised in my Jewish family. I think that the conversation we have had in this chambers over several meetings about this ordinance and other resolutions like it are a microcosm of the community that we share, but not in a bad way. I admit, and this will not be a surprise to people who have heard me speak about this before, that I feel offended and saddened to know that there are people with whom I share a Jewish identity who see me as illegitimate or claiming a Jewish identity that is not mine, because I do not share their politics and ideology about Zionism and the state of Israel. However, and I know that there are many, many Jews of many politics and ideologies who also feel this way, Though I do not share an ideology with Zionist Jews, I would never purport to say that I do not share that identity with you and that you are not a part of my community. In the same way, in this chamber, on this issue and on many others, we have come together to vehemently disagree. and we are still a part of the same Medford community. We have heard a lot of talk, especially this term, about division and divisiveness. Coming together to disagree is not necessarily harmful. That is not a type of division that we can ever or should ever try to avoid. Being divided on an issue, disagreeing vehemently, even with people with whom you share a community and history and nevertheless coming together to debate and disagree in public. It's okay if we want to call that divisiveness, but I don't think that's bad. I think that's what we do here. And it's sad to me that these productive conversations and this exercise of continuing to come together and disagree over and over and over and over and over again is somehow being branded as wrong or harmful. This is how it's supposed to work. I want to thank everybody for their comments tonight, including those with whom I disagree, and including those who vehemently disagree with me, even insofar as to call my identity illegitimate. I hope to see you again in the chambers very soon.
[Kit Collins]: On the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, one opposed, one absent. The motion passes. Is there a motion for a five minute recess? Motion for a five minute recess by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready. There will be a five minute recess. Thank you. We'll reconvene. All right, we're going to reconvene just as soon as I find my right page, actually. All right. Thank you all for your patience. Paper 25-123 offered by President Bears. Resolution on a shared path forward to extend rezoning project timeline and request necessary funding and resources from mayor. Whereas on July 16, 2025, the council president outlined a shared path forward for Medford's zoning updates project that outlined a clear and responsive approach to continuing this essential project to enable Medford's future growth and development. And whereas the specific zoning amendment proposals reflect hard work to make our city's vision and plans a reality over the past several years, starting with requests for funding for zoning updates prior to 2020, the initiation of the first phase of this project from 2020 to 2022 by recodifying the zoning ordinance, the planning processes between 2020 and 2024 to create the comprehensive plan, climate plan, and housing plan that incorporated input from thousands of residents and hundreds of public engagement events and approaches, and continuing over the past 18 months with the City Council and Mayor's Planning Department staff, Building Commissioner, Communications Director, and other city staff working with Innes Associates to create zoning proposals that concretely implement our city's plans, and whereas it is essential to the well-being of Medford residents and the future of our city that the Medford zoning ordinance is amended so that we can build more housing, create more vibrant commercial squares, and focus on mixed-use development that activates corridors of our city with so much potential that have been ignored for too long, And whereas after more than five years our community is in the hardest phase of this project, and we must secure the progress we all know Medford needs by seeing this work through to completion. And whereas for nearly two years, the Council Community Development Board and city staff have worked with the resources made available to us by the mayor. and have consistently and persistently advocated to the mayor to engage more deeply in the process, provide more city resources to ensure the success of this collaboration between the City Council and the mayor's administration, and work to ensure that accurate information reaches as many residents as possible to get them involved in this rezoning project. And whereas the mayor's written response on July 31 2025 contained inaccurate information and presented a narrative that does not correctly represent the mayor or her administration's core role in the zoning updates project since its beginning. And whereas the mayor's decision to limit her direct participation in this essential Major and transformative project until recently has been a barrier to accessing city communications resources under her control to ensure as many residents as possible are able to engage with this process. And whereas the proposed extended timeline was drafted with the specific intention of receiving collaborative input from the mayor. and whereas City Council leadership continues to extend its hand of open engagement and collaboration on the project as it has for newly two years and the Council President has offered times to sit with the Mayor to discuss the specifics regarding additional funding and resources for expanded public engagement to support the extended consideration of proposed zoning amendments And whereas the people of Medford have placed their trust in the elected members of the Medford City Council to update the Medford zoning ordinance and the City Council has conducted a robust and extensive process to propose zoning amendments with the resources provided and within the restrictions of the contract signed by the mayor. and whereas a potential decision by the mayor to end this zoning updates project by canceling the contract with the zoning consultant team and refusing to provide the resources and support necessary to implement the city's plans and address decades of inaction and broken zoning, which has caused harmful outcomes in all of our neighborhoods, would be a disservice to the city's residents and seriously damage the future of Medford, Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we collaboratively establish an extended timeline for the consideration of the proposed residential districts and ADU zoning proposal, as well as off-street residential parking requirements with the mayor's office and planning team, which includes proposing a new draft no sooner than November 2025, after a series of neighborhood discussions to take place this fall, and any final City Council vote no sooner than April 2026. We have further resolved that the City Council requests that the Community Development Board continue its plan to meet on August 6, 2025, to provide direction regarding drafting of new recommendations for the residential district zoning proposal that incorporate the feedback provided by residents during the CDB's public hearings and discussions over the last several months to the City Council and planning team. Be it for the result that we request that the City Council Community Development Board and planning team, planning team prioritize completing the proposed commercial framework and focus on the remaining proposed districts for Medford Square West Medford Square, the other corridors and Tufts institutional zoning through the end of 2025. Be it further resolved that we request that the mayor allocate the necessary resources from the city's reserve funds to provide the Council Community Development Board planning team and city staff with the support needed to conduct even more robust public outreach over the next year, including subject to discussion. at least $150,000 in total funds including any funds currently appropriated in the fiscal year 26 budget to extend the city's contract with the Innes Associates team through December 2026 and additional $50,000 in funds to pay for communications to residents that are reviewed and approved by the consensus of all of the branches of the city leading the project Mayor's Office, City Council and Planning Department that help inform residents about the proposals and what opportunities they will have to make their voices heard and share their concerns, sorry, share their comments with the Community Development Board and the City Council. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: One voice, thank you. We'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, then back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. We'll go back to President Bears and then to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Okay.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We'll go next to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Tseng on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Tseng, I saw you had a hand up earlier.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We'll go back to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Being that it's after midnight, I'm going to let people raise their hand if they want to be recognized.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. Before I get to you, president bears, I'm going to just button here quickly. Um, Just as a point of privilege, I really resent any councilors singling out any specific member of city staff, especially by name at midnight in a public city council meeting to throw an accusation that that person, excuse me, I'm speaking, excuse me, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. So in one issue wants to take five hours, it's fine. But once on something that you don't support, it's not okay for it to take up a lot of the meeting. Nice, really fair, really democratic. Do not appreciate any Councilor using their microphone to slander any city staff member.
[Kit Collins]: I think it's a more productive use of this council's time, especially after midnight, if we refrain from giving one another political advice and stick to debating the resolution in front of us. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to have the Community Development Board give a presentation on the ordained Salem Street zoning district, is there a second? Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Excuse me, we're going to go to Councilor Leming next. We're going to stick to the queue.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go to Councilor Leming and then back to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Scarlatti.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Why don't we take all votes at the end of this?
[Kit Collins]: B paper?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Great. There's a second on the B paper. Second. I think part of what is so frustrating to me about this, speaking from the chair, I think part of what is so frustrating to me about the tenor of this conversation specifically is that I think for 18 months, this council has internally agreed on what we need to make this process better. Even if we have disagreed on specific zoning proposals, I think we've all been saying in various ways, every single one of us, We could use more resources to really do this right and really do this in the way that community members are asking for. Some of us voiced specific strategies and tactics. Others were more focused on other specific strategies and tactics. Sometimes we disagreed on what we thought would be the best fit for giving the community the robust, I think we've all held the goal of making this process uniquely and unprecedentedly accessible beyond the minimum, which we've always done, of what is required of us by state law. And I just think I want to be clear, I think we really need to be clear about what we're debating here in this conversation. We are debating whether to ask the mayor, who is the only person who has the power to appropriate the resources to make this process into an even more communicative, deliberate, inclusive process that I think we have all been asking for, to make that possible, because she is the only one who can, or if we are really okay with the mayor asking the city council to make a choice between doing this very consequential process on a shoestring versus throwing out five years of work and financial investments and doing it not at all, because that is the choice that's before us. And I think I share, I think a little bit of regret that probably President Bears also does that we were not more communicative about the difficulties that we have been experiencing since January of 2024 about doing this ambitious, very good, very ambitious process under this scope. I think that we have done a really good job compared to the resources that we've been given to try to make this extremely accessible. I think our consultant has been incredibly flexible. I think our city staff has been wonderful, helpful, skeptical in all the ways that they have been. I think that Councilors have really stepped up. to try to use their individual platforms, all of us, to get information out into the community to try to make this accessible. I know for myself, for a good part of this year, I was serving as essentially a pro bono communications officer for the planning department, which nobody wants. That's not best practice. That wasn't anybody's plan A. That's what happens when you try to shoehorn making manifest the mayor's comprehensive plan into a two-year process. And I wanna be really clear that I am never going to be okay with the mayor holding the resolution of that comprehensive planning process hostage over this political situation, which is how I read that public letter. And I am never going to respect the mayor positioning the $200,000 that President Bears is asking for in this resolution as though it's some wasteful and exorbitant expenditure when to fail to give this process the resources that it needs to be done successfully isn't just declining to spend more money, it is wasting the five years of work that have gotten us to this point and the many thousands of dollars that we have already invested in this very important and very worthwhile process. So the reframe there, I think is really important. And I think that we are all aligned on what we know needs to happen in the city. We know it needs to be easier to find and keep a home here. It needs to be easier to open a business here. It needs to be more lively and fun in our commercial districts and our squares. I think we all agree on that. and it would be a huge waste if the mayor takes the good work that so many people, city staff, Councilors, community members have been collaborating on for years. And instead of saying time to pivot, what do we need right now so that we can see this through in the right way, decides to catastrophize and politicize and spread misinformation about what's really going on here. Because what we are trying to do is manifest her comprehensive plan. And I still think that's really worthwhile. And I think everybody knows how passionate about it I am. And I'm willing to compromise on the timeline if it means that we do it right. And that is all we are asking for. So especially after her 20 years on the body that actually has the purview over zoning, I would hope she'd be willing to be a little more flexible than that public letter made her out to be to appropriate the resources that would make this be the project that the community of Medford really deserves. I see planner Evans on zoom. Are there any other city Councilors who would like to weigh in before we take votes? Danielle, go ahead. Unmuted you, but we can't hear you.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks, Daniel. We'll go back to Councilor Scarpelli, then we'll take public comment.
[Kit Collins]: You're welcome to respond if you wish to.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. We'll go back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We will start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Oh, sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Gaston. And I'll just reiterate maybe more clearly than I did the first time. I think all of the concerns that you put really well just now are exactly what we're trying to fix. We will go to Zoom next. Cheryl, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. At the podium, you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. That's time.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go back to Zoom. Paige, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We're just going to hold really quickly. It sounds like the video may have gone out. Just a moment to go online. It's, it's, it is still live streaming to YouTube.
[Kit Collins]: Excuse me. We are. Hang on. Hang on. I am still chairing the meeting.
[Kit Collins]: All right, I'm sorry, we have to go back to Zoom because we're alternating. Sorry, we're gonna go back to Zoom before we go to you. All right, I'm still sharing, everybody be quiet. Okay, everybody be quiet. All the men that are talking, stop talking. William, I'm going to ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. We'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We will go back to Zoom. Crystal, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Back to you.
[Kit Collins]: All right, final speaker.
[Kit Collins]: You're welcome to stand at the podium.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks, Paula. And just a really quick point of information. I just want to clarify that the proposed substance abuse disorder treatment clinic, not a council project. The city council is not and cannot be involved in recruitment. of specific business entities to parcels where those uses are legally allowed, which was the case for that entity on Salem Street when it was proposed. I'm just restating that to state it as a city council project is not accurate. And I think part of what we're talking about this evening is trying to get the city to invest in communication resources so that disinformation like that will not proliferate so deeply into the community. I'll go back to President Bears and then we'll take a vote.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, one mic, we can't hear you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: to wrap up the discussion. one councilor, I think that there's a way that the mayor could choose to make appropriations around the zoning project that would reveal a genuine interest in collaborating and getting good information out to the people of Medford, all of whom I think are interested in participating in this in good faith. And there's another way of doing that that reveals nothing more than a desire to throw the city council under the bus and erase the perspectives of people who have been in favor of zoning reform, no matter where you fall on that spectrum. And I certainly hope that we can move forward with the first one. We're going to take the B paper first. Mr. Clerk, do you have that language? Cause I definitely don't.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. They were approved by a vote of this council. On the B paper by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by President Bears for the CDB to release a public statement referring to the March 11th records of the City Council articulating the recommendations of the CDB on the Salem Street zoning district and the ensuing Council vote on those recommendations. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Six in favor, one absent. The motion passes. I see President Bears and then Councilor Leming. Okay. Councilor Leming, do you have a comment? No. Great. On the main paper, motion to approve by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. It's the three-page long thing. Sorry, just to summarize, the main paper is the resolution by President Bears, which we read into the record earlier this meeting, calling for the shared path forward with the mayor on the rezoning project, which includes a request for more appropriations to expand public process and communications. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor. One absent. One opposed. The motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: Diolch yn fawr, Arweinydd Llywodraeth, ac rwy hefyd eisiau ddiolch i chi am ymgyrchu'r cyfarfodydd hwn i mi heddiw, oherwydd rwy'n ymgyrchu'n ymwybyddol, rwy'n gobeithio'n fawr. Diolch am ymgyrchu. Diolch i'r Cynulliadau Anys am y cyfarfodydd. Rwy'n gwybod ein bod ni wedi'i rannu'n gyntaf, ond mae'r cyfarfodydd hwn yn dilyn ar y sgwrs o'n fforwm cymunedol rydyn ni'n ei gael ar y 1 mai. Rydyn ni wedi cael ychydig o adroddiad yn gyflym i'r fforwm cymunedol. Yn ystod y blynyddoedd yma ym mhrofiadau a'r cyhoeddiadau. Felly, mae'n ymdrech iawn iawn. Mae'n ymdrech iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn iawn y cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a'r cyfleoedd a' Yn amlwg, rydyn ni'n gysylltu llawer o bethau yma. Un o'r cyfrifiadau i mi, mae yna llawer o cyfrifiadau ar gyfer y zon sefydliadol Tufts. Un ohonyn nhw yw cyhoeddi'r ffordd cywir ar y ffyrddau o'r district hwnnw, gyda'r sefydliadau ymgyrchu a'r zon sefydliadol. Yr ail yw gwneud yn siŵr ein bod ni'n gallu i Tufts gwneud yr hyn rwy'n meddwl bod llawer o bobl yn y gymuned yn cydnabod. Mae angen ei wneud y ffordd cywir, sy'n i ddarparu cymdeithas sy'n digwydd ar y campus, ac nid yw'n ychwanegu gwahaniaeth cymdeithasol o'r campus. Felly rwy'n meddwl mai'n bwysig iawn y byddwn yn meddwl am pa ffyrdd o'r cymdeithas rydyn ni'n eisiau eu cymryd mewn y district drwy ysgrifennu pa ffyrdd a phosib. Felly rwy'n ddiddorol iawn, ac rwy'n meddwl yw'r, rwy'n meddwl yw'r gweithgaredd Worcester yng nghanol eraill sydd gan wahanol defnyddiadau sy'n cael eu cymryd grwpio o ran pa ffyrdd o'r defnyddiadau sy Rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn yn ymweld â'r hyn sy'n cael ei wneud yn iawn mewn cymunedau eraill, ond rwy'n cwestiynus os oes gennym rywfaint o argymhelliadau yn y dyfodol ynghylch sut y gallwn gynllunio hynny yma yng Nghymru. Yma yng Nghymru, er enghraifft, os oes gennym y bydd y parthysg sy'n ychwanegu parthysg ymdrechol allan o'r zon ymdrechol, a yw yna ffordd i ddweud, okay, y tu allan o'r Tufts IZ, gallwch chi gael ymdrech, gallai'n gallu bod i'r rhan fwyaf yma, gallai'n gallu bod, dweud, ychydig stori'n fwy na'r parthysg ymdrechol sy'n ychwanegu, sy'n allan o'r zon ymdrechol ymdrech. Dw i'n golygu, dyma'r pwynt sy'n mynd i'r ymdrech, rwy'n credu bod yn bwysig y byddwn ni'n cymryd parthysg sy'n ar eu campus. Felly, eto, nid ydym, mae'r broblem o drifo llawer o fyfyrwyr i adeiladau o'r campus sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â phartnerion sy'n ymwneud â ph mewn ffyrdd o ddefnyddiadau allweddol yng nghanol yr ardal, er mwyn gwneud sylwadau o'r ardal yn ddefnyddiol gyda'r ardal sylwadol, yn hytrach na'r defnyddiadau mwyaf allweddol yng nghanol yr ardal. Rwy'n gobeithio eich bod chi'n ymwneud â rhai o fyfyrwyr eraill sydd wedi siarad Rydw i hefyd yn cydnabod, mewn byd perffaith, efallai y bydd y cynllun maesyrddol yn y prynhawn cyntaf i mi, ond rwy'n credu ei fod yn bwysig iawn y byddwn ni'n sicrhau y bydd y newyddiad hwn yn golygu Brifysgol Tufts mewn ffyrdd yr ydym yn gallu ymdrechu arnynt. Yn y dyfodol, yn y dyfodol, bydd y cymhwyseddau wleidyddol yn newid, ac byddwn yn gallu cael y cynllun arbennig arbennig hefyd, ond dydw i ddim eisiau'r gwaith rydyn ni'n ei wneud ym mis hon i ddipynu ar rhywbeth sydd efallai neu efallai ddim yn digwydd, oherwydd rydyn ni'n gwybod y bydd y term ymdrech hon ar y lefel byd, bydd Tufts yn ymdrechu i ymdrechu ar gyfer cynllun arbennig arbennig ar leol. Byddwn i'n ei leihau ar hyn o bryd. Diolch.
[Kit Collins]: Rwy'n eisiau dweud, rwy'n credu bod y plan hwnnw wedi'i gynhyrchu gan Ysgolion Unedig, mae'n debyg i'n ymdrechion nesaf, ac rwy'n eisiau, Yn ogystal â hyn, rwy'n meddwl y byddai'n gyfeirio ar y stage yma i edrych ar y prosesau, y prosesau ymchwil, neu'r zon sefydliadol sy'n dod yn ôl, nid yw'n dim ond ymgysylltiad cyflawniadwy, ond mae gennym rywfaint o gyfle ar gyfer y proses ymchwil sy'n ymgyrchu'r ymgeisydd, rwy'n credu yw hynny'n bwysig iawn. Rwy'n credu ein bod ni wedi'i weld ei fod yn bwysig iawn drwy'r blwyddyn diwethaf. Byddwn yn ymdrech i weld, wrth i ni mynd ymlaen ymlaen, byddwn yn ymdrech i weld, wrth i mi edrych ar y rhai hwn, fel arall, byddwn eisiau bod yn ymdrech i'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld â'r ymweld Y cymuned hwnnw a'r cymunedau eraill yw i gael ein ardal sefydliadol yma yng Nghaerfyrdd i ddefnyddio ein cymuned fel y gall. Diolch i chi, rwy'n siŵr i'r nesafau ar hyn.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming. Just quickly, I really appreciate the question about kind of how this fits into the proposal for the other corridors, which of course, in this case, very notably includes Boston Ave Corridor. And just for any other constituents who were not present at our meetings when we were crafting that proposal, which as Chair Leming mentioned, it's next step, it will be referred out of the Yn ystod yr adroddiadau cymunedol, bydd yna llawer mwy o gyfleoedd i'r adroddiad cyhoeddus yno, ond i'r bobl sy'n gobeithio I like that music. Sorry about that. That's okay. For folks who are hoping to get up to speed in the shorter term, yes, it's attached to the city council packet from last night, but as well, if you go to the zoning page on the city website and go to that section, that will just link you to our past video recordings of our past meetings where we've been discussing that for folks who want to take a bit of a deeper dive. So I just wanted to flag that that was available. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming. I just want to echo my thanks to everybody who spoke tonight, members of the community, fellow councillors, and to Innes Associates. I'm really glad that we are beginning this topic with a really, really thorough bedrock of research in comparison from the communities that have encountered the same complexities of institutional zoning that we are revisiting here in Medford. Looking forward to continuing discussing the analysis ac yn ystod ystod y cyfarfodydd yn edrych ar gynllun ddraft ar gyfer zon sefydliadol Tufts. Byddwn yn gofyn cysylltiad â'r papur a'r cyngherdd yn ymwneud â phosib nad oes unrhyw ddatganiad arall o'n cyngherddoedd cymdeithasol.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to suspend the rules to table Papers 25-103 and 25-105 to our next regular meeting and to take Paper 25-118 out of order.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to continue this public hearing to the September 9th regular meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I'll keep this brief because the paper has been tabled. We have other items on the agenda still to get to. I shared a lot three weeks ago about my reasons for supporting this ordinance, and I will not repeat all of that tonight, especially because this will be coming up before the council again. for both councillors and members of the public to comment on in a future meeting. I just wanted to share before I make a motion to revert back to our regular order of business, that as Medford's first and only Jewish city councillor, I hope that our future conversations on this ordinance contain less anti-Semitic language than what I heard tonight. And by that, I mean, I will say every time it happens, how offensive I find it as a Jew, when anybody purports to speak for the Jewish community as a monolith. We do not all support this ordinance or ordinances like it. We do not all condemn it. We do not all feel scared by it. Some of us do, apparently. Not all Jews feel an inherent link between the nation-state of Israel and the Jewish people. The Jewish community is an incredibly religiously, culturally, ethnically, ideologically, and politically plural community. To say that the Jewish community is a monolith, to purport to speak for the entire Jewish community, and I'm speaking to people who do not identify as Jews, as well as people who are, on this ordinance, on anything else, I find is anti-Semitic. And I sincerely hope that when we continue our productive conversations about this ordinance in future meetings, people can speak for themselves. They can speak for people that they have personally talked to. They can speak for groups that they represent. And I fervently wish that people will not be so offensive to the Jewish community to report that we are a flat monolith with one opinion on any issue. It is extremely offensive. Thank you for the time.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to thank my colleagues for putting this resolution forward and join with you in extending my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to the entire Caraviello family.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, I motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I believe this was our 28th meeting in the Planning and Permitting Committee on the zoning topic. At this meeting, we referred out the other corridors zoning proposal. Its next step will be to go through the public hearings process with the Community Development Board. We also briefly touched on the parking and transportation development, transportation demand management topic, which will be further discussed in the Planning and Permitting Committee. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I move to continue to the October 21st regular meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Do we have, I was going to make a motion, but do we have the petitioner present for the Common Vic license?
[Kit Collins]: I was going to make a motion, but do we have the petitioner present for the Common Vic license before I do so?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Um, after paper 25-093, I would motion to suspend the rules and take communications from the mayor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears I just want to thank and again for bringing these issues forward to the council and for working with Councilor Tseng on these issues on your street unfortunately we do know they're certainly not isolated to this part of Medford this term we have been seeking to. work with the administration to accelerate some of the road and control measures that are within our jurisdiction and I think as you spoke to and as Councilor Tseng spoke to, to really get at the root of the problem requires that holistic approach. So I think a neighborhood meeting is a really important step in this process. I know that the road and control issue is not the only thing that you're dealing with, But it's certainly where we've been working with the mayor's office with the Board of Health quite collaboratively especially last year to try to update our rodent control ordinance to update our wildlife feeding ordinance overgrowth ordinance, and really just to show up for education efforts because when there are dilapidated properties residents who don't know how big of an issue, trash on residential properties can be that can really accumulate to a street wide problem so I wanted to thank my colleague and thank the resident for working on this. And I hope that certainly by the end of the term we can have those three ordinances update to give our to the city administration more latitude to deal with the pest issues all across Medford. Thank you, I motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for being here. I just wanted to, for the benefit of the public, and since we're talking about this again, wanted to restate something that was brought up at our last meeting about free cash appropriations, kind of to piggyback off of what Councilor Lazzaro was just saying. For myself, I think, and I know this is in the queue of projects that the administration is planning to work on over the summer, I think it would be very, very useful to see at least a prioritization plan that deals with these kind of separate tiers of spending projects separately, like Councilor Lazzaro was saying, we know there are some projects that are very, very impactful, that are small dollars compared to some of these multi, multi-million dollar capital expenses. I don't know for myself and apparently I'm not the only council and I know that they're members of the public saying, if this is, you know, point 5% of our operating budget or very very small percent of what we ought to have in cash reserves, what is the justification for not spending it especially if it's something that would be. materially useful to the residents in the short term. So I understand we don't have that information today, but as we continue to talk more about this over the summer and hopefully look at a more discreet plan by the end of the summer, I'll be really, I just want to restate, I'll be really eager to see that plan for essentially, what are we going to see the plan for the appropriations and do that prioritization and filtering action through all of these plans, we know all the stuff that we plan to spend money on, I think people and myself, at least very eager to see what is the justification for what we're holding back on. And for those smaller things that are easier to spend on and get in motion, what is the justification for pulling the trigger this year, next year in two years in five years? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I have no further questions or comments at this time. Pending further concerns from my Councilors and public comment, I would motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to the MPS team and Chief of Staff again for presenting. So just to put this in really simple language, the purpose of this establishment and transfer is to make sure that the funds raised through Question 8 remain protected for use by Bedford Public Schools. I believe I have that correct. I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears, I motion to table to our next regular meeting.
[Kit Collins]: 24-104-25-104 offered by President Bears's resolution in opposition to Scarametti versus United States Supreme Court decision. Whereas the recent scrutiny versus United States majority opinion by the United States Supreme Court enables and protects unjust laws that discriminate against transgender people in the United States, and whereas the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution obviously prevents federal, state, and local governments from passing laws or taking actions that violate the Equal Protection Clause, Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we strongly oppose the Scrimidi versus United States decision. Be it further resolved that we call on our state government to pass the strongest possible protections for transgender people and protect their inalienable right to medical care. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. We'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We have a motion to approve on the floor by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any public participation on this item? You may line up behind the podium or raise your hand on Zoom and we will alternate. We will start at the podium and then go to Zoom. All speakers will be asked to state their name and address for the record and all will have three minutes. Please go ahead. Oh, sorry, I gotta unmute you. Oh, sorry, Ellen. There we go.
[Kit Collins]: Please go ahead, name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks. Thank you very much. We're going to speak before we proceed.
[Kit Collins]: Great. We're going to see a hand raise on Zoom. We're going to go to Zoom, and then we'll resume at the podium. I'm going to ask you to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you very much. We'll go back to the podium name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: We will go back to Zoom. Dennis, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Dennis. We will go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. Seeing no hands on Zoom, you'll have one additional minute, Micah.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. All right, we'll go to Councilor Leming and then President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. We'll go back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I do see we have one more hand on public participation. Do you mind if we I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli first and then we'll.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We have one more hand for public participation on Zoom. Eileen, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: I am the... Eileen, I think we're getting a ringtone, but we're not hearing your voice.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, we've been hearing you, please proceed.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Eileen. Thank you to Maya. Oh, do we have one more for public participation? All right. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes, Andy.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. And I'd say if you're feeling like you're missing out on pothole and pest conversation, I'd invite you to watch the recording of the first two hours of tonight's meeting. Thank you for your comments.
[Kit Collins]: All right. So noted. Thank you. The B paper was withdrawn. We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Councilors. And before we get to the voting, I'd just like to join in thanking President Bears for putting this on our agenda tonight for our consideration. It should go without saying, but it often does not, that trans people have always existed, will always exist. It is a, I think in one Councilor's opinion, one of the proudest achievements of this national project that we have been able to create the equal rights protection under the federal law. And it is one of the greatest injuries probably of our lifetimes that we will see that being eroded. And I think when we start making decisions that standing up for our neighbors, equal rights under the law is not worth a few minutes of our time. That is when we begin to lose our humanity. Thank you to all for their discussion tonight. On the motion by President Bears and seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Six in favor, one absent, none opposed. The resolution passes. Paper 25-105 offered by President Bears, values aligned local investments ordinance. Chapter two, administration. Article 4, Officers and Employees, Division 5, City Treasurer and Collector. Section 2-696, Purpose and Intent. The city of Medford will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the well being of our communities and our environment, favoring investment of its funds and entities that support the needs of peacetime in daily life and meet the goals and meet the city's goals of conducting local government in an accountable, transparent, innovative, stable, ethical, representative and responsible way. This ordinance shall be known as the values aligned local investment ordinance. Section two dash Thank you. Section 2-697 prohibiting certain local investments. No public funds under the care and custody of the treasurer collector of the city shall be invested or remain invested in the stock securities or other obligations of any company which derives more than 15% of its revenue from the combustion, distribution, extraction, manufacture or sale of fossil fuels, which shall include coal, oil and gas or fossil fuel products. B, no public funds under the care and custody of the treasurer collector of the city shall be invested or remain invested in the stock securities or other obligations of any company which derives more than 15% of its revenue from the operation, maintenance, servicing, or supply of jails, prisons, or detention facilities. C. No public funds under the care and custody of the treasurer-collector of the city, as specified in section 2-682, shall be invested or remain invested in the stock, securities, or other obligations of any company which derives any of its revenue from the manufacture or sale of weapons of any kind, including defense contractors. D. No public funds under the care and custody of the treasurer-collector of the city, as specified in section 2-682, shall be invested or remain invested in the stocks, securities, or other obligations of any company or entity that is directly, knowingly, and over time contributing to severe violations of human rights and international humanitarian law as determined by international legal and humanities bodies, including the United Nations, including but not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and illegal occupation. E, this section shall not apply to public funds under the custody of the retirement system when application would result in a violation of the city's fiduciary responsibilities to its pensioners and beneficiaries. Section 2-698, effective date of prohibition of certain local investments. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the treasurer collector of the city shall review the investment portfolio of the city and identify any investments that may be deemed to violate the provisions established in this ordinance. The treasurer collector shall divest public funds under their care from investments defined in section 2-697 no later than December 31st, 2025. Section 2-699, disposition of proceeds of sales required by prohibition of certain local investments. Any proceeds of the sales required under this subsection shall be invested as much as reasonably possible in institutions or companies which invest or conduct business or operations in the city or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts so long as such use is consistent with sound and prudent investment policy, subject to the provisions of Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Sections 54 and 55, and the Prudent Investor Act, Mass General Law, Chapter 203C. Section 2-700, report on local investment. Upon achieving compliance with Section 2-696, the treasurer-collector shall submit a report within 120 days to the Medford City Council regarding the status of investments affected by Section 2-697. The treasurer-collector shall review all investments annually and submit a report on an annual basis regarding the status of investments affected by Section 2-697. Sections 2-701 through 2-720 are reserved. I'll go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. We'll go first to comments from councilors, and then we will take public participation. Councilor Scarpelli, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We'll go back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Chief of Staff, I'll unmute you if there's anything you want to offer.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Are there any additional comments from councillors? I know there are a lot of people who would like, members of the public who would like to speak on this paper tonight. All right, seeing none. Oh, sorry, Councilor Scarpelli, I didn't see your mic turn on.
[Kit Collins]: on the motion to take public participation under suspension by President Bearsar, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Six in favor, one absent, none opposed. Motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: You know, President Bears, I'm going to wait until the end of public participation. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'm not debating, I'm just taking a point of personal privilege. Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for indulging me to my fellow councillors. Well, I'm very moved by a lot of what I have heard tonight. And I am quite shocked by some of it. Certainly finding procedural reasons to stall on timely and urgently needed reforms is catching on as a trend in the city of Medford. I heard tonight that standing up against war crimes is divisive. I heard that the Jewish community is unilateral in its feelings on this topic and its feelings on Israel. I heard it implied that Jewish discomfort stands as more of a clear and present danger than genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I have heard antisemitism and the protest of Israeli war crimes, once again, falsely conflated. I have heard that the United Nations, a crowning achievement of international cooperation is illegitimate because it is called a spade a spade in observing war crimes and genocide. I have heard, excuse me, I'm taking up points. I have heard wild mischaracterizations and deeply offensive language used to disparage the council's process on the ceasefire resolution last year. including what I would call outright lies about what was or communicated or not communicated to me, the resolution sponsor. People can feel free to call me out directly about that. I don't care. I am very proud of that resolution and very secure in my Jewish identity. I have heard voices decrying divestment as illegitimate because some of its proponents wear keffiyehs and have ties in Gaza. That makes me wonder, What about the opponents of divestment who are deeply embedded with Christian Zionism? Are they given reciprocal scrutiny and skepticism? Do we throw out that whole idea because of this association? I received hundreds of messages from people today associated with that identity. These are people who see me and my family as Jews as nothing more than pawns, entities that must be deported to the nation of Israel and, depending on their ideology, converted to Christianity so that so-called real Christians may experience the revelation and ascend with Jesus to heaven. People and Councilors are saying, or in some cases, heavily implying that this ordinance should be stalled or scrapped because it implicates Israel. As though Palestinian solidarity is invalidating. I'm taking a point of personal privilege. As if Palestinian solidarity is invalidating, that that opinion is cancerous. Apparently, our ability to be in alignment with our values to divest from things that we know are making us sick and making us unsafe and directly contradicting our values, our ability to take a vote tonight to be the community that we report to be has an obstacle, a fear of telling the truth when it comes to Israel. If you listen to President Bears' preamble, you will have heard that these procedural questions and these concerns about fiscal responsibility are the real quote unquote thin veil going on in this conversation. Thinly veiling that the real obstacle to divesting from fossil fuel infrastructure, private prisons, weapons manufacturing, and entities implicated in human rights violations is Zionism. I am once again disgusted that my identity is being used to justify remaining invested in nations that flout international law and wage genocide against populations deemed inconvenient that have been allowed to poison our environment for decades, and for for profit presence that lock up innocent and vulnerable people, quite possibly, including neighbors of our own community. As a Jew, I cannot make heads or tails of the argument that this goal of divesting from destructive entities is anti-Jewish in any way. It is deeply aligned with the Jewish values that I hold most dear, which is that tikkun olam, repairing the world, and solidarity with oppressed peoples, is my Jewish family's most foundational value, not blind fealty to any ethnostate. I look forward to discussing this matter again in the future with my colleagues and with the community, hopefully very soon, and to the chair, and through the chair, to all those who have been brave enough to support this progressive action, to those who speak in favor, to those who were brave enough to share any opinion on this matter, including those who disagree with me. I would like to say, Yashir Chalaf, may your strength persist and grow. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take paper 25-090 off the table and approve for third reading.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to thank Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro for co sponsoring this resolution with me. And thank you to the residents who reached out, not only to community networks about the ice arrest over the weekend, but also to city officials including myself and other city to make sure that we knew and to ask what more could be done to follow up on this abduction and to prevent future ones. I know Councilor Lazzaro shared a lot, and I appreciate the resident who spoke earlier who shared their experience and what they did in the aftermath of witnessing or hearing about a arrest in their neighborhood. We have, as President Bears mentioned earlier, we have had many discussions in many council meetings by this point on this topic of the presence of ICE in our community and whose responsibility it is to do what and what public safety means. In this time when the presence of law enforcement has a tenuous relationship to public safety, and what the responsibility of our local public safety is when federal law enforcement are conducting raids that are not related to, that are not convincingly related to public safety and do not meaningfully involve our local public safety officials. I have been very heartened to see the presence of the Loose Hotline and other community organizations like it proliferate throughout our community. and for folks who want to know who to call when they see, when they suspect or they hear a rumor about ICE in the community. I as one Councilor would recommend you to look up the loose hotline, explore their resources, get trained and be a part of that community network whose goals are to provide good information and spread good information and dispel rumors and spread preventative information about people's rights with immigration enforcement. At the same time, I am. again frustrated that community members have been put into, put into the position of having to be public safety officials when our local public safety officials should fulfill that role for us in every circumstance. And this resolution aims to be, we have brought up this idea with Medford Police Department before and we have heard some encouraging signs that this is something that they can do and something they're willing to do and I take that in good faith and I'm very heartened. That providing after reports of what happened and why when ice has been in the community is a place that we can start in providing the accountability and transparency and good communication from Medford Police Department to the city council and to more of the Medford community because this is I think what part of what the community is clamoring for. In this resolution, we're not asking Medford Police Department to spread the word whenever they hear that ICE is coming to town. We know that sometimes they get advance warning and sometimes they don't. This is just asking for them to be transparent with us and with the community about when ICE has been in the area and why and what they know about it. And like Councilor Lazzaro said, we know that sometimes the answers to those questions are going to be, we don't have a lot of information, fine, but let's make sure that there's a structure for being in regular communication about it. because certainly people in the community are seeing this happen. People are being affected by it. People are being arrested and detained and abducted. And this is scary. And this is not in line with our values. And this is a threat to our public safety. So I welcome collaboration with our public safety officials and at least trying to shed some light into this very scary, opaque and fascistic use of federal law enforcement in our community. Thank you. A motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council planning and permitting committee, June 11 2025. This meeting will take place at 6pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall at five towards he has to drive Medford ma and via zoom Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Thank you all very much for being here today. We have staff from the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Office in person and online. And we are joined online by Paola from Innes Associates. This is to be the 27th meeting on zoning updates with the Innes Associates team, though I could have sworn our last planning and permitting committee meeting was the 27th. I just believe what the paper tells me. I think we're all hoping that this can be one of our shorter and less onerous meetings tonight on deck for this evening to talk about is to revisit for I believe the third or fourth time the other corridors proposal. And just to, we'll have another thorough overview of that in just a minute. We've looked at that proposal multiple times before in committee, and this will be an additional time reviewing that proposal in committee before it goes to its next step along the public hearings timeline. We're also going to have a very high level introduction to the Tufts institutional zoning proposal. so high level that I believe there is not an official proposal yet, but we want to, in the wake of the public forum that we had with Tufts area neighbors in early May, we wanted to have an introductory, an introduction to that proposal in committee before the zoning consultant brings forward a formal proposal for community members and Councilors to respond specifically to. We are also going to have, I believe, a short debrief of the public Q&A on parking regulations and transportation demand management that was two nights ago, Monday, June 9 at the Medford Public Library. So I know Paola has prepared a presentation. Do any Councilors have questions or comments they would like to state before we move along to the presentation? Anything from city staff? All right, seeing none, I will hand it over to Paola from Innes Associates. Go ahead. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I think that's fine, Paola. Yeah, thank you for asking. Let's proceed with that order.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Paola. And I want to thank you as well for the public q amp a that we had on Monday and thank you to our city staff as well we had a lot of residents participate and I think that was really great source material for this ongoing topic as well. Any initial comments or questions from my fellow Councilors. Before we go on, or director please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Do we follow would you be able to walk us through any changes that were made for today's version of the draft, we will have both versions available on the website, as of tomorrow but just I think it'd be helpful for Councilors if you could just give us initial flag for what has changed.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for the clarification. Great. If there are no other questions or comments before we get started, let's proceed and then we can take questions or comments that come up in the course of the presentation.
[Kit Collins]: I'll go to Councilor Leming first.
[Kit Collins]: Anything more on that point comes from me. Great, thank you for the clarifications pala. And I haven't had the advantage of attending the public q amp a on Monday I know that TDM can involve quite a smorgasbord of techniques from stuff that is. quite quick to implement to things that will require further study to roll out. So I think it's a good thing that there might be some shorter term, more actionable things on that menu. And that's one of the things that we'll want to take some time to plan more carefully and very much looking forward to taking a deeper dive into that in more meetings soon. Go next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you very much for those words President Bears. I'll echo your gratitude to Paula for the, I think, both very appropriate and forward looking thinking, and the framing that does come, I think directly out of the community informed plans that inform this entire zoning overhaul. Also note it was not my intention to call you out for the typo in the meeting notice more comment on my. a feeling of, I'll say familiarity with the many meetings we've had on these topics.
[Kit Collins]: Any other comments from councillors on the overview of the parking and transportation demand management topic? Any initial comments from city staff before we move on? All right, seeing none. Thank you, Paula. I won't belabor the point. I think that my fellow councilors have, you know, I think that this sets the groundwork very well. I am excited to, you know, again, continue the process of referring to our comprehensive plan, climate action and adaptation plan, housing production plan, and looking to instructive examples and best practices from many of our neighboring communities. as we seek to not skip over these very important regulations as we work to evolve the zoning code into something that will work better for our evolving community. All right, seeing no further comments on this topic, I think we can proceed along to the presentation of the other corridors updated proposal.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paula. So Paula.
[Kit Collins]: No, go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for that clarification, President Bears. So just to repeat that back to you to make sure that I have it correct, Paola, so the only specific change to this proposed map for other corridors is, and that is the additional MX1B on the south side of Boston Ave, or is it the additional mixed use on the north side of Boston Ave, where your cursor currently is?
[Kit Collins]: And the additional mixed use, just to make sure I'm looking at the right section, is that the additional, is that the added mixed use 1B or is it the mixed use 2B or mixed use 2A that's on the north side of the street?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. I do see that the mixed use 1B extends all the way down to the end of that block, and I'd have to make this bigger. It looks like, right, that is now from the boundary to, would that be Winthrop, not all of the, that would be essentially extending Mixed Use 1B until the boundary of the proposed Tufts Institutional Zone District. And just for those of us who don't have the previous proposal right in front of us, Paola, was that previously just residential only, where the Mixed Use 1B is currently?
[Kit Collins]: I see. Great, thank you. So this is kind of reclaiming that those additional blocks fronting Boston Ave so that they have the option of being mixed use instead of only being able to be residential developments there.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the clarification. Just wanted to make sure that I was understanding that correctly. I'll go to Director Hunt next.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Yeah, I think this is a really productive line of questioning and thank you for bringing it up, Director Hunt. Sorry, you can't hear me. I think this is a really constructive line of conversation. Thank you for bringing it up. I think this applies to many of our corridors, but since we're talking about Boston Ave specifically, well, what goes for all corridors is that I think what makes them really functional and, you know, appropriate for the character that we have here in Medford is absolutely to preserve that mix of residential and commercial. And I like that the proposed zoning, you know, with mixed use zoning, it allows commercial by right, but doesn't mandate it. And I think that that will, I hope that that will result in a good mix of residential types alongside commercial types. Since Boston Ave is in my head, since we're looking at that, we were looking at that portion of the map recently, I'm curious to hear my other colleagues' thoughts on this. Certainly Boston Ave, at least kind of like the Northwest side of it, is very much characterized by a lot of three families currently, so I'd be inclined to maintain those. by right in addition to allowing higher density residential types. But I would want to hear other perspectives on that as well. And I'll go next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that clarification. Paola, I'll go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, President Pierce.
[Kit Collins]: Or Director Hunt, I'm sorry, I think actually Danielle had what looked like a direct response before we go on to your next topic, if that's okay. Thank you. Great, I'll go to Planner Evans on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for raising that, Planner Evans. I think that's important thing for us to run down and I hear the point that of course in citywide if there's any of these funky lots there, this is something that we're obviously quite strenuously trying to avoid in the current zoning hall is making things, making the things that we want conformant to make the zoning and development process easier in the way that we want it to be. Of course, I think there probably is going to be those funky lots where it's hard to develop what makes sense, and there is always the CPA for that. But I think that it makes sense to look a little bit closer at as we are finessing the dimensional requirements for the corridors district. If there's anything more on that specific part of the D, sorry, long day. If there are no other specific comments on that side of the dimensional requirements part of the conversation, we'll go back to Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Paula and thank you for raising that director and I think that that's a really needed and. overdue part of the corridors proposal is, you know, kind of at long last making sure that zoning aligns on that particular boundary between Medford and Somerville I live right around there and have in some cases, joked with business owners about where exactly the line is on their floor and in other cases, the neighbors with these kind of what seems like permanently vacant buildings so definitely to everybody's benefit that these could be could become developable and I think it would be a real feather in our cap to set the pace for Somerville in adopting the recommendations of this zoning study. I would be interested to see what comes out of the conversation. I would be surprised if Somerville is not planning on manifesting the full recommendations of the study and adopting six maximum as well. So it'd be my inclination to just go ahead and make sure that our zoning reflects those recommendations and let them catch up hopefully quickly.
[Kit Collins]: That is a particularly bizarre example of One of the many fun things that you can have when you're governed by a 351 municipalities instead of regional government, among other things. I'll speculate about which building in particular that is. So great, thank you for running that down Director Hunt and Paola and yeah in the meantime I think that it makes sense for the version of this proposal that we refer out to reflect the recommendations of the Broadway corridor zoning study. What other comments and questions to Councilors or city staff have on this proposal tonight.
[Kit Collins]: Before you go on, Paola, I'm just going to go to Director Hunt really quickly.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, director. And I'll go back to present.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. As we work to update the zoning itself, I'm very glad that we were also planning to update how it is laid out so that we can all have better zoning, easier to find and analyze in the future. Anything more on this dimensional requirements topic for now? Is there more that you wanted? President Bears, you mentioned an overview of some of the dimensionals in this conversation would be helpful. Were there other specific areas that you wanted us to discuss in committee tonight?
[Kit Collins]: Great, can we do that Paola?
[Kit Collins]: I think that a quick overview of the performance standards would be helpful Paola, and if there's a particular topic that any Councilor wants us to take a deeper dive on they should feel free to speak up.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much, Paula. And thank you for that clarification as well. We've been talking about so many of these different performance standards over the past really year and a half. Different ones of them have been particularly relevant to different zoning proposals. But just to underline what you just said, these are being presented as like attached to this proposal certainly not the case that only these corridors will be subject to these performance standards development incentives, etc. During our planned kind of cleanup and reconciliation phase will make sure that these. standards, design guidelines, incentives, et cetera, will be applied to all of the districts that we have been talking about during the overhaul to make sure that these incentives and benefits and just standardizations will be applied consistently where they make sense. And I also just wanna flag because I know Director Hunt raised earlier that she's been hearing some questions from the public just in general, Kind of what have the new conditions and standards that we're talking about when the zoning changes in this case we're talking about corridors. What does that mean for existing properties and just because you just said this as we were going over the design guidelines. These are all applicable to new rehabilitations, redevelopments, new construction under the new zoning after it is passed. It's not the case that once the new zoning passes, existing properties and parcels immediately have to change what they're doing or meet new conditions to which they were not previously subject unless they're doing a redevelopment, rehabilitation, or tear down a new construction. That makes them subject to the new zoning rules so I just wanted to flag that again at the end of the meeting. Any questions or comments from Councilors or city staff on any of the performance standards that we just went over President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, thank you for that, that emphasis as well. And certainly our many, many nonconforming businesses in Medford are, you know, kind of stand as a testament to the protections that nonconforming structures are entitled to under our zoning. Any other comments or questions from my fellow councillors? or from city staff? Seeing none, I will open it up for public participation. We can take any motions from my fellow councilors after that. I don't see any members of the public in the chamber. So if you're on Zoom and you would like to speak, please just raise your hand and I will call on you. Everybody will have three minutes to make your comments. Seeing no hands go up, I'll give another moment in case anybody is thinking about it. All right, are there any motions from my fellow councilors or I know President Bears? Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, one second, please. So that was a motion to report the other corridors proposal out of committee. Keep the paper in committee and adjourn. And while the clerk is typing that up I will just restate for the end time but just in case we have any members of the public joining us tonight that haven't been at one of these planning and permitting committee meetings before. For any amendment to our zoning code or piece of new zoning the processes that follows proposals get developed in this committee over a course of several meetings. on President Bears' motion. This proposal, like others, will then be reported out to the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council. We will then take a vote to refer it to the Community Development Board. This is a procedural step that is required for any zoning update or amendment. The Community Development Board will hold public hearings on the zoning proposal. as it sees fit, and then if it chooses, it will make recommendations on the zoning proposal when it refers it back to the city council, and then we will take a vote on it in a regular meeting of the city council. Please keep an eye on the city's zoning website to stay updated about future public hearings on this zoning proposal and others. All right, with that being said, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Four in favor, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Paula. Thank you to our city staff for being with us here tonight. Thank you for two members of the public who joined us. Have a good night.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This was yet another public meeting on zoning that we had with our zoning consultant at this meeting on May 28th. We reviewed a draft framework for the other corridors proposals, and we will be reviewing this again at the Planning and Permitting Committee meeting that is tomorrow. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to continue to our next regular meeting on June 24th.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve with the conditions of the engineering division.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve with conditions of the Engineering Division.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to thank Councilor Lazzaro for bringing this forward to me. This proposed policy is about getting correct information into the community from a central source instead of continuing to rely on informal networks, hearsay, social media, and rumors, which is what is currently happening in the community, and I don't think that's in anybody's best interests. This would be a show of transparency from Medford Police Department which we know is a stated goal of theirs and something that they are working to enhance every week every month every year through various policies and I think that this would fit very neatly into that overall goal of transparency from Medford Police Department. Right now, as I said, community members are the ones doing the work of trying to disabuse rumors about ICE in the community and verify correct ones when there are reports shared in text message groups or on social media about sightings of what people think to be ICE but aren't sure and sometimes are and sometimes are not. Verifying correct information and sharing it, even after the fact, I think, is for, you know, everybody's well being, and I think it's important that everybody have a better sense and accurate sense that they can rely on about when ISIS in the community and what in fact they are. doing here and I don't think that should fall on these informal networks and community members entirely. I think it's actually really inappropriate for the city to be essentially outsourcing that to volunteers and informal networks and to social media posting. At the same time, I think that this kind of after action report is the very least that our public safety officials could be doing for the community. Our goal as a city should not just be to make community members feel more safe, but to make them actually more safe. That is why I have advocated and hoped and urged our administration to do things like have the Medford Police Department not just be a force that is verifying and reporting on ICE activity in our community, but I would like for them in the future, and I can't say at the moment I have a lot of optimism that this would come to pass, but I think it would be very appropriate for our public safety officials to make best efforts to be on scene when ICE tells them that they will be in Medford and be doing the work of verifying identification of the people that they say they are there to talk to or detain or arrest and verify that warrants are proper and they have been signed for a judge. And this is because that we know from communities as close as Somerville and as far away as the other part of the country, that ICE lies, and ICE arrests people that are not the people they say they're there for, and ICE arrests people without proper warrants. So I believe this is the least that we can do, because what would be most appropriate for our police department to be doing is making sure that public safety also extends to people with whom ICE has an interest. but this is a good place to start. I would make a friendly amendment to the councilor if you're open to it, that we should institutionalize making this more frequent. I would say a weekly report from MPD submitted to the city council with biweekly presentations at the city council regular meetings. And that is again, just to the goal of getting regular information from trusted sources and bringing some transparency to this very upsetting issue. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And Justin, I really appreciate this discussion. I know that all Councilors are feeling very grave about the situation that our community and other communities all across the nation are facing and that we all share. a really profound sense of sadness and grief and anxiety over knowing what our constituents and community members and neighbors are going through. But just in terms of framing what we have to expect from ourselves and other leaders in the community, I think that we should be holding our public safety officials to the same standard to which community members, just normal residents, are also entitled to say, hey, who are you? Are you ICE? What's your badge number? Why are you here? What's going on? These are things that it is legally protected for. any resident on the street to ask of law enforcement. I think it would be, well, I know it would be constitutional, and I think it would be really fair and appropriate for MPD to have the community's backs in asking those questions too. Apparently, that is outside the bounds of what is possible for city leadership right now, and I find that really regrettable, and I hope that that window shifts over time. But in the meantime, I think it's really not enough to just share our solidarity and our sorrow. We need to be trying to move that window on what we can be doing to at least infuse some daylight into this really grave time in our community. So I just wanted to put that into the discussion. I wanna, again, thank Councilor Lazzaro for bringing this forward and I would move the question.
[Kit Collins]: I motion to suspend the rules and take resolutions under suspension.
[Kit Collins]: It may be only distributed by email.
[Kit Collins]: Aye.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to thank members of the community who have been speaking out about this and urging city leaders to also speak out in vocal condemnation of the bizarre and jarring federal overreach that we see going on in the city of Los Angeles over the past several days. It is for me, despite writing a resolution about it, really hard to put into words how chilling it is to be living through a moment like this when, in my view as one Councilor and one person, we see our federal administration not only seizing but manufacturing opportunities to perform a overreach and abuse of federal power, to seek to cow activists into submission, to punish people who are using their constitutionally protected right to protest. I think it is paramount and critical that in this moment, all communities, even though Medford may be very, very far away from Los Angeles, but existentially, we are all in the same boat right now. I think that these kind of conditions breed and multiply and exacerbate when we miss opportunities to say loudly and clearly that this is a crime. This is a moral injury against the values upon which this nation was founded. This isn't a slippery slope. We're on the slippery slope. We're careening down it. And I think if any community or person was to think that as these assaults not only on individual people, communities, protesters, community organizations, vulnerable people, activists, et cetera, but also as the assaults on the very foundations of our democracy continue to get more and more blatant. It is obvious to me as one person that to fail to see that for what it is and call it for what it is will not protect us. Those are the conditions under which These malevolent forces will only get more powerful. I'm sure that we join with other communities in speaking out against this. It is every person's lawful right to protest their government, including their federal government and their state government and the local government. And the Trump administration has been chillingly clear that they have an intent to punish communities that protest illegal ICE raids and abductions. And I don't think that ignoring that is going to make us any safer. Ignoring that paves the way for that to continue and get worse. So this is just a very, very small note of solidarity with the residents of this oppressed community, and I hope that we can stand together in this small show of solidarity with the residents of Los Angeles and the values that they are seeking to defend and amplify with their protests and one small vote of condemnation of this truly historic and crushing example of abuse of power by the current federal administration. Thank you for your consideration.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you prison bears and I want to thank Councilor Callahan accounts were saying for co sponsoring this resolution with me I'm looking forward to workshopping this in collaboration with community members and city staff and committee. I think that for a lot of people the need to seek some sort of solution here is really obvious. I frankly find it a little ridiculous that such big, huge commercial trucks are just a part of our residential neighborhood status quo. They are so clearly out of scope and scale for residential areas. And it's just something that a lot of people have had to become inured to. But it is pretty bizarre that a street that people live on and walk on and walk their dogs on and ride a bike on. In many areas of the city are also very, very frequently visited by gigantic commercial trucks. It's not safe. It is detrimental to our local infrastructure. It is detrimental to residents' very normal enjoyment of their neighborhood experience. And for a lot of our residential streets we know that even just normal passenger car traffic is too much traffic and detrimental to our roads, not to mention the traffic. So it just makes all the sense in the world to me that it's time to look at a holistic approach to. you know, not saying we have to ban commercial trucks in Medford. Of course, that's not realistic. They're carrying goods to places that need them for people that need them. But we need a system to make sure that these are going on the roads that it makes sense that can support them and not residential streets where it makes no sense for them to be in where it's not safe. Thank you. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you both for being here again and thank you for all of the presentations that have accompanied the budget submission so far this season. Really appreciate, as always, the thoroughness of the presentation and really happy to see the attendant free cash papers on the agenda tonight as I said a couple of weeks ago, those were For me, a critical condition for casting a vote on the budget was just making sure that the community got to see us making those free cash appropriations in tandem with the final vote on the budget. And I understand that we are expecting some additional appropriations into stabilization funds in, I think, probably in the next couple of weeks. Could you just quickly speak to what we can expect to see at the next regular meeting in relation to stabilization fund appropriations from free cash?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate this discussion and I think that I'm getting the sense not to speak for my fellow councilors, members of city staff, but I think that we're all feeling, you know, a similar tension with all of us, you know, being heavily invested in wanting the city to do what we know that it needs to do and feeling that energy and feeling that urgency and impatience rather. And I think that this conversation is going in a really productive conversation, in a really productive direction rather, sorry. As we're talking about, you know, when can we expect to see a plan and how do we do the work of prioritizing and doing kind of a, like, how fast can we onboard assessment of these various needs that we know that we have? For myself, I think that a couple of my fellow Councilors were kind of already getting to this, but just to put it a different way, I think for myself, One thing that makes me feel particularly I won't say frustrated, maybe like impatient is knowing that some of these in this very, very large like $550 million bucket of things that we know that we need and at least have for most of them like rough estimates for that there are some things that are comparatively, still a lot of money, but a really small piece of that pie compared to other needs compared to the amount of free cash that we currently have. And some of them would be relatively faster to onboard than others. As we go forward, I would really love to see both the plan for what to appropriate, but also kind of the plan for How to plan like the plan for what to onboard in in what level of priority kind of take those factors into account, like I was just out of interest as we were talking about this. Looking at even I know this is what's on this chart is a really small sample of a lot of the needs that have been articulated that are in the milieu and under consideration, you know, we have things like the dive equipment which are. 0.56% of our overall remaining free cash balance. And if we're going off of our amount of free cash to spend before we get to that best practice number of $10 million in reserve, then it's 1% of what we have to spend to get there. And then we have other things that are like the whole pie, that we could spend that $12.12 million and still have many millions more to go before we fulfill them. I think for myself, as we're putting the plan together, really committed to seeing the fuller plan by the end of the summer. I think that's realistic, certainly will be impatient to see it. I would especially like to see prioritized the items that are a relatively smaller percentage of the overall number that we have to spend before getting to that $10 million number for amount that we really should keep in reserve, especially filtered through what is a relatively smaller number and what is their Um, a more fleshed out plan for like the dive team. We've heard about that from the Medford Fire Department. Um, I know that that's something that has been, uh, on the mind, something that that department has been talking about wanting to onboard. Um, and then there are other projects that, um, I think obviously should be intuitive to everybody that are a much longer planning process, things that have been planned for forever, things that will continue to have to be planned on a longer time scale, like some of our major infrastructural overhauls. All that to say, I would like to see a plan really as quick as it is possible to see one. And as we're doing that, I think it would make a lot of difference to the community to see certain kind of quicker to ship, so to speak, projects fast tracked. in the implementation plan, because there are things that we know that we need that we know that we can afford that we know we have a draft plan on that. It's frustrating to see us not doing such as the dive team. Because that's just a really visceral thing that I think a lot of us would like to see us be funding so the overall plan makes sense to me but just to put in a plug that I would love to see kind of a separate fast track for those projects that we've already identified that we know will be cheaper and a little bit faster to implement than some of the longer term systemic projects that really have to go on on that really, really steady and slow pace. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate that. And this is sorry. This is a clarification that I wanted to make my point that was like about a half an hour ago, so I'll just make it super, super quickly. I really appreciate the clarity around the dive team. And I know that we've been bringing that up, perhaps a disproportionate, or at least for myself, a disproportionate amount, because it's something we've talked about recently, something that's on this sheet. And maybe this is distinct from the point that other Councilors were making, but for me, that is just one example and kind of a host of things at that tier that are relatively quick to ship. I would also put into that category some of the transportation and cycling network related improvements that we talked about in the committee of the whole in the past couple of months. I think those kind of fit a lot of the same metrics. So again, I don't want to, I don't want to restart our conversation on that topic. And I understand the complexity around that. I know there's complexities and questions to answer with any of these funding decisions, but more just to illustrate the point that for me, there's this, there is this category of really meaningful in a lot of cases, community safety related improvements that we could probably onboard really quickly that would make a relatively small percentage dent in the amount of money that we're trying to either put into the appropriate stabilization fund or spend in the shorter term instead of appropriating into a stabilization fund that I think would be really, really meaningful for the community to see us onboarding in the context of the grander planning appropriation work that we are going to be doing, both by the end of this fiscal year and over the next few months. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Pending any further comments from my fellow councilors, members of the public, I would make a motion to approve the fiscal year 2026 budget submission as amended. by the mayor.
[Kit Collins]: All right. Hello, everybody. We're going to get started. Thank you all for being here. Whether you're here with us in person, in Medford Public Library, or joining us on Zoom. I'm Niska Collins. I'm the Vice President of the Medford City Council. I'm the Chair of the Finance and Programming Committee. That is the committee where all of our funding goes to the student, at the workshops, the funding meetings, and public meetings. And that's why I'm here at this table tonight. And and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and Um, as many of you know, for example, many of you know, right, we've been involved in the first part of our donation process. This year, we've been going team-by-team through a lot of parts of the city. So, most of the, most of the, parts of the, all of them have been geographically based. Different neighborhoods, different borders, different areas. Uh, we went out to Denver and talked about what these donations should look like. The topic that we are just at the very, very, very beginning of tonight is not about geography per se. It is about parking and transportation demand management strategies. We are talking about parking and other ways of managing transportation systems throughout the city are one of the things that I'm telling you has limited jurisdiction. So we also want to have a conversation with the community and then the planning committee and then the community court about Let's re-evaluate those rules as well as we've re-evaluated zoning and other geographies. We do not have a proposal for updated parking and transportation and amenity strategies. That is on purpose. We want the goals of tonight to be to define the terms that we are going to be using when we talk about parking and transportation and amenity. define which of them, or which strategies, actually are having credibility, and what stands outside of credibility, and what we found to be credible, and what we think is very relevant and very important, and we actually will continue to work with them. And make sure that as we go forward into what will be many additional public meetings about these topics that we're all new, to at least all accept using the same terms and finding the same thing.
[Kit Collins]: I also, yeah, actually, I think maybe you had it too close and you actually wanted it a little bit further away. Try it. say a little further away.
[Kit Collins]: OK. Sorry for the repeated test. I just want to make sure that you can hear me. Honestly, there wouldn't be a public meeting if there wasn't somebody telling you what to do. OK, I'm not going to repeat all of that, I know. I'm just going to scroll back 40 times. The goal of tonight's meeting, we're intentionally not coming in with a proposal for parking or transportation demand. The goals of tonight are to all get on the same page about what kind of ways do you know you need to participate in management that was written in our zoning code, what zoning can talk and what can't. I'm sure that we will get a lot of really doubtful questions and comments about parking and transportation that we will be able to plan as important and relevant but not specified zoning. We want to make sure that we all get on the same page about the constraints of knowing how the language will be published, and I had a conversation with a student who said that as we go forward, which are certainly many additional public meetings about that topic, that we are all needing the same name and we use the same term to the extent that we can, and just trying to start off on the same but we're the language that we're using, how the language is going to be introduced, Some strategies, some examples from neighboring communities that might be forums are discussing, but the other really important part of sourcing materials, unfortunately, is view ball. The forums are getting into the degree of needs in that infirmary setting. We would like to hear your questions, your comments, your concerns, the things that you are excited about, the things that you would never like to hear about again. This has been a collaborative process from the beginning of the term, and it's really important to us to hear what you have to say before we judge. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Director Hahn.
[Kit Collins]: So you need to turn on again.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, we'll go you in the back and then we'll work our way forward.
[Kit Collins]: We're going to get this gentleman over here and then we're going to go back over to that side.
[Kit Collins]: If there's anybody in the world who hasn't already heard me plug Medford dot org slash zoning. We collaboratively work very hard to make sure that all upcoming voting meetings are at the top of that page. So, if you're interested in this topic. Please bookmark it and please help us get the word out, which we are doing through every mechanism available to us to make sure that your neighbors know about these meetings as well.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Let's keep it to sync so that we can hear from everybody. We're going to go to Zoom next.
[Kit Collins]: Great, I'm going to go to the 1st hand. I saw we're going to try really hard to get everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Sounds good. Great. Welcome, everybody. Thank you all so much for being here. I know we have some folks outside in the hallway as well. Thank you, everybody, for coming out in person and on Zoom. Tonight is a Q&A on the corridors zoning proposal. Before I introduce Alicia and Emily, I just want to quickly place this in the context of where this occurs in the citywide. that we have been pursuing for more than a year now. Earlier in this process, we workshopped, reviewed, held public hearings on, and have ordained several zoning proposals already, including phase one updates, Mystic Avenue Corridor District, Salem Street Corridor District, and Green Score. The other corridor's proposal, which we'll be talking about tonight, is one of several zoning proposals that are currently working their way through the proposal and discussion pipeline. Other current proposals include West Medford Square, Medford Square residential zoning and a proposal for Tufts institutional zoning. I want to be clear the purpose of tonight is to present on and get your feedback and questions and concerns on the other corridors proposal. So the focus of tonight will not be on the other proposals that I just mentioned. We're going to be focusing on the corridor's proposal as advertised because at this point in the process, this corridor's proposal is still being workshopped by the planning and permitting committee. So this is a really valuable and important time for us to be getting your feedback on it and to be hearing your questions and your concerns while it is still in development. So thank you again for being here. We're looking forward to hearing your questions and comments. With that, I forgot to introduce myself. I'm Kit Collins, Vice President of the City Council. I'm the Chair of the Planning and Permanent Committee, which is the committee in which all of our zoning proposals originate. And with me up here is Director Hunt of the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Department, and Emily Innes of Innes Associates, which is a zoning consultant that has been working with the City Council and the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Office for quite a long time now on all of these zoning proposals and on other projects in the city. Before that, I'll pass it off to Alicia.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation, Emily. So we're going to switch into the Q&A portion. And I just want to quickly remind myself with Kevin, is it ideal for sound purposes for people to speak into the microphone or can they? Okay, great. So it's ideal for folks who want to give questions in this room to speak into the microphone. And if you need a microphone carried to you, happy to do that. We're going to be monitoring the Zoom so that we can be alternating between in-person questions and questions from people who raise their hands on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: The Zoom participants will not be able to hear if we don't speak into the microphone and it will be easier for folks in the room to hear as well. Okay, so I saw a question back there, sir. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: So I guess you're going to have to type at us and we're trying to just to the to what we what we think the question is and I hope the person is able to unmute in case we're misinterpreting. the other kind of muted pastel colors on that map that Emily just brought up. We wanted to place the current proposal that we're talking about today in the context of the other zoning that's been proposed, so those others colors, light yellow, light green, are just meant to say these are the sub-districts that are being proposed, in those cases not yet ordained or finalized. for the areas surrounding the corridor proposals, just so people have a sense of what is proposed to butt up against what for that context. And I hope I'm speaking correctly to what MK was asking about. In case folks missed this earlier, all of the images that we looked at tonight are available on the city's zoning website, which is medfordma.org slash zoning. If you scroll down to public documents for any given proposal, we'll have links to slide decks and maps for each of those proposals, including a link to the presentation images that were shared tonight. I'm sure we'll have those up by tomorrow.
[Kit Collins]: share the load, which we like to do. Thank you so much for your thoughtful questions. Thank you for being here. Didn't want to gloss over your first question to the question about the pacing of the different proposals in this process. We have been focusing very intensely on, I would actually call them not commercial districts, but mixed use districts, because as folks who have been paying attention to the process probably have heard from me over and over again, There are very few areas in the city where in this new zoning we are proposing for only commercial, and I'm pretty sure that most of those districts that have undergone the new zoning treatment are mostly on Mystic Avenue Corridor District. Most of the other districts that I think probably all of us in this room would think of as commercial districts are really mixed use. We're incentivizing commercial on the first and sometimes on the second floor and residential up top. and those we've studied and gone through the process and passed a number of those districts already. Mystic Avenue Corridor District, the Salem Street Corridor District has a mix of residential only and mixed use zoning. Currently in the process are proposals for Bedford Square and West Medford Square. And I believe the CDB is going to get, it's just very first introductory we're going to be having a very, um, very, um, discussion of those squares this coming Wednesday. If I'm not mistaken, it's by no means going to be, uh, the final time that the CDB discusses, um. Those proposals, but I think it is when the proposals we introduced to the city for the very first time. All that to say, um, we've been looking very hard, very much focusing on these commercial and mixed use nurture existing commercial in the city where where do we want to help that grow more where do we really hope that commercial and residential will grow alongside each other. To your point about, should we kind of do one thing first and then pause and then see if it's appropriate to do the second thing, I think that for myself as one participant in this process not talking for anybody else. I think in terms of how zoning plays out on the ground, and it is true that I think none of us have a crystal ball to see how developers and private property owners will, in what specific ways will they take us up on the zoning that we pass as part of this process. Indeed, we don't know what private property owners or developers will do with the zoning that's currently on the books in Medford. And I say that because I think that the premise of, well, let's see if this zoning kind of does what we want it to do. And then let's look at another problem in need of a solution or their topic. That's not the premise that I'm coming at this from, because I think we'll never really get to the point where we're able to say with certainty. that. Okay this geography of zoning did it check the box for this goal for the city of Bedford. Overall this entire process is iterative. I don't think we'll ever get to a point where we're like, Okay, we did it. We have we have enough small businesses and we're good on that, or we have enough of this specific type of housing, and we're good on that, and nobody's in need of that. Because this. What we do is we. Through this ground floor and the ceiling for what could happen. And then we have to wait and see how private property owners, what private property owners decide to do with that. So all that to say, sorry, that was kind of a lot of words, but that is my way of saying why I think it is useful for us to try to continue doing these two things in parallel. looking at you know kind of that small minority of commercial only sub districts. At the same time as looking at our mixed use sub districts at the same time as looking at our residential only sub districts, because we know that we have different goals and wants for all these different needs of the city and just trying to move the needle forward on all of them at the same time. Of course, the goal is to be holistic, and a truly heroic number of public meetings is how we try to get to that goal. So I'll look around and see if anybody else has a different answer to the question. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Emily. No, I think that's a very concise summary of what impact in mitigation studies we do, when, for what reason, especially when it comes to those larger developments that have, of course, more of an impact on our shared services and infrastructure than probably any purely residential building except for, you know, the largest of multiplexes. The largest developments will go through that review process, site plan review. They will be subject to that greater scrutiny and in a lot of cases, you know, this public process of negotiation with the community over what is what ought the community to get back when a large development, large enough to trigger this special review process comes in. And I believe there's also thresholds at which linkage and impact fees for certain shared, sorry, for certain shared resources come into play. Smaller developments, like a lot of your one, two, and three unit residential buildings are not subject to these kinds of linkage fees, but larger developments by statute do already pay into shared funds for things like police and fire, water infrastructure, road infrastructure, and all larger developments under new zoning are subject to those as well. Anything to add?
[Kit Collins]: I think the question is really helpful in illuminating that this is crucial context that the community wants as we especially as we go forward and talk about the Tufts institutional zone, which is a little distinct about from the proposal that we're shown tonight so I'm going to make sure that the communications department works to have that information that Rocco just discussed the updated version linked on our zoning websites that when folks are thinking about Boston out thinking about the institutional zone and the corridors. That's in the right place for them to find them. So thank you for bringing that up. We've had a hand up on zoom for a while. So I want to go to them. Yuko I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Alicia. And just to the second part of that question around how we're kind of, are we thinking about how increasing, I think the question was, are we thinking about how increasing housing close to mixed use districts and commercial districts, how those two things go together? That's very much been a theme of our discussions of putting together the zoning, putting those proposals together. Sorry, getting late in the evening. And that pertains to certainly much, much more of the zoning than just the specific areas we've been talking about tonight, but thinking very intentionally about what is the right level of residential intensity to place near what is the right level of commercial intensity, both so that people in their residential areas have access to the amenities that they want that are useful to them in the ways that they want, some things that is appropriate to drive to, some things people want to be able to walk to, and also making sure that at the same time as we are trying to incentivize and encourage more businesses and small businesses to come into Medford, to stay where they are, to grow in new places, that there is the base of people that will be there to welcome them and support them and patronize them so that they can really take root and stay there. So that's just a little bit of the thinking about that intersection.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We're going to go back to the podium and then back to Zoom. Go to you first. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: If you don't mind, we'll go back to Zoom and then to you. All right, Rich, I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[Kit Collins]: Rich, please correct me if I'm reciting your question wrong. I think you were asking about, well, it sounds like in your neighborhood in particular, you're saying that your area is proposed to change to UR1. You're asking, is there any way that the maximum number of units that could be constructed in UR1, could that be changed? Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Six unit.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. That's under the current proposal.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I will say for folks who have public comment, questions, concerns, suggestions that they want to make about the proposed residential district zoning, the next public meeting on that topic is this coming Wednesday, June 4, there's going to be a continuation of the public hearing in the Community Development Board. That is a Zoom-only meeting. Folks are always welcome and encouraged to attend, and you can also send written comment. It's best to send that in by Monday so that board members have a chance to read it. So all are welcome to participate in that process as well. The residential district zoning is still in the proposal stage, and that is the next public meeting on it. All right, we'll go back to the podium. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the question. I would also say to that point, this is a market is a Q and a. This is also a excellent point in the process. I mean, all points in the process are excellent points in the process to participate, but we are very eager to hear your suggestions on anything from. Why should be X to I have a suggestion about the boundaries of this corridor. Why does it go here and not here? Comments like that suggestions are very valuable and welcome at this stage.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, Councilor Callahan, thank you, is going to be absent tonight, and everybody else is on Zoom?
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permanent Committee, May 28th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. House Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Four present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. And I see that Councilor Lazzaro is also present as a non-voting member of this committee. Thank you all for being here tonight. The agenda item for this night's planning and permitting committee meeting is paper number 24033, zoning ordinance updates for the Innes Associates team, as usual. This is the 26th zoning updates project meeting that we've held in this committee with Innes Associates. And this is the second of this committee meeting that we'll be spending on the other corridors proposal topic, as well as the commercial nodes proposed topic. Two weeks ago on May 14th, we had an initial planning and permitting committee on this topic. We reviewed some preliminary maps for the other corridors. which we will go over in detail shortly, but just to refresh people's memories, that is High Street between West Medford and the border of Arlington, Boston Avenue, with the exception of the large part that is cordoned off for the Tufts Institutional Zone, Main Street and South Medford, Harvard Avenue and South Medford, and aligning the Broadway Corridor with the Medford and Somerville Broadway Corridor zoning study. So tonight we are going to look at both of those topics again and review an updated proposal based on some feedback, questions, and comments that were raised two weeks ago. Are there any questions or comments from my fellow councilors or from city staff before I turn it over to Paola from NS Associates? Seeing none, I will turn it over to Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, we're just pausing for technical difficulties. Take your time, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think that makes sense. Thank you so much, Paola. And for folks who weren't here two weeks ago, the proposed map that we're looking at is the same. Augmenting our discussion this time are these new cross sections to help us understand just purely the height dimensionals on what is proposed under this draft proposal. I will go first to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, for flagging those. Let's make sure to, when we get this draft, when we see the next version of this draft, thank you for the flag, we'll make sure that the PDDs are noted as what they are. Go ahead, Director Hahn.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. So that just to put that another way, the PDDs are planned development districts, which are, I would say, specialized zoning. Feel free to rephrase that. City staff or planners, if that's inaccurate, that are negotiated with the development proponents. But through this process, when we are crafting underlying zoning for these districts, it's not that we want to fail to zone. It's not that we want to omit the zone that has a PDD on it. We should conceive about this as what we want to zone this as if a PDD did not exist, which it does. Do you have a direct response, Director Hunt?
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Great. Thank you for that flag President Bears. Go next to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. We'll go back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Director Hunt. I think that's helpful. And I think one of the themes that I'm hearing coming up in the last couple of comments especially is as it relates to the goal of this proposal and certainly not this proposal alone in this comprehensive zoning review process, part of the goal here is to incentivize and allow what we would like to see developed in the city, which maybe is not possible or not incentivized to develop under our current zoning and current conditions. But also to reduce nonconformity is where the current built environment conflicts with our existing zoning. And I think that's I think that's an important part of the conversation. I think an important part of the conversation is what Councilor Leming and President Bears recently brought up, which is kind of around how the current or proposed zoning interacts with these various conditional requirements, dimensional requirements, which, to the example of, you know, how many stories can a single family have in a GR district under current zoning? Like, well, two and a half, but what actually gets constructed depends on the dimensions of that lot and quite a lot of other factors as it would for any other lot. which get run through a calculation, and that's how the zoning is enforced by the building commissioner. The same will be true under any new zoning and all zoning. But I think that's an important thing to flag and to continue to flag as we talk about the zoning proposals is comparing them to what we currently have, and also acknowledging that it's not just the maximum allowed uses, the maximum allowed heights, but looking at those lot sizes. and other very present conditions and thinking, okay, what's likely to happen here and what's likely to happen, but only if a lot is combined, for example. So I just wanted to underline that while we were on the topic. We'll look for other comments from councilors on this proposal at this stage. Seeing none, I'll jump in. Like we said, the draft map is not very different from what we looked at two weeks ago. I thought that two weeks ago, this was off to a really great start. I still feel good about this map as setting forth that you know, that essentially that vision for this is what we are comfortable being allowed in these places. I like that this would reduce nonconformities in a lot of spaces, particularly in South Medford. I think that this offers a vision for allowing the type of uses that I think we know residents and business owners in Medford would like to see in a lot of these places. I kind of can't help but look especially closely at South Medford because this corridor proposal includes the area that's directly around where I live and where I spend a lot of my time. I think it's really appropriate to focus on these corridors in South Medford and the other corridors in this proposal as ones to both give a signal that we're looking for higher intensity residential uses here and give a signal that we're looking for mixed uses here because I think we know that people already want that. And I think there's some places where we're starting to see those growing organically. It'd be nice to make it easier for small businesses to grow up alongside some of our busiest residential districts and just make it easier for us to continue to see that flourish. Well, I see no other hands on this proposal, so maybe we can proceed along to an overview. Or sorry, we can revisit the commercial nodes topic. Unless there's any other comments from city staff, city councilors. All right, you can proceed with the presentation then, Paola. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for that presentation, Paola and Councilors and some members of the public who are here two weeks ago. Remember that we got an overview of the concept of the neighborhood commercial nodes previously, and we talked about kind of what they're for and where they should go to really be the most effective. And we touched on the topic of accessory commercial units. But I appreciate this greater in-depth analysis of both It's exciting to see the suitability analysis for the commercial nodes and to get a little bit deeper on some of the thought process behind the ACUs, not to be confused with ADUs, and how those might be structured dimensionally. Last time we talked quite a bit about, and you talked about this in your presentation, different ways of structuring or enabling the neighborhood commercial nodes within our zoning code. We talked about a base district. We talked about an overlay strategy as to kind of different roads we could go down. It seemed to me by the end of our meeting two weeks ago that most councilors were leaning towards a site-specific overlay, and I think your presentation speaks to this, is we do want to make sure the whole point of the neighborhood commercial nodes is a topic. is to make sure that the residential, the squarely residential areas of the city, not the ones that are in the corridors proposals, not the ones that are in the larger standalone corridors, not the ones that are in the squares, that these residences that are really bounded and bordered by other residences still have access to amenities and small businesses that would be useful to them and serve a true neighborhood purpose. So I'm not trying to incentivize necessarily, you know, super splashy, unique businesses that people would, you know, drive to or be specific, highly unique destinations, but things would be really useful in the fabric of a neighborhood and dimensioned accordingly. And I think we saw for the first time tonight, some of the a little bit of a deeper view at the required minimum restrictions and additional requirements on the neighborhood commercial nodes. So I just wanted to return to that very quickly. I think that that helps to make concrete what we're talking about, about where we want to focus these and how we could bring that about through these site-specific overlay in specific places. So as you mentioned, these are only for residential districts because mixed-use districts already got the mixed uses. Could you speak just a little bit for folks who may be watching this presentation who don't spend all of their time thinking about the city blocks? When we say we're thinking about different minimum distances from corridors and squares, 800 feet to 1,200 feet, we're talking about probably like a minimum of three to five blocks away from a major commercial area? Or how do you conceptualize that?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Thank you. And then we're talking about those additional requirements. Sorry. My brain just glitched. I was trying to put this into words. Additional requirements of proximity to certain community uses, open space, parks, community centers, and I noted you said hospital or medical facility as well. If my understanding is correct, this is just to make sure that we're putting, again, small businesses close to where people will already be and they might need something where they're at that space. How does the higher priority mechanism work or how would that work in the context of the zoning? Is that more of a guideline or sort of a way of stating a preference?
[Kit Collins]: I see. Thank you. That was my misunderstanding. That was some sort of dimensional requirement as opposed to just a factor. And as we're putting the suitability analysis together, thank you for explaining that. Any questions or comments from my fellow Councilors on the accessory commercial units or other parts of the proposed commercial neighborhood notes? Seeing none. So in terms of our, working backwards, in terms of our next steps for these two proposals that we spent our time on tonight, I know the, oh, I'll hold on that. President Bears has raised his hand. Go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think there's also probably value in the neighborhood residential proposal still being going through the process and not officially ordained. And this, of course, proposal for the accessory, sorry, for the neighborhood commercial nodes we're developing in the context of that. So I think that this is one that we can pace accordingly with that being finalized. Go to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilwoman. Certainly, I think that the accessory commercial units and the neighborhood commercial nodes kind of thematically go together. I also think the CDB has been pretty good about taking everything we've been sending their way and going through it at the pace that they need to. So I feel comfortable leaving that. If it shakes out that we report both out on the same timeline, I think that's great. And I think that topically makes sense. They go together. But I think that... Happy to leave the pace of the CDB up to the CDB. Seeing no further comments from my fellow councillors right now, so... President Bears segwayed me into just touching on our next steps for all of these topics. So for accessory commercial units and for the neighborhood commercial nodes, I think we have a really excellent start here. I'm also very excited to see this continue to move forward. I think this is also a thing, a topic that a lot of folks in the community Um, we'll be excited about. I think this is just you know, we're talking about what's the right type of amenity that would be most useful to you and your residential neighborhood, and I think that's the type of thing that people just Talk about in various language just in the course of their, you know. Daily daily lives and daily weeks like I wish we had a X right here, and I think this is proposing one solution to that kind of thought. So that's very exciting. Um So this will continue to be iterated on. I know you guys have some study and analysis into this that is still in the works. We have several other proposals that we are working on that are in the queue. And I think I agree with President Bears that this, if it takes a little more time for this one to become a fully finalized and reportable package, I think that's fine. And again, I think it makes sense to see how the residential proposal shakes out and then finalize this accordingly because they matter to each other. And in terms of the other corridors proposals, I want to make sure that members of the public know that there is another opportunity, in addition to public participation tonight, there is another opportunity to learn more about this proposal in another forum tomorrow. We'll be having a public Q&A about the other corridors proposal at the Tufts University Cummings Center. And Alicia knows the room number. I don't.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Alicia. We'll make sure to get that room number posted on the city website as well. So that's the public Q and A on the other corridors, which we discussed at the beginning of this meeting. These Q and A's, we want to make sure that these are opportunities to really get targeted feedback on a specific proposal. So the conversation and the presentation will be focused on the other corridors proposal we won't be talking about. the residential proposal. We won't be talking about the squares. We're not going to be talking about neighborhood commercial nodes, nor the ACUs. But this is a really important opportunity for us to hear from the public, as is tonight, but there's not a lot of people here, on the other corridor's proposal. So really encourage folks to attend in person if they can, and on Zoom if they can't, and All indications show that the hybrid portion should be a lot better than the one for the last Q&A. So thanks to Kevin Harrington and Director Hunt and Tufts University for making that happen.
[Kit Collins]: great thank you and so those expectations are if you want to submit written comment on the medford square west medford square or will you be taking a residential residential thought is really what we're concerned about it is my expectation that the medford squares that it's
[Kit Collins]: Great. That would just be the first time that they're getting a presentation on it. OK. Yes. That makes total sense. Thank you. And the residential proposal will also be taken up by the CDB on June 4th. And you're saying if folks want to submit written comment, make sure to get that in by Monday the 2nd. And the meeting will be Zoom only as usual in this case. And that is expected to go quite late. So plan and caffeinate accordingly. Thank you very much for stating that and for helping us publicize that. I'll go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you. So just real quickly, we talked about the public Q&A for other corridors proposal only tomorrow night. Director Hunt shared some updates about the CDB meeting next Wednesday. And so the next steps for the other corridors proposal is the Q&A tomorrow, and then that will come back to committee. And the neighborhood commercial nodes and accessory commercial units proposal will also come back to the planning and permitting committee for further discussion. Great, thank you so much. Welcome to make a motion, President Bears, before or after I ask for any public participation on either of these proposals. All right, we'll go to public participation first. I will start at the podium and then go to Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Hang on one second. I'm going to set up my timer. All right. Sorry about that. All right, go ahead, William. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, William. Going next to Cheryl on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Cheryl. For tomorrow, I hope that I'll just go to Director Hunt, who's saying something. Sorry. Yeah, great. I was going to say, I hope that residents will take advantage of parking spaces on Boston Ave, College. It's possible that some parking spaces will be available at Dowling Ave for those who can't find street parking on Boston. Go ahead, Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. I'm gonna go to President Bears and then back to public participation.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you. Going to Andrew on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for your comments. Andrew, we will take that into consideration. And I saw some nods when you brought up neighborhood daycare as well. Oh, there you go, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, thank you for that clarification, Paola. So that's the daycare doesn't have to be a specific allowed use under the proposed neighborhood commercial nodes and ACUs because they don't need permission. They don't need special permission. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Great. Is there any additional public participation on either of these proposals? Seeing none, thank you so much for the updated presentation and analysis of these topics, Emily and Paola, and thank you for the thoughtful discussion, my fellow councilors and city staff and members of the public. Is there a motion?
[Kit Collins]: On the motion by President Bears to keep the paper in committee and adjourn, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Four in favor, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears Thank you, Councilor Leming for bringing this forward and thank you for representing the city council at the Memorial Day event. Yesterday, I'm very grateful for holidays on the calendars like these which give us a reason to collectively, remember and celebrate the veterans in our lives and remember those who have passed away. I think it's evident most people have. You know, some people have military experience they are themselves veterans most people have a veteran in their family or amongst their circle of loved ones, and it strikes me that. It's so important to have these opportunities to collectively reflect on what that means and to be prompted to think about what remembering means when we're remembering people that we love who have passed away because they're members of the armed forces. Or just to try to reflect on what that means for those people who do have a veteran experience, something that we should do, not just once a year. but all the time as veterans can't help but do. For myself, my two grandfathers both served in World War II, and I know they had experiences so traumatic that they never spoke about them for the rest of their lives. I think about that so often. I think that Memorial Day is an important reminder of what we owe to veterans and people who have sacrificed for various reasons. What they continue to sacrifice and the lived experiences and memories that they don't reflect on once a year, they reflect on all the time. And I'm grateful to be in a city where we think about what that means for us for the other 364 days of the year, and how we can uplift life in our community for people who come from that background and people who have served and sacrificed in every ways, and especially in this. most total way. So thank you for putting this resolution forward. I am glad that we as a community are observing Memorial Day on the day I'm glad that we talked about it. The Tuesday after, I'm really grateful to have a veteran services director who is doing such ambitious work on behalf of veterans in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Really appreciate your presentation. And just want to thank you and your staff, Chief of Staff Nazarian, Finance Director Bob Dickinson, and everybody else who I know worked really hard to put this together. And thank you for the ongoing collaboration with the budget ordinance. It is really great to get a budget proposal with a really comfortable amount of time to continue to absorb and digest and discuss everything that goes along with it so that's been a really wonderful evolution to get to participate in over the past few years. Thank you very much for your partnership on that.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think it helps all of us when we have a structure that we can mutually rely on and predict. And I think that's a great example of the collaboration that you were talking about in your closing remarks. I think residents love good TV, but I think residents love more to see different branches of government collaborating. Good things happen we collaborate, even when it's hard it's so much better than we do when we do think the creation of the stabilization funds last year and the passage of question seven and eight are just wonderful evidence of that and it's great to see those bearing fruit in this year's budget proposal. In regards to the budget proposal that you've introduced us to tonight I think we're off to a really good start. This is an operating budget that does not significant really sorry significantly rely on one time funding, which, you know, we've all been through the past few fiscal years together. And that is a really refreshing thing to respond to. That's a product of a lot of hard work by a lot of people in City Hall on your team and a lot of people on this council, and the hard work of everybody who campaigned for the overrides and the willingness of the majority of Medford voters to say yes to investing in our schools and our shared infrastructure. The passage of questions seven and eight directly allowed us to fund new positions within the DPW and to balance the school's budget, meaning that we do not have to balance this on forced district-wide personnel cuts, which I'm gonna say a couple of times this evening, because I'm just so happy about it. It's really great. And we have a little bit further to go on the school's budget, as we know from the presentation earlier, but it's great to see that number become more and more approachable. For me, as we collaboratively put ARPA and ESSER further and further into the rear view, I think all of us we want to see Medford operate sustainably we want to see it emerge from austerity bunch budgeting. We want to fund our infrastructure and our services the way that residents deserve. We want to begin to make bolder and bolder strides on our capital needs and sustainably add capacity to our operating budgets at the same time. So given the hard work and the very genuine progress that we have made on stabilizing the operating budget in the last fiscal year. I think that now is a really important opportunity to emphasize the capital investments side. In the past several years we have seen the city's free cash reserves amass and we've done great work together in allocating that in really intentional specific ways into our various stabilization funds. I think that now is the time to go even further and we've talked about this we talked about this collaboratively with the financial task force. And I think that a really exciting and really important accompaniment to the passage of the fiscal 26 budget proposal this year will be. a specific plan for allocating much of the remainder of our free cash reserves into our various stabilization accounts of which we have several, due to the passage of a couple more that we collaborated on last year for myself as one Councilor won't speak for other Councilors even though I know a lot of us feel the same way it is a really happy occasion to get to translate that ever annoying and confusing term free cash into being able to say, we are investing this amount of money in this fund because we use it for this purpose and be able to speak to the questions and the concerns that residents bring to all of us around and say, we know We hear you, it's been in the capital improvement plan and we are making this allocation for that purpose. I know this is something that you and your team and working hard on curious if you could speak a little bit more to how that is shaping up the timeline of that submissions that we can make sure these two things go hand in hand this year.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I want to keep the focus of our discussion on the operating budget proposal. And I don't want to rehash disagreements that we've had a billion times. But since this has come up a couple times tonight, I do think it's important to correct the record. Nobody ever said that $500,000 to the DPW is going to wave a magic wand and fix every road and sidewalk in Medford. We shouldn't pretend that that's what any department said, department head said last year. That's not the case. That money that the residents of Medford voted to invest in our DPW capacity is to bring more of the labor of continually fixing those roads and sidewalks in-house so we can have city employees doing the work of day in, day out, year in, year out, fixing our roads and sidewalks. It is misinformation to say that voters should have expected every road and sidewalk to be fixed because questions seven and eight were approved. That is a fact. That is what everybody has been saying since last summer. And I think that we should I think it is fine and good to have disagreements about what we are funding and how in the city, but I think that we're all better than having to rely on misinformation to do that part of the reason I am eager to see. a formal free cash allocation plan, or that you put it in different terms, it means the same thing, to go along with our budget proposal this year is because there's a lot of right answers for what we should be investing in. You said right now we have 23 million, $5 million to pay off the bond. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue, I'm pretty sure the best practice is for 3 to 5% of a municipality's budget to be available as cash reserves, which would put us, that would be right around $10 million for City of Medford. So by my arithmetic, that means if we commit $7 million more this cycle to the list of projects that we have that we know we need investing in, which total way more than $7 million. That will get us right back down to best practice, state best practice, and be able to say, all right, residents, we have a action plan for what we are investing in on what timetable. And that is good. That is just simply, you could say it's not good or bad. It's just what we do. It's what we should be doing. I just don't think that the conversation has to happen this way. And since I'm already picking a scab, I think it's useful to restate that the city is audited every single year by statute. And since I think we all are committed to the shared goal of fiscal prudence, I don't know why the residents of Medford would want us to spend money on an additional audit when we get one every single year as a matter of course. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I will motion to table the paper to June 10th.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Bears at this most recent meeting of the planning and permitting committee. For the first time we reviewed a were, we need to find a better term for the quote unquote other quarters proposal, this is a proposal to apply a quarter zoning framework to several of the other corridors throughout the city, notably High Street from West Medford to the Arlington border, parts of Boston Avenue, the notably not the parts that are going to be included in the Tufts Institutional Zone, Harvard Avenue, Main Street, and the Broadway Corridor District to align it with Somerville Broadway District zoning. We also talked about the neighborhood neighborhood commercial nodes topic for the first time, we are going to be picking up both of these topics the other corridors and the neighborhood commercial nodes at the planning and permitting committee meeting tomorrow night, 6pm in the chambers and on zoom, as usual, motion to approve the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the committee report seconded by Council is our all is in favor.
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Yes, to restate what you just said, people who have been paying attention to this process have heard me say this dozens of times before, every zoning proposal or zoning amendment goes from the planning and permitting committee reported out this body then statutorily must refer to the Community Development Board where there are public hearings on the proposal, and that is then submitted back to this body for a vote with recommendations if the Community Development Board so chooses so this is the stage where we refer this proposal to the Community Development Board they will hold Their public hearings the Community Development Board. This year has been great about taking the time that they need to ask the questions and get the comments in the context that they need to form their recommendations I'm sure that they will do this on the accessory dwellings accessory dwelling units proposed changes as well for folks who would like to educate themselves about these proposed changes before the CDP public hearing dates. There is a lot of information available on Medford ma.org slash zoning we have been discussing these proposed updates. Since March we held a public q amp a earlier this month. And this update encompasses both updates that are required of us and other communities due to a recent change in state law. As well as some proposed changes that go better outside the bounds of nearly what is required to be in compliance with the state housing law. So with that emotion to refer to the Community Development Board.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for that, Councilor Scarpelli. Appreciate the comments. I'll just go in reverse order. I do just want to take a little bit more time to explain what I said in introducing the zoning proposal I do think it's important to know that part of what's being referred out in this in these proposed updates to the accessory dwelling units proposal is required of us by state law. There's parts of it that are not required by state law but there are parts that very much are where the city would be opened up to liability if we were to fail to be in compliance with the new state law so I just want to make that clear. to my colleagues and to residents who were not a part of the extensive public process and putting this proposal together. To your other point and of course we've discussed this before and I think it's worth discussing. I know that there are some in the community. who have not been in favor of some of the recent zoning proposals that we have made or some of the recent votes that have gone forward on zoning proposals. Of course, every councilor's vote is their own. That being said, I think it is also, and we obviously, we will never achieve 100% consensus in the community on anything that is not a realistic standard to hold ourself to. It's not the standard that we are holding ourselves to. But I do really appreciate every resident who has been a part of this process on these various proposals over the last year. It is a challenging topic and I really welcome and appreciate the participation from residents, especially the residents who show up and say, I think you should change this and I'm not in favor because that is challenging and I really do appreciate that. But it is also true at the same time that we have had We have responded to calls for more opportunities for public participation in this process by adding a whole other step to our zoning review timeline one that is not typically followed we have added a lot of public opportunities for public participation, we have added a whole web page about the zoning process, the mass municipal association. wrote an article about our communications and outreach efforts because it was so unique to them for us to be going to such great lengths to publicize and message the work that we are doing this term. And to your other point about this this feeling of inevitability that the city council is just going to quote unquote reverse whatever the quote unquote community asks for and of course we shouldn't be speaking in monoliths here. The CDB refers back to recommendations to the city council, if it so chooses that has happened twice now, not just once we approved mystic Avenue quarter district zoning, as well as Salem Street quarter district zoning. I don't think that it's fair or productive to pretend that a vote is going to go the same way every single time, because the data doesn't bear that out. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, and thank you for flagging that. The community control over public surveillance ordinance was passed by the city council, and I believe February March of 2023. We have gone through this annual public report process. One time before in April of 2024. We reviewed the annual reporting of the one city agency that was registered as having surveillance technology at that time which was the Medford Police Department. That was a bit of an unusual public reporting. That was a bit of an unusual annual public report in that the only surveillance technology known and use in the city at that time was body worn cameras by the Medford Police Department which also per a negotiated contract carve out in the ordinance is not subject to the approval of a use policy which all other surveillance technology. in the city would be because sorry I should back up here for people who don't know the Community Control of Republic surveillance ordinance is an ordinance passed in 2023 that sets up a structure for the city council and residents of Medford to look together at surveillance technology that is approved to be used by any public entity in the city of Medford so this doesn't regulate ring cameras or nest cameras it's just surveillance technology that the city wants to use and make sure that we have a public process for saying, what are the pros, what are the cons, what are the costs. What are we hoping to get out of this and what are the potential risks that we can so that we can make sure we have that full conversation before the city council takes a vote. to approve a surveillance technology with the use policy or deny one or ask for modifications in order for the surveillance technology to be used. So last year we were just having a review of the use of body worn cameras by the Medford Police Department they hadn't been in effect for very long by that point. point so it was a pretty short report. This time the reporting looks a little bit different because we have a full year of experience and data on the Medford Police Department's use of body-worn cameras. They went over this with us in a committee of the whole or sorry a public health and community safety committee a few weeks ago and this is also the first time that our reporting includes use of surveillance technology by the Medford parking department. This surveillance technology automatic license plate readers was inadvertently already in use by the Medford parking department prior to their submission of an impact port and a use policy. However, in committee of the whole, we reviewed a draft impact report, we reviewed a draft use policy, the committee discussed it and reported it out and we are looking at a use policy tonight that includes a couple of small modifications that the council requested to the license plate reader use policy. So the documents included in this. So, the one of the requirements of the city council per the community control of the public surveillance ordinance is to hold these meetings annually to review the use of surveillance technology by city agencies and then to compile In this report, the findings, how many list them out here, the number of requests for approval, the number of times the city council approved requests for surveillance technology the number of times the city council requested modifications. The number of times that the city council. declined to approve a surveillance technology use policy and all annual surveillance reports and reporting that were submitted this year. So this compiles that. Again, this was a bit of another unusual year, but for a different reason in that we did not receive any requests for a new use of a new surveillance technology that would be, say, for example, if the parking department said, hey, there's this new hardware that we want to use, we want to introduce, we're gonna ask for permission. Before we use it that is how the process should go. This was more of a approval of a pre existing surveillance technology use. The City Council annual report compiles the impact report, or sorry, it compiles the Medford Police Department's annual reporting, it compiles the parking department's impact report and updated use policy. It also includes public comment that was submitted on the annual report by the Medford police department so this is a part of our public record now. That is one of the goals of the ordinance is to. maintain and add to a public record of surveillance technology in the city both those submitted by the agencies that are using it, and the city council's discussions and findings and takeaways from our, from what we discussed with these departments about their use of surveillance technology. With that, I would make a motion to approve the parking department's use policy for automatic license plate readers. I would also make a motion to approve the city council annual surveillance report, unless there is any questions or comments from my fellow councilors or members in public.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to be clear that the Chief submitted the report that we're voting on.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the presentation. I thought I wasn't going to ask any questions about the waste contract but who am I kidding. Just quickly, and I know we discussed this when I was on the Solid Waste Task Force a couple years ago when the new waste contract was being negotiated. I remember at that time, this was a couple years ago now, there was some discussion of Um, for municipalities like ours, there is potentially ways for to be reimbursed for the recycling of certain recyclables. Is that something that's come to fruition in this contract? And is that a negligible or non negligible number?
[Kit Collins]: No, I believe you.
[Kit Collins]: Interesting. It is so interesting to me that the solid waste contract and transacting for the city is maybe one of our clearest examples of how the city is impacted by the free market when there are other ways in which we are not able to participate in the free market ie capping of property taxes and a proposition two and a half but we are I mean, now I think it's good that the waste contract is tied to cost of inflation. That seems fair for both parties, you know, in an equal system and our potential reimbursement subject to what different recyclables are being traded for. It's just, I think for residents, it's an interesting case study within a local economy where there's usually more of these artificial constraints. My other question also pertaining to the waste contract. I know part of the, One of the many great things about redoing the contract, renegotiating that, is that being able to factor in better recycling, opening ourselves up to better compost service was to make us eligible for more grants through the state because of our waste and recycling practices becoming more aligned with best practices. Are there any major grants that we have applied to or received in the past couple of years since the new contract started?
[Kit Collins]: okay great thank you and then last thing really quickly i know there was kind of a tiered approach to rolling out uh free composting citywide through this contract when is the next expansion. I know we're kind of expanding in concentric circles for different types of residences. Is that a couple years down the pike?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation. Thank you for being here. Thank you also to the superintendent. I know a lot of work has gone into this recommendation already in your extensive process with the school committee, so thank you so much. Just to follow up quickly on a couple major line items from your presentation, it sounded to me like The educator and support staff positions that are being eliminated or deferred are ones that were calculated to be removable because of decreases in student enrollment. I didn't hear a lot about positions being cut purely out of regard for the bottom line. Can you confirm that?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, that's helpful and certainly it is. It's great to have a budget cycle where we don't have to balance the school budget on potentially removing position so thank you for your hard work and very grateful. For the passage of questions, seven to me which helped us get to this happy position as well. staying on the topic of the recommended reallocations to get those savings that are helping us bring that gap down to the roughly 500k number down from 2 million, moving some of those programs and they mentioned the circuit breaker And a couple other bullet points that are off the top of my head. These were previously in the school's operating budget now they're going to these other funding sources do these feel stable to you and we're talking about obviously this budget is avoidant of major quote unquote fiscal cliffs and that's important just curious about these specific programs that are being moved on to other funding sources.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for being here. And for helming the assessing department, while you're around, we're very glad to have you on board. Your presentation was very thorough. Thank you as well for the added context around new growth. I don't have any specific questions on your presentation just while we have you, I wanted to add my voice. to the conversation around, um, taking this opportunity in this budget, um, to future proof for future assessing needs. We've had a lot of conversations, not just this term, but in previous terms before you were before you were here about wanting to gear up to at least have that conversation about a residential and exemption and, um, I remain of two minds on it for the reasons that were just discussed. I think that this is one of those municipal tools that sounds simple, but isn't. And as you just described very well, some residents will see an immediate benefit. A lot of others will not. And I think we have to have really, really good comprehension about that in the community before we try to make a determination about if this is something that the people of Medford want or not. I think there's a lot of really great reasons to consider it. I think that we also do have to pay attention to those homeowners who will not benefit and renters whose costs may go up. There's a lot of conflicting data about that out there. But this isn't a conversation tonight about should we do a residential exemption or not. It's about when should we bring on the capacity to be able to do one if we decide that we want to do one. and the resources to investigate what that would look like in our community so I really do think that, you know, I am. It's not a criticism but just looking at the spreadsheets I'm concerned to see even a small reduction in force in the assessing department, because I know the great work that we're able to do with more staff in the assessing department over the past couple of years. getting things up to speed, reviewing old records, cleaning up the data, as you said. I think that's a benefit to everybody and we also know that it's just easier for residents to get quick answers to their questions and to get help with exemptions when your department has, you know, the staffing that it really deserves. So I hope that that's something we can contend hope that's something that the administration is willing to take a second look at as we proceed through this budget process. Not just because I think it's a benefit to the community to have more people on hand in the assessing department in the short term but if our conversations over the rest of this year, lead us to wanting to. pursue a residential exemption we're going to need more people on that for starting in this fiscal year. And as other Councilors mentioned earlier, it's not to say we definitely want to do this I'm definitely gonna vote in favor but it would be foolish, I think, to not even have the option of pursuing it because we don't have the people to implement it in the assessing department so I just want to put that out there at this point. And I do think it's also relevant. I'm happy to hear the numbers about the new growth. It is actually gratifying to me to hear that our projected new growth number for this year is kind of in the ballpark of previous years, given that previous years weren't so much of a snapshot of new growth that happened exclusively within that calendar year, it sounds like, but cleaning up undocumented new growth from prior years. And as you're aware, we're in the midst of a very large scale rezoning effort. I think that in the coming few years, coming many years, we can expect to see a more consistent application of larger new growth eligible projects. And I know that you've been doing a lot with a small and scrappy team, but I think that as time goes forward, we really need to be thinking about how to right size this department so that we're capturing everything we need to be in real time. and not creating backlog just because you could use more people in the office. So all that to say, thank you for your presentation and for your work. It looks great, but I do hope that the administration is able to consider avoiding a reduction in the assessor's department this year. I think that current level of staffing is something that we should be maintaining. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: well, take a break from the specific questions, which I don't have. I just wanted to say thank you for the presentation, and we have a lot of undersung hard workers in City Hall. You're certainly among them. I know especially with, I've been working in concert on the zoning updates, and I see just a fraction of the many, many questions that you've been getting about just the protected ADUs updates alone. Your department is quite resourceful in handling a lot of incoming all the time, so. Try to stay busy. And we know that you do, so thank you for your service and for the presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Seeing no additional hands raised from other councillors, I'll just briefly state, thank you for your presentation. Very thorough as befits the incredibly complicated charge of your leadership and your department. So thank you so much for the thorough overview. And yeah, no problem. I think to the conversation that we were just having, I really appreciate your candor. I think that your presentation and your communication throughout the year do a really good job of illuminating the work that your department is doing all the time and outlining those future needs in those areas where it's not that, not areas where you want to improve, but where areas where the community needs our fire department to improve. And for myself as one Councilor, I don't think it's necessarily fair to say to the leader of a department, you know, you must identify the path forward and also how to fund it. That is our job. So it's, community and other branches of government need to collaborate on how to meet the needs that our department heads identify. I think you've done a very good job of that. And I appreciate your continuing clarity in telling us what are the capital and operating needs that we really do need to fund. And again, it's not discretionary. It's not, we want this. It's things that we know that we need from the reports of fire department employees and things that we know we need to keep up with best practices for keeping people safe in Medford. So just for myself as one Councilor, this is not a, this is an operational budget hearing. We're not talking about overrides. We're not talking about debt exclusions, but we know that there are certain things that we continue to need that could have been funded. with mechanisms outside of the standard operating budget, and I continue to feel that we should do those to give your staff and the people of Medford the quality public service that they deserve. So thank you for continuing to tell us what those things are, and I hope that we are able to fund them very soon. That's what the community deserves.
[Kit Collins]: Any additional comments from Councilors? Great. Any additional, actually, I'm sorry, as I took over the chair, I need to open the Zoom to see if there are comments on Zoom. Let me into the zoom place. Thanks. Thank you for bearing with me. All right, we'll go next to public participation on this item. All participants will have three minutes to speak. You can speak on Zoom or at the podium. Going first to Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you will have three minutes. Thank you, Danielle. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, please go ahead. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Danielle. Is there any other members of the public who'd wish to speak on this item? Great. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. Chief, I think that you spoke to this in brief earlier, but could you just quickly go over the context? I see the, on the topic of the reduction from 80 budgeted firefighters to 78, was that a strategic decision or is that due to making the numbers work because of the amount allocated from the administration?
[Kit Collins]: Right, right. I mean, I think that this is, I think that in these discussions and these preliminary budget hearings, especially, we have to remain really clear on where the power lies. I'm sure that if your budget was up to you, we would have the plans for a new fire headquarters and more than two additional firefighters in this budget.
[Kit Collins]: That's right. Yeah. And I think that's always the context for how we go forward from the preliminary budget hearings to the negotiations to what the number that we finally arrive at and I just think that's something that's good to remind all participants and the public as we go through this process is the, the allocation is fundamentally decided by the mayor's office. Um, our department heads throughout the city, I think, are incredibly good at being resourceful, and I think we hear that over and over in these budget hearings. But a lot of the decisions come down to making the numbers work, because we are legally not required to be in a deficit as a city. On the topic of the dive team, because it seems that that is, I'm certain that there is consensus among all parties, councillors, members of the fire department, the fire union, this is something that everybody would very, very much like to see funded. I as one Councilor, I'm always most in favor of things that we value and want to fund coming from our own operating budget. I think that is safest, but I do think that this is an area that would be especially appropriate as a form of pilot payment from Tufts University to the city. This would be outside of our operating budget process, of course, but I would welcome a motion from a Councilor, now that I'm chairing, to urge the city administration to include seed funding for an FEDFIRED Appointment Dive Team as part of our pilot negotiations with Tufts University. Great. So that was a motion by Councilor Tseng. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Calderon. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Did you want to say something else, Chief? OK. Any other comments from council or city staff or members of the public on the Medford Fire Department budget? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chief of Staff. Any additional questions from Councilors? Seeing none, it's been a long night. I think we should let the Chief get out of here. Any final comments?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you for hanging with us till 9 24. Anytime. Great. Thank you so much. All right. I think we're on to our last topic for this hearing. Thank you again, Chief. Um, that would be insurance, pensions and bonds and interest. Welcome up. Welcome up. Finance director extraordinaire. Good evening.
[Kit Collins]: I'm going to ask you just at the beginning to boost that microphone because we want to hear every single word that you have to say. All righty.
[Kit Collins]: Dealer's choice.
[Kit Collins]: Are you able to give us just a top line overview of the numbers that we're looking at? Are you able to walk us through just a top line overview of the numbers that we're looking at for bonds and interest?
[Kit Collins]: I think it's just helpful for councillors maybe any members of the public who don't have the sheets in front of them just to have like a general bird's eye view. I see. a very moderate reduction in proposed budget for fiscal year 26 compared to our costs for budgeted costs for fiscal year 25 for both the general fund debt service and water and sewer fund debt service. So I think this is fairly static interest rates on a lot of longstanding debts. Is that roughly correct?
[Kit Collins]: 2028 is when that comes online?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any other questions from councillors on the debt service overview? Seeing none, essentially what we're looking at is a forecast for fiscal year 26 that looks much the same as our budgeted totals for fiscal year 25. Thank you for the overview. Going next, unless I see no public participation on this budget, so I'll go next to the insurance budget. And just a question for you, Bob, does the insurance budget also cover budget for pensions, or is that separate? I didn't see a sheet for pension.
[Kit Collins]: It's quite a frustrating situation. could say a lot about what a frustrating situation it is for communities just to have to follow the ever-changing rates. But so that GIC increase is the 10% fiscal 25 to fiscal 26% change on the health, dental, and lifeline item, which is a dollar change of $2.7 million. Yeah. So that's probably one of the single largest line item increases that we see in the entire operating budget this year. Yes, it is. And that is just for continuation of existing service for municipal and that's just for to continue insurance services for city employees.
[Kit Collins]: So an estimate of all those factors together. And the best estimate is that it's about a 10%. I'm sorry.
[Kit Collins]: It's mutual. Going through all those weedsy factors, the best estimate is that we can expect to see about a 10% increase. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Tough.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, believe me. I know. I get told that a lot. I see other notable percentage increases. This is a large percentage increase, rather small dollar increase in relative terms, the increase to the unemployment light item. Could you just give us a quick explanation of the nature of that change?
[Kit Collins]: So that's just trying to right size for the unemployment line item.
[Kit Collins]: Gotcha. Thank you. Any questions from my fellow councilors on the insurance budget? Seeing none. Any questions from the public on the insurance budget? Just one question. I noticed that on our cover sheet for this meeting, it indicated that we would be reviewing the pensions budget. You said that was separate. Do we expect to see an overview of the pensions budget in a future budget hearing?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. And yeah, if it's not normative for us to review a separate pensions budget in the budget hearing process, which it sounds like it isn't, then we're not missing anything. I just wanted to make sure. Great. Any additional questions from councillors on the insurance budget or any other departmental budget that we heard about tonight? No? Seeing no public participation. Nina, any last thoughts? Great, sorry, didn't mean to say it like that. Is there a motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn? Oh, sorry, we need to, yes.
[Kit Collins]: What are the motions again?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, okay. Do you still want to report? I would withdraw that and I would. Okay. Let's take a vote on those two motions. Then we'll vote on Councilor Latero's motion to keep the paper and committee and adjourn. So on the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to ask our Director of Planning, Development, and Sustainability to look into making the Hormel parking lot into a solar parking lot to fund the electric costs for the rink. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion passes. and on the motion by Councilor Tseng to ask the administration to negotiate with Tufts University to include seat funding for a fire department dive team in their pilot payment. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. It was Councilor Zero. The second? What's the second?
[Kit Collins]: I thought you were talking about the motion that we just voted on. No, I'm- What is your question?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Pick a Councilor, any Councilor. On the motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We love a candid testimony. Thank you for being here. I always appreciate your budget presentations and the overall update on how the library department is doing. You know, I don't have a lot of questions on your proposal. It was very comprehensive, mostly just want to, especially if this is the last time you're formally giving a budget presentation to the council, which I'm pretty sure you need a two thirds majority vote of the city council to retire, if I'm not mistaken. So we'll see about that. But would be remiss, yeah. Yeah, we're all putting resolutions on the agenda. But would be remiss not to take the opportunity to thank you for your extremely impactful hard work on behalf of our library. It really is incredible. I have been going there a lot lately. I use the printers quite often for work and other projects. I always admire seeing how many people, how many types of people are using the library any random time that I go in there. And that is a testament to the service that we are able to provide to our community because of the work that you and your team have done over so many years to grow this library into what it is today. And I hope that as we go forward into the future, the administration and future city councils will remain in partnership with the library department so that we can continue that kind of really bold master planning to see what our next really big strides for the library are. Having it open seven days a week, I think is top of everybody's list. And just to continue letting our public library be a model for other community libraries throughout the region. Always appreciate your advocacy for your staff. It is a great staff. It's an incredible staff. Everybody there is so friendly, so helpful. I know that really resonates with everybody who is a patron there. And I know that you and your team are always trying to advocate to make sure that our compensation that we enable for library staff is as competitive as could be. I'm not surprised to hear that it seems that a lot of people work at Medford Public Library, because it's a wonderful place to work and I know that we're always trying hard to make sure that they are also duly compensated competitively for the very, very competitive leader level work that you and everybody else on the team is doing. So I know that we'll remain in partnership to make sure that that is getting better year over year, as well as overall library services are getting better year over year as well. So just thank you so much. I really do. It sounds corny. It sounds like I'm exaggerating. But every time I go in there, I'm like, wow, this is our library. This is awesome. These people are awesome. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thanks for being here. Thanks for the presentation. I don't have a lot of specific questions. I feel like I talk to you constantly. So I feel like if I had questions, I'd probably ask them already. But just because I feel like in the day-to-day, maybe it doesn't get said often enough, I feel that the Department of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, I have constantly been in awe of just how much this department handles and bottom lines. It really is. My goal is not simply to butter up department heads in budget hearings I really do mean it, it is quite amazing to me how much your department handles and that is a testament to your incredible staff and the curation of that staff and a really high level of resourcefulness so thank you. Um, really from the bottom of my heart, it is very it's wonderful to get to see the impact that it has in our city. Um, of course, being closely involved with the zoning project, we've discussed the need for additional funding for in this associates really happy to see, um, that increase. And I think as everybody knows throughout this process, we've continued to iterate and tried to make space for more community forums, more Q and A's more outreach. And I'm really glad that we've been able to collaborate within us to find a mutually agreeable number so that we could add on to this process what the community needed to see. So thank you for helping shake that out as well. Appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: Hi, everybody. We're going to get started in just a couple minutes. We are just waiting for a couple more committee members to join the Zoom. Thank you. All right, we have reached a quorum of this committee. I know Councilor Leming is not able to attend tonight due to his military service. Hopefully Councilor Scarpelli will be able to join us. But in the meantime, we can get started. One second, please. All right, there will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, May 14th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. by Zoom only. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present. All right. Three present, two absent. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this meeting is, once again, paper 24-033, Zoning Ordinance Updates with the NS Associates team. This is the 25th Zoning Updates project meeting that we've had with NS Associates in this committee. The topic for this committee meeting, we are beginning a new part of our zoning map tonight. This will be a preliminary discussion on what we're calling the, quote unquote, other corridors part of the map. Before I hand it over to Paola for the substantive presentation that she has prepared, just want to quickly set the table with what do we mean when we're talking about some of the other corridors in the city. In no way is this intended to rank the importance or centrality of any of the corridors in the city. We certainly have a lot of them. Earlier in this process, we rezoned two very prominent large corridors in the city where there was a lot of active development pressure. That's why we moved those earlier in the queue. That being, of course, Mystic Avenue Corridor District and Salem Street Corridor District, now both ordained. At this point in the process, at the same time as working through several other proposals we are applying a lot of the same zoning principles to a batch of other smaller main drags and thoroughfares in the city to make sure that they also get a tailored approach that's right for well corridors a mix of potentially higher density residential and mixed use that is appropriate for these places where there might be increased transit access a lot of existing density existing mixed use existing ground floor commercial activation. Tonight we're going to be talking about High Street in between West Medford and Arlington, Harvard Avenue, parts of Boston Avenue, Main Street and South Medford, and the Broadway Corridor District. And I do want to make really clear up top, this is not the meeting where we're going to be reviewing a draft of Tufts Institutional Zoning. I think the plan is to begin reviewing that draft on May 28, but the zoning consultant is going to spend more time reviewing that zone and resuming and reviewing the feedback from the May 1st community forum before that draft is presented. At this meeting, we'll also begin talking about the neighborhood nodes strategy, wherein we can put kind of a really tailored amount, small amount of commercial activation or allow a small and tailored amount of commercial activation into the fabric of the residential parts of the city. With that, I know Paola is going to go into a lot more detail about all of these topics, so I'll leave it there unless any city staff or committee members have anything they'd like to say before we dive in. And seeing none, Paola, go ahead. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for the presentation, Paola. This is a great overview. It's a substantive overview. We kind of have two related separate topics that we're both seeing for the first time tonight, and we will come back to both of these. So if folks are just Digesting the presentation on or that know that more comments and questions will come up in the future. Don't worry. That's exactly the point of tonight just to introduce these topics and then revisit them in future meetings. So we were talking about this very initial draft of the other corridors throughout. the city. And then we're also talking about the neighborhood commercial hubs. And just to underline something that Paola said, we're talking about the neighborhood commercial hubs specifically occurring in the parts of the city where that are not already well served by commercial and residential being well woven together. So these would probably occur in different parts of the map, the corridors and the neighborhood commercial hubs. I have a few questions, but I will get to them after my fellow committee members. Councilor Callahan, please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much, Councilor Hellihan. I think it's a It's great to get exactly that type of first reaction out on the record at this point in the proposal. Going next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Important questions to be bringing up at this part in the process. I'll recognize Director Hunt. Please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Director Hunt. Very useful. I'll go to Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. I have some questions and comments as well. I think I'm also going to go in semi-chronological order in terms of the order that the presentation presented them in. I also just wanted to note because I think Paola, you mentioned this in your presentation and for people paying very close attention, they would have noticed this, but just for anybody who might have missed it, I just want to make it clear. We're looking at this map with the various sub-district allocations, MX1B, MX2A, MX2B, et cetera, et cetera. The specific buy right and incentive height allowances are not necessarily, MX1 doesn't necessarily, on this map, doesn't necessarily mean what MX1 meant on another map that was already ordained earlier in this process. I just wanted to flag that. We are working on a new nomenclature just so that it's more obvious that the bi-right heights and dimensionals vary district by district, but I just wanted to flag that for people when you're looking at this map, make sure that you're also looking at the legend so that you're clear on what each color means for this map. And Paola, I noticed there were just like two tiny areas on the other corridors map that we just looked at that were not any of the four main sub-districts, but they were a green color. That's UR1, is that right? Okay, great. And we have that from other maps, I just wanted to confirm that while we were looking at it. in general. So I'll just go quickly through just my general impressions for this initial draft. I really like where this is starting. I think that this is the right starting point. And I think with every other zoning proposal, we've kind of started at this level. And then we've gotten a little more fine grained and a little more granular with every meeting. I think that's what we'll do here. We were kind of just having this discussion about Main Street in terms of why are some blocks mixed and why are some blocks residential. On High Street, I noticed that there was kind of that zigzag as you go across the street between Urban Residential 2 and Mixed Use 1. My assumption is that we're kind of giving that the same treatment as we did on Salem Street, where we're putting mixed use where there's already ground floor commercial and just doing residential on the blocks where there's just residential. Is that kind of roughly the strategy that you used on this first draft?
[Kit Collins]: Great. All right. Thank you. That's really helpful. And I think that's another one of those helpful disclaimers that we probably don't say often enough is a mixed use building. It's not necessarily always going to have. It can just be a residential building. We don't say that often. Just kind of swinging through the map, I thought the proposal for the Boston Ave corridor looked like a really good start. I know there's in our conversations about the zoning proposal for West Medford Square, we kind of naturally started talking about the area outside of West Medford Square. There was a lot of interest in kind of exactly this area, kind of on the northwest side of the river. People saying, well, there's a lot of ground floor commercial there already. There's restaurants. What about those? That's not a purely residential area. So I was happy to see that. designated for MX2A in this draft. I think it makes sense. That's a really, you know, I know that's a place that people really, that people really know and love for going out to eat and getting takeout. I think that makes sense, especially given the treatment that's been proposed for Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, COB): Harvard right next to it happy to see a higher intensity use proposed for the cummings property and the whole foods Plaza what's currently go to over there, I think that makes a lot of sense. Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, COB): um. We've had a lot of discussions about a higher intensity residential for Harvard Avenue. So I think that really makes a lot of sense. Throughout this zoning process, we're talking about proposing zoning that reflects what's already on the ground and incrementally allows a little bit more residential density everywhere that it makes sense. And I think that allowing urban residential, too, around a lot of Harvard Avenue Main Street, which is my neighborhood. It does that because there's a lot of high intensity residential there. We want to want the zoning to reflect that and allow it to go just a little bit further or allow the option of going a little bit further over time. getting further towards part of South Medford. Again, I think this proposal for Main Street, I think it's pretty bold, but I think it's the right place to start in. I spend a lot of time going up and down Main Street, and it's true, there is a lot of small scale commercial scattered up and down. I think it makes sense to reflect that as we have been trying to do all across the city, where we have ground floor commercial, we should take that out of nonconformity, make it doable by right. And I don't need to restate everything that's been said about the Broadway Corridor District. I live right by there, and I think me and all my neighbors are excited for the very long, vacant buildings that are victims of being subject to two different zoning laws being able to develop and operate under just one set of rules. So swinging quickly into the neighborhood commercial nodes or hubs. I don't have a strong feeling at this time about what word that we use. I think probably people, different people bring different connotations to either of our options here but I'm glad we're being thoughtful about it. I'm hearing that most people who have a preference at this time are preferring site specific overlay, as opposed to a citywide overlay. or base districts. That's my preference as well. I would be concerned that applying base districts would make our zoning map quite complicated. Of course, zoning necessitates a certain level of complexity, but I think having these really small zones in many, many places throughout the neighborhoods would maybe be more complicated than it is helpful. But I also worry that with a citywide overlay, we might see what could be a node just get very diffuse. And I think to me, the primary function of the neighborhood commercial nodes is to get useful services into the neighborhoods where people want them and use them in the way that we see people already using them in places where they exist. But it would be great if in addition, those could be clustered. So we do have these little corners like we're beginning to have in places like the Albion Triangle. where we have a little coffee shop and there's like some really small businesses and in South Medford Square, where you do see that cluster kind of jumping up organically in defiance of current nonconformity. So that would be my preference as well. And I think that the approach that's been outlined makes a lot of sense. I think that we just need to look at where these nodes are organically occurring in the community. Um, where are they like, what are the dimensions? What are the uses we could take that as guidance? I don't think we need to be constrained by that, but I think we should absolutely, our starting point should be what's there right now. Um, and I will be very curious to hear as we go forward, what those regulations will. include in terms of how we frame the criteria, like what are the criteria for the site-specific overlays? How do you get in that category? What wouldn't fit in that category? And how we will regulate this neighborhood commercial type of use. I know in the past when we've done neighborhood uses, we've thought about floor area, we've thought about number of employees, and I think that'll be a useful thing for us to talk about in more detail as we get further into this, like exactly how we'll be saying. This is a commercial use that's really more appropriate for a corridor or a square. This is the type of small scale use that's appropriate for a residential district. And here's the specific standards that we'll use to define that. Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: I'm actually, if I may be so bold, I'm going to jump in first and then let Paola or Alicia correct me because this is also something that I struggled with. So maybe me as a person who had to put it into different words to understand it, we can convey something. My understanding is that Base districts, for example, we're looking at the zoning map just before, we're looking at what the, we're essentially looking at base district zoning for these different areas around the city. If we were to go with a base district model, we'd be saying, okay, this little area right over here, that's a district, and that's what you can do here and what size is. With the overlay, it's my understanding, and this is where I'm looking for Paola to correct me if need be. We don't put new areas and colors on the map. The existing zoning applies, whether it's corridor square, in this case, it'd be neighborhood. NR123, you are one or two. But there's a separate layer that rests on top of it and says, if you meet this criteria, then here are the zoning uses that you have access to that you can do in this zone. So it's kind of like a layer that rests on top of the existing zoning.
[Kit Collins]: I believe it has a geographic barrier. Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Awesome. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And yeah, I think that this kind of this topic of what does it just make obvious sense to allow by right and where do we want to go a little bit broader to allow a little bit more choice in what commercial could mean in this district. I know we'll talk about that more as we continue to just explore the accessory commercial units topic. But I think that we really should be thinking hard about those concentric circles. I think obviously most important, as we've discussed, is to make sure that it's easier to develop the commercial uses that people really want and some neighborhoods really need but haven't seen so far. But I do think that we should give a little bit of thought to these somewhat less obvious commercial uses that we don't that we don't see as apparent a need for, but there are really an apparent need for. And actually, since it's been brought up, I'll just say, I don't actually do a lot of advocating for my personal professional sector and city council meetings, but I think talking about maker spaces and studio spaces, allowing that by right within the fabric of our neighborhoods, I know from personal experience, but actually more importantly from constituent experiences would be very, very useful to not have that be disallowed in our zoning and so much of our zoning, especially since there is so little, studio space available in Bedford and many of our other surrounding metro communities. So I'll just put in a plug for that. And that's something that we'll certainly talk about more as we get deeper into this, that list of what uses to definitely allow by right and what of the kind of some of the more fringe uses that we might also like to allow by right in these districts as well. Any additional questions, comments from committee members or city staff on this initial draft of the corridors zoning or the neighborhood hubs or the accessionary commercial units? Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, director Hunt. I think that's a really helpful. Go to Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. Going back to Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Director Hunt. Paola, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. I appreciate this being brought up. I know elsewhere in the zoning map, we've talked a lot about shadow. We've been looking at shadow studies in the various ways that that can impact existing development. I'm glad to hear solar brought up because we absolutely goals of increasing positive development and enabling solar and especially not impeding on solar that's already been resolved are you know, all goals that we hold at the same time. We want to make sure that we're not, I don't think those have to be in conflict. And to that end, it's good that we're talking about it now. And I did notice other places on the map, just even in this initial draft, where I assumed that there was a lot of thoughtfulness about shadow kind of informing what we saw at this meeting already, specifically where the tallest bi-rite heights were allocated along Boston Ave. I noticed those were abutting the tracks. which I assumed was intentional, so that that shadow would fall on the tracks and not on residences. So I'm sure that's something that we'll look into in greater detail as we go forward with this topic. I'm happy to hear it being brought up. All right. Is there any additional questions or comments that committee members or city staff want to put on the table right now? Otherwise, we can go to public comment, and then I'll just kind of recap some of what we heard tonight and our next steps for this topic. And maybe this can be a rare and delightful under two and a half hour zoning meeting. Any other comments from committee members or city staff right now? All right, seeing none, we will go to public participation. Everybody who would like to speak can raise their hand on Zoom. I'm just going to get my timer up. Everybody will have three minutes to speak. Great. So I'll go first to Judith. Judith, name and address for the record, please. You will have three minutes. Thanks for being here. Right, I'm clicking the Ask to Unmute button.
[Kit Collins]: Um, I don't think they're on the city council's public portal yet. We just received them today. They will be up there by tomorrow.
[Kit Collins]: Um, I don't believe on the maps. that are available tonight. I think what you see is what you see. But in the future, there'll be more detail added.
[Kit Collins]: Are there any further questions or comments you wanted to put out there at this point? One more time. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Judith. Paula, did you have a direct response?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Pella. Thank you for mentioning the interactive map, which is on the city's zoning Web page already. So the presentation that we just saw tonight is not incorporated into that yet, but it will be very soon. I think that will be, uh. Probably the best thing for questions like these. Go ahead. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: All right, going next to Andrew. Name and address for the record, please. And you will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you very much for your comments. Andrew, go next to Micah. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Micah, appreciate your comments and a relatively small crowd tonight so we can give people who needed an extra minute or so. Thank you for your comments. All right, going next to Cheryl, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: All right. Thank you for your comments, Cheryl. Um, all of the documents from our ADU, uh, discussions are available on medfordma.org slash zoning, um, including all the proposals that have been referred out of city council to the community development board. Um, I think we're all totally sympathetic to the fact that sometimes folks don't have the time that they need to, um, fully review, um, the meeting materials before the very first meetings on the topic, especially when we're all seeing this for the first time. Folks are always welcome to reach out to planning development sustainability staff or city councilors to state comments or lodge their questions. In the meantime, And the neighborhood context regulations for Salem Street and other corridors are intended to get at mitigating various factors, including the impact of shadow and height where it abuts neighborhood uses. Any other public participation on the topics we discussed tonight? All right, seeing none, if you think of anything, raise your hand. Thank you, Paola, for the introduction to these two topics tonight. So I understand that we will be talking about these again on May 28th, and we'll also probably be seeing a preliminary draft of Tufts institutional zoning for the first time on that date as well. So I anticipate for our next steps with the other corridors proposal, I think we're going to take a, as associates in consultation with city staff, we'll be taking a magnifying glass to all of these corridors, really dialing down on the details and looking at a lot of the questions and comments that were raised tonight, making sure that all of our initial sub-district assignments are where they should be, where they ought to be, taking into account those questions and comments. be looking deeper at criteria for the neighborhood nodes where we want to encourage those and taking guidance from where they're occurring organically and thinking deeply about how to define neighborhood commercials that we make sure that we're encouraging the type of uses that we want to see, thinking about the uses that should be by right and how we're making sure that they're at the scale that makes sense for neighborhoods. scanning my notes to see if there's anything else. We're going to be talking to Somerville to make sure that the Broadway Corridor District zoning in particular agrees with the zoning on the other side of the line. Any other next steps that we want to flag on these topics? All right. Seeing none, thank you so much for the presentation, Paola. Thank you to my colleagues, city staff, and members of the public for weighing in on this. And we hope that you will join us at the next planning and permitting committee meeting on this topic as well.
[Kit Collins]: Second. Motion to adjourn by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Three in favor. Two absent. Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: I find them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. We had another long, substantive conversation on the draft proposals for Medford Square, West Medford Square, and the draft updates to the ADU's ordinance. We reported them out of committee, and later tonight, they will be up for a vote to refer to the Community Development Board for further discussion in public hearings. Move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for outlining the steps that this proposal will take after a vote to refer it out to the Community Development Board this evening. And just to quickly recap the steps that have been taken to get us to this point, like all proposals that have been generated in our comprehensive zoning overhaul this year, or this term, rather, Um, these proposals, the zoning proposals for West Medford Square, Medford Square, and updates to our ADU's regulations were all developed in the Planning and Permitting Committee, um, with committee members, the zoning consultant, Innes Associates, and, um, city staff members of the Planning Development and Sustainability Department. We met on this proposal three times between March and April. We had a public Q&A on the three proposals last week after they're referred out of the City Council this evening. They will then begin the public hearing process before the Community Development Board. So far in the process, the Community Development Board has been taking their time to hold as many hearings on the zoning topics as they have felt the need to, which I think is great and I'm sure they will continue to do. That is another opportunity for community members to ask questions and give comment on these proposals as they have been doing. when these proposals were in the planning and permitting committee as well. So there has been a lot of discussion of these specific proposals themselves. In committee, there will be a lot more discussion about the specifics of the proposals in CDB when they're gone into in-depth. So I won't do that yet again here. But if folks want to learn more about these proposals before the CDB public hearings, there is a lot of information on the city zoning website medfordma.org slash zoning. And I encourage all residents to continue to be involved in the planning and permitting committee process and to attend the CDP public hearings. With that, I would motion to refer the three proposals to the Community Development Board.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you president bears I think all of the important points have been stated already but I was present at this meeting. Talked about it with Chief of Staff Nazarian and Director McDermott and they emphasized that this was really just a targeted change to make sure that visitors to City Hall and City Hall employees can access the parking that they need to go to City Hall and do business and go to their jobs. not intended to be punitive and the committee did ask for a guarantee that it wouldn't just be all of a sudden tickets are being issued there's going to be a substantial you know informational period and warning period and issuing warnings before they start doing enforcement related to fines so really not intended to be punitive just want to make sure that people who need to park at city hall are able to do so and the large amount of public parking that is next to that lot is still, for the moment, public parking. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bearson. Yeah, it's a difficult topic to bring up. I thank the president for bringing it up, continuing to bring it up. Speaking for only myself as one Councilor, this is something that is obviously, I'm sure I'm not speaking only for myself when I say this is something that is extremely preoccupying to many of us right now. And we're in uncharted territory relating to how a local government can and should respond to this. But what I think is unacceptable would be to say, because this is uncharted, we have no agency to chart our own path here. That would at least be unacceptable to me. I think that the work ahead of us right now collaboratively throughout the entire government of the city of Medford is to craft a policy collaboratively so that we can all be sure that we are doing what we can to make sure that public safety in Medford is in every way directed towards public safety in Medford. And some of our very most initial conversations about this, obviously, it's a fraught topic. I really think that everybody's intentions about this are good. But I think that we have to keep in mind that a response can look like a lot of things and be more helpful than what it is right now. I think that there is a very... I think that, you know, it's kind of trite, Inaction is action, and I think that's what we have to be wary of when it comes to what we are declining to do. When it comes to our response to ICE and other federal agencies in Medford, we can't just do nothing. That's obviously insufficient. I think the resident said that very well. Right now, we have a lot of ordinary residents in the community that are taking on the work of figuring out what public safety looks like in this time when federal agents are coming into our community, barely letting even our chief of police know, certainly not letting other city leaders such as ourselves know, being in public property, being on residential streets, masked, unidentified. There's residents taking on the onus of saying, hey, Who are you? What are you doing here? Is this okay? This seems suspicious. Let's make sure the people in the neighborhood are okay. Because our local government has not taken on the onus of doing that community safety work. And I think that needs to change. I think we need to share that responsibility with the community, obviously. And we share the responsibility of, if ICE has been present in the community, using our official channels and our official power to say, what comes next now? What do people need now? Are people good? What do they need? Do they know their rights? Is there support that's needed in the wake of being visited by ICE? And it goes further than that as well. But what I think is really unacceptable is to say, Our responsibility is to do nothing and pretend that that's enough, because it obviously isn't. So I thank community members for leading the way here, and I feel resolute that, frankly, city leadership needs to follow in the footsteps of residents who are already doing the work of figuring out what community safety looks like in this time. So the conversation has to continue. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: so because i thought when there was going to be some tweaks to the boundaries and stuff i didn't expect the urban residential zoning to go in as far as it has and just to clarify and i think the map we're looking at are the ones that were presented last night at the community development board which one these are not i mean obviously it's germane to the discussion those are already at ceb that's what we're looking at tonight are the ones that are have not yet started their public hearing process with these are all of the topics in zoning process are kind of occurring in tandem um i hope that some of the folks who are interested in those maps attended last night and will attend the next cdb public hearing date on that proposal specifically what is that um so the next in person it's no the community development board meetings are all remote a lot of older people they don't have
[Kit Collins]: Well, our one minute of lapse is a good segue into me saying just first of all, thank you everybody for hanging with us tonight. This is a new part of the overall zoning timeline that we added in around January, February. This is probably the one that's gotten the worst so far, so I apologize. Here's the thing, folks have been asking, to your point, folks have been asking for lots of opportunities to participate in this process, which is exactly what we want. Thank you all for being here today in person and on Zoom, especially tonight when it's been not as smooth as it usually goes. Folks have been asking us to be in community spaces and to be hybrid. And clearly there are some spaces in the community where that works a heck of a lot better than others. And all of those spaces were not available tonight. So we apologize. We will not be having a zoning Q&A at the school in the future. And thank you for being here anyway. The recording of this meeting will be available on the zoning website as soon as possible, in addition to all of the other materials about the topics that we're talking about tonight. To the question about process, this is something that people have probably heard before or read on the website or seen in Paola's presentations if you've attended a CBP public hearing or a planning or permanent committee meeting. The overall timeline for every zoning topic is it originates in the planning and permanent committee. We talk about it for as many meetings as we need to, sometimes two, sometimes four. It is then referred to the community development board. to the regular meeting where it is immediately referred to the Community Development Board, because that is a statutorily required process for any zoning update or amendment or new zoning. It has to go through not only the City Council, but also a public hearing before the Community Development Board. And then when they are done and they have voted on it, They send it back with their recommendations to the City Council and the City Council then takes a vote on it. We vote on the proposal, we vote to adopt or not adopt the recommendation. So how does that apply to what we're talking about tonight? I'll just give an overview of the timeline so far. I know there's a lot of proposals that we've discussed over the past several months. We approved on, these are all on the website and I'll talk about that at the end. What have we approved so far? Phase one updates, which were mostly technical, Mystic Avenue Corridor District, Salem Street Corridor District. And we have a lot that are somewhere in the middle of that pipeline right now. Last night, the Community Development Board met on the Neighborhood and Urban Residential Zoning Proposal that is in the CDB that remains in the CDB. They have not referred it back to the City Council. The proposals that we're talking about tonight, those were just referred out of the Planning and Permitting Committee. They have not yet been referred to the Community Development Board, but that is where they're going next for the public hearings in the CDB. After that, they will go back to the City Council. Same for the Neighborhood and Urban Residential proposals. All of the proposals that you've seen on the timelines that we haven't yet talked about, those will start in Planning and Permanent Committee, and then go to City Council, and then go to CDB, and then go back to City Council. In addition, we're doing these Q&As as much as possible in a more informal way, sharing what we're working on and hearing from you. I say all this not to just say a lot of words but to try to remind people of the opportunities along the process for plugging in and we really do appreciate you all for being here and want people to participate in as many of those modes that are accessible to you. In addition to all of that, so for example the meeting tonight a little bit difficult for folks to participate in the way that they usually do. We will have a recording of this available on the website that people can reference. Our inboxes are always open for receiving comments, whether it's something that's in committee or in CDB or if it's something that's on its way back to the city council. I find a lot of value in the, you know, kind of synchronous back and forth for getting comments. But if that doesn't work for you, if it's like tonight, the hybrid, it's a little bit hard to get information. please contact us through whatever ways are doable for you and we do our best to get you information.
[Kit Collins]: So I think somebody else asked this earlier, which is if you're trying to do that overlay, like, okay, I see that this is proposed for this subdistrict. What are the lot size requirements for x type of building in this subdistrict? I think that would be a cross-referencing exercise because I think that would be bulky for Jimmy's map to accommodate. So in that case, I think the thing to do would be to refer to the proposed zoning, which is linked to the zoning website attached to meeting agendas. Obviously, I wish it was simpler. It's a lot to fit into the ArcGIS, but hopefully being able to reference this is a sub-district that's proposed, and over here in the dimensionals, these are the lot size, et cetera, for example, the setback requirement. For this type of lot for the sub district to at least give you an idea of what is what is ineligible here, even though it's in the sub district.
[Kit Collins]: That was something that I missed.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry. Wait. Enable. Takes me a while, too. Gotcha. There we go. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Chief. Nice to see you. I want to thank you for your efforts in putting together the annual surveillance report and for your whole team, which for one, I'm sure was a collaborative effort. As was stated, this is the first annual surveillance report that we're getting on the body-worn cameras program for a full year of usage. When we spoke last year, I think it was just about like a month of 2023 that they had been in operation for. This one is different in that we're Glad that we're really sinking our teeth in on this one. It's good to be able to see a full year's worth of reflections and data. For folks who are just tuning in for the first time, I just want to set some context. This is the annual recording that we get on body-worn cameras. through to year 2028. Ordinarily, surveillance technology undergoes a use policy and impact report process. Body-worn cameras were exempted from that through 2028. So I think this makes this an all the more valuable part of this process, because this is our opportunity to discuss and to learn and to talk about those topics, which would otherwise we'd have several conversations about and several documents about. I also just feel it's important to state that in terms of the goals of this ordinance that this report falls under, to me as one Councilor, it's more important than ever to be having these conversations, and it's more important than ever to be refocusing on the goals behind all of the reporting and all of the conversations under the CCOPS ordinance, which is to make sure that residents in Medford are informed of what surveillance is going on in our community, to make sure that they have all of the information that they need about surveillance technologies that are approved in our community, And to make sure that we are all of us as city leaders very aware of protocols and the policies to keep that information surveillance data secure. It's important all the time, as we discussed a lot over the past couple of years, lots of security risks, cybersecurity concerns to take into account when we're talking about surveillance technology. And in these times when we know that there are other jurisdictions active and present and working in Medford, I think it's all the more incumbent on us to make sure that we're getting good information out to Medford residents and being really aware of what our policies are for keeping a very, very tight lid on the surveillance technology and data that we do have. and staying really clear on those policies that make sure that we're only collecting the surveillance data that we absolutely need for local public safety goals. And I just feel that that's important to state at this time, especially just a couple days after ICE was in Medford, again, for federal agendas that may or may not be related to local public safety goals. Having said that, Like I said, this is the second annual surveillance report that we've looked at on body-worn cameras. I do just want to be transparent as we're talking about the guidelines of the report and state per the ordinance, we're supposed to receive the annual surveillance report by March 15. We got this one on April 24. Going forward, I think it's really helpful for us to get it by the first quarter so that we can have more time earlier in the year to review. So I hope that next year we can be more familiar with the cadence of reporting on a full year of body worn camera usage.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. It's very useful to be able to look through a report, very thorough. And speaking of, you know, the scope of the report, a lot of what is in there in my read is, you know, I'm more familiar with the ordinance than most because I drafted a lot of it. A lot of what is in the report is critical information, well organized, asked for. There are some areas where those statistics are not asked for by the ordinance. I think they can be valuable to be in there, but just in case that is inflating the scope of work, I just do want to clarify that mention of specific, some of the statistics that mention specific people requesting special notification forms or specific officers involved in certain reporting requirements, that's not asked for in the ordinance. So if that is inflating the scope of work, if that added to the timeline issues, that's actually not necessary. just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that. Not an issue, yeah. Thank you. And then I think that there are some other, I'm sure we'll talk a lot more about the results of the internal audit later. I think there are some other areas we're going forward would be helpful to have more detail and more of a story attached to those results of the internal, the results of the internal audits. And again, I had a couple quick I had a couple questions most relating to the results of the internal audits, but before I get further on that I just wanted to mention that again this is for folks who haven't. tuned into meetings about this particular ordinance before, so folks can know we're talking about the goals of the annual surveillance report, and this is true of any surveillance technology administered by any city, any department or agency in the city, is to provide a high level and generalized summary of the policies and usages concerning the surveillance technology, how it's been used, if the user feels it has been effective, which the chief has stated he believes that it has, the city. Um whether and how often surveillance data was shared with external persons or entities, the number of public records requests received by the city. Summary of any complaints or concerns that were received about it. The results of any audits. Whether the civil liberties and civil rights of any communities of groups in the city of being or have been disproportionately impacted by the use of the surveillance technology estimate of the with entities outside of the city relating to that data. And the report covered all of those topics, some more detailed than others. So thank you for that thoroughness. Most of my specific questions for you, Chief and to your team related to the results of the internal audit on the body worn cameras and I appreciated the clarity around, there was an audit for use, and then an audit for access. I think that's important. Thank you for breaking it down that way. And if I'm interpreting the report correctly, there was a random sampling that the internal audit drew from. I think in terms of the use audit, the biggest thing that jumped out to me was that it seemed like, in aggregate, in one in three cases, the officer did not advise all of the residents in their vicinity that they were being recorded. So that jumps out to me as the biggest red flag. That's a pretty high number to be deviating from the policy. So I'm curious if you can fill out that picture with What do you think isn't getting across what specific training is planned to make sure that we get that up to 99.9% instead of 33? Yep.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. That's helpful. And I can understand it's a lot of footage to sift through to run down every individual case of, oh, did this person not say it because somebody, three officers ahead of them did. I think that is important information for us to have because the goal of this is to have an accurate picture of how effective is that training and really what is that number of Are there residents who aren't being informed that they're being surveilled? And I know that everybody's picking this up as fast as they can, but especially in these times, it's very important. So thank you for your efforts and making sure that the officers who need a reminder are getting reminders, but this is an issue of critical importance.
[Kit Collins]: Great, well, that's good to hear. That's very good to hear. Thank you for that context. You're welcome. I noted that there were also statistics on when officers either failed to start or failed to stop the recording, whether it was You get to an incident, you forget to turn it on right at the start or you leave an incident and you forget to turn it off so maybe they're walking down the street walking to their cruiser. Could you speak a little bit more to cases like that.
[Kit Collins]: Gotcha. Yeah, I can see how that could be a blurry line sometimes of when does the episode end?
[Kit Collins]: Makes sense. Thank you. In cases where I'm curious, have cases come up where an officer forgot to stop the recording, and they didn't just get in the cruiser, they were out in the street scene, non-involved people are captured that you came across in your audit. My concern is a camera not stopping and then people being surveilled who are just, you know, walking to Duncan going on the street.
[Kit Collins]: Great. That's helpful. And the intent of my question is just, obviously, I think we're all very lasered in on wanting to make sure that there's not superfluous surveillance of people going on. So that's the intent behind the question. Glad to hear that that hasn't come up. No. Great. Great. Thank you. This might be more of a Chief Buckley question. If you could just speak a little bit more to the purchase of the additional cameras and the equipment that was made last year, was that just to outfit more officers? Was that to replenish equipment?
[Kit Collins]: Okay.
[Kit Collins]: Is it current policy that any officer out in the community will be outfitted with a camera?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sure. Great. Thank you. Is there anything more that you can share? Given that these have been in use for, I was going to say, 13 months, but more than that now, coming up on you know, getting close to two years of usage. I'm curious if there are any updates to the outfitting and training protocols, given that the department now has more experience with both using them and with training officers to use them. Have there been any changes to the training protocol as we've spent more time with these?
[Kit Collins]: Gotcha. That makes sense. I can understand that would multiply the work significantly. I think it could be interesting, maybe this would be a useful part of the narrative for next year's reporting, is not to apply that auditing scheme to to every interaction that you do audit, but just one or two to say, can we verify in this case, was it really just that they already heard somebody say it to try to identify if there are gaps there or if it can be perhaps a little bit more confidently attributed to somebody else got to it first.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. In your experience, I know that you've said a lot of this is muscle memory. It takes time to get used to using these and used to the protocols. In your experience, and I'm talking high level here, do you see officers getting more comfortable and getting more accustomed to saying the disclaimer over the course of the year? I know this report is kind of a snapshot of the full year. Do you feel that January to December officers are improving at the disclaimer?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you for your fairness.
[Kit Collins]: Understandable. And I appreciate both of your attention to this issue. And obviously, you know, my take on it, I think it's really important that we do that disclaimer every single time in addition to all of the other essentially security protocols that are baked into this policy. So appreciate your commitment to making sure that we get better and better at those as time goes on. Great. And just my last question for right now, most of my questions are around the use audit relating to the access audit. It seemed like there was much fewer issues that popped up in that one. Is there any, can you just fill in the picture a little bit for us? I know it's the only, the higher level officers that would be accessing videotape in any case, and that would be only if in the event of a specific trigger, if there's a specific reason or justification for them to be using that. for them viewing that video footage, could you speak a little bit to how that audit worked with the access audit and any findings or updates to trainings that you're planning?
[Kit Collins]: Sure. Great. Thank you. And of course, with all of these questions, it's not a line of query is not about any sort of bad faith from the force, but rather wanting to make sure that there are these really secure protocols and just giving the city council a chance to hear what are the security measures that are in place? How are they being enforced and maintained? Thank you. All right. I'll probably have more later, but I think that's it for me for now. Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Just to follow up on that, and I think this is probably implied in what you just said, but since the report that we're looking at today covers 2024 and not January through May of this year, have any federal agencies requested surveillance data that was captured in 2025 that wouldn't have been captured in this report?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. That's good to have confirmed. And not to belabor the point I know we have folks in the audience who also wanted to speak to the matter at hand but since Councilor Tseng brought it up. I appreciate the candor about this chief. You know, it's troubling. I know that we're all troubled. We all share in that. I do think that we need to honestly have more of a discussion about what a more collaborative notification system could look like in the city. I understand that there's a lot I don't know about the pressure that you're under. However, I do think that there's more to this story about which city officials should know if one gets a notification that ICE is coming to town. I don't think that the only way this could look is social media and then a mass panic. I think that there is a vested local public safety interest in having some heads up about, you know, obviously sometimes other jurisdictions come in and the goal is there's a warrant for a dangerous person and it's in the interest of public safety, that is dealt with. We've also seen raids in neighboring communities. We've seen ICE show up at schools and things that I think are counter to all of our values and goals. So I just, for me, I think that, I don't think this is the meeting to figure it out, but I do just want to put it on the record. I think that we have to have more of a conversation about this notification system and what that could look like, because I certainly don't think that I don't think that's something that any of us want, is you say, heads up, I got a heads up, and that's all that I got. And then I don't think it's, personally, I don't think any colleague of mine would say, let me create a conflagration that's only going to upset people and not be helpful. And to me, it doesn't follow that would, the action of another leader would, justify accusing you with impinging on an investigation. I think that there's a valid reason to talk more about this and
[Kit Collins]: Sure, I guess to me, it's like, what's the difference?
[Kit Collins]: The officer's safety is impacted. Yes. If they know if ISIS is here or if they don't.
[Kit Collins]: Certainly, and I think we all are very focused on that and thinking very, very deeply about that. I just think for me, given that when it sounds like when ice is notifying MPD that they're going to be in Medford that they're giving such vague information anyway. Based on that that's my interpretation of what you said and you can correct me if I'm wrong they're not giving you details you don't know details you just know we're coming to the community. It just seems to me that there might be a little bit of room for negotiation on what can other leaders know again with, I don't think anybody is trying to create panic or create a mob situation I think I mean for me personally as one Councilor. I think we're all aware of how unhelpful and dangerous that kind of consequences that's not the goal.
[Kit Collins]: Sure. This is a really complicated situation. I think that we're all trying very hard to mitigate harm and reduce harm and Yep, establish some control in a, you know, certainly a bear was poked, not by us, you know, these politics are bigger than us. Yeah, that's my conviction. And now we're all trying to deal with the fallout and I think that there are things to discuss in terms of what can we do within our jurisdiction, not to be flashy not to get on national news but just to make sure that people are safer.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I just wanted to follow up on Marie's point about timing. Per the ordinance passed in 2023, this report was due March 15, and the council's annual public reporting was due April 15, which we didn't complete because this piece was not submitted until after that deadline. So I was just going to say to give constituents more time to review the reports and the Medford Parking Department's report, if they so choose, and have those comments be reflected in our annual public reporting. Because we are already past due, I would propose I was going to make a motion to myself craft the annual public report like I did last year, because I'm very familiar with it. I would, just to inform my councillors, I think it'd be fine to have that be due for the City Council meeting on the 27th instead of the most immediate one, which is on May 13th, just to give constituents a little extra time to review the reporting and put any comments on the record before it is filed.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sorry. I could make it as a motion after a public comment, but I was just going to say I was going to offer to put together the council's annual public report and I could do that for the May 27th meeting instead of the May 13th meeting just to give residents a little extra time to digest.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair. Appreciate the additional comment and attention to detail from constituents. I was just wondering, I know there were a lot of specific questions just raised, if there's anything that she or your team could speak to in this meeting, specifically the cost for redaction from the public, is that something that you can provide a little clarity on or some of the other questions that Jean raised?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair. I think digesting some of the public comment, I think one of the themes brought up by the public on this topic is, you know, the value of reporting in getting the data to back up what we know about the good faith intent of these equipment, this equipment and people using them. And I heard Jean say earlier, it would be helpful to know how many instances of record after the fact, prohibited recordings, improper use of body-worn camera videos. If the audits or just the day-in, day-out supervision that goes on in the office, if those are observed, I think it'd be helpful for us to have a record of for the next annual surveillance report, even if the number for each of those record after the fact, prohibit recordings, improper use of body-worn camera videos, even if the number for every single one of those is zero, I still think it would be helpful to have that added as a line item on the report. You know, obviously, we have the twin goals of these improving public safety in Medford and following through on the goal of them, improving accountability trust transparency. And I think that one of the best things we can do with this structure of the seacops ordinance in general and with the reporting is if there's really good stuff to report let's report it. If there's no impropriety that's ever been absorbed in the office, you know, with this equipment and their usage, that's great. Like, let's report it, let's include it on the report. So I just wanted to flag that for next year's reporting. I think that would be useful to track and to add. Thank you. With that, since my microphone is already on, I would formally make my motion to have myself as sponsor create the annual City Council's annual public report on all of the surveillance documentation that we've received this year about 2024, and that includes Medford Parking Department as well as Medford Police Department for inclusion on the May 27th City Council agenda. And just for folks who are newer to this process, that is just the City Council's compilation of all of the use policies, impact reports, and annual surveillance reports that we have received from city departments and agencies that do have an authorized use of surveillance technology.
[Kit Collins]: the motion is just for me to make the annual public report and put it on for May 27.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paula. All right, so this is going to be our first opportunity for hearing from you this evening. So you can raise your hand using the raise hand function on Zoom. If you can't find it, you can wave your hand at me. And you can also type your comments or questions into the Q&A function. I see some folks are using that already. Thank you. And if you open the Q&A function at the bottom of the screen, you'll be able to view all the other questions and comments that other people have had. You can feel free to hit the thumbs up button to quote unquote upvote those. And that gives us good data on what are opinions or questions that are shared amongst the group. All right, great. So we are going to set a timer for all participants tonight for five minutes. That's more than we usually do. We don't want to cut you off. We really want to hear everything from everybody. This is just to make sure that we keep things moving and that everybody does get a chance to speak. So if you don't get all to all of your comments the first time around, you're welcome to just put your hand right back up. All right, great. I will go first to John. I'm going to click the unmute button for you. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: You're asking if the answer around even in the event of new Tufts institutional zoning, is it clear when those safeguards and extra layers of review process still kick in for Tufts-owned properties?
[Kit Collins]: Yes, I do. Thank you. And just to cap off that point, I'm glad you flagged that Alicia because I think that is 1 of the concerns that kind of undergirds this whole process as we know that. Zoning is the box within development can occur, but especially with a Dover eligible institution like Tufts, it is inherently complicated. There's nothing that the city can do about that. And just to put it one more way, because I know that this is a complicated concept, by way of analogy, one way that this comes up before the city council in a non zoning case is when we have an application for a special permit. If something is technically allowed and it goes through the special permit process, the city cannot be arbitrary. And when it says, okay, yes, we want, for example, this gas station, but not that gas station, because I don't like how it looks over there, but I do like how it looks over there. We're illegally bound. to interpret and enforce what's permitted in a consistent manner. And I think that's part of what we're talking about with Dover uses as well, is we're setting the bounds of the container. And then within that container, we do have to interpret and enforce what's allowed to be developed equally. We can't just be picking and choosing because that opens the city up to liability. Um, so just to try to put that a third way, because it's a really important concept, and I think it's, like, really central to this conversation. Um, all right. Let's go back to the hands raised. And another thing I just wanted to flag super quickly, um, I apologize. I will get us back to the hands raised in just a second. But just because this is a, um, a really common question that's come up, there are other zoning proposals as well. Just to make it crystal clear, the maps that, um, Paolo was showing before that say current zoning, That's the zoning that is currently on the books that will be changed in one way or another, shaped by this community feedback. It's not a current proposal. It's what's on the books and has been on the books for a long time. So that's what we're talking about changing. And I just want to make that clear because I saw a question submitted under the Q&A about it. And I know sometimes that trips folks up. All right. We'll go back to the hands raised on Zoom. We'll go to A. Bernie. I'm going to click the unmute button.
[Kit Collins]: It's not out of scope. It's not precisely what we're talking about at this stage of the process. We will do a comprehensive re-evaluation of what parking ratios make sense for which zoning districts will be something that we touch on later in the year-long comprehensive zoning process. If you have thoughts at this stage, please feel free to voice them, but that's not what we're going to be delving deeply into right now.
[Kit Collins]: No, that's great. Feel free to put comments like that on the record at this time.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. We really appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: All right, great. I will go to the next person on my screen, which is Judith.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments, Judith. Really appreciate it. And I would also add you can the city council is involved in this process as well, very intimately, along with the zoning consultant and the. and the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. You're also always welcome to email members of the Planning and Permitting Committee, which I chair. And you're also always welcome to email all members of the City Council because all of us will eventually see all of the zoning proposals that go through this process.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Judith. And one more thing before we get to the next speaker in terms of other ways to stay engaged with the process and to keep learning about the upcoming meetings. Judith is exactly right. This is only the very, very first meeting that we will have on this specific topic of zoning. We will have others in the City Council Planning and Permitting Committee. I'm sure we'll have many opportunities for public comment there, and then it will go to the Community Development Board public hearing where there's always an opportunity for public comment as well. That's a lot of opportunities that I just threw at you and you can learn about those opportunities at medfordma.org slash zoning. I'll put that in the chat. And that has information about all upcoming public zoning meetings and links for more information. So we hope that everybody will stay as engaged as they wish on this. All right, we will go next to Laurel. Please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Laurel, for the thoughtful input, as always. Really appreciate it. Going next to James, and I see people using the Q&A function. Thank you so much. Please feel free to continue. Go ahead, James.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for being here, James. Thank you for your commentary and for putting that on the record. All right. Proceeding right along, we'll go to Erica. Go ahead, Erica.
[Kit Collins]: Great. I really appreciate your comments. Sorry, and if you see me looking around my screen in between commenters, it's just because I'm trying to toggle between the timer and the chat. So I apologize if I seem distracted. I'm locked in. We will go next to Jeremy Martin. Thanks for being here. Please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much. Jeremy really appreciate it. And yes, your point is well taken that really advocacy for the institutional master plan should continue until it's effective in case. It's not on anybody's radar. The mayor, the city council did approve a draft home rule petition for an institutional master plan. And just to make sure that I'm noting down your point correctly, Jeremy, about what you were saying there at the end, it sounds like. One of the points you were making was that mitigation for local impacts should be localized at the site where the impacts are happening, not an effect over here in mitigation at the other side of campus. Is that roughly what you were trying to say?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for clarifying. That's very helpful. All right, going next to Daniel. Go ahead, Daniel.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for your comments, Daniel. All right, before we go back to you, Jeremy, I'm just going to go and I just want to read aloud some of the open questions on the Q&A. I hope that people have been reading these and uploading them as they see fit, but I just want to read some of them aloud to get them onto the record and to make sure that people know about them if they haven't been checking this function. So just to read some of these contained concepts that we've touched on before. One says, I definitely would like to know what Somerville has come up with to deal with the many issues associated with Tufts. Great. As we know, we'll be looking into that. Another comment about wanting to hear what Somerville and other cities are doing. One resident says, setbacks only matter if the city enforces them.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Alicia, Danielle, and Emily in the chat. All right, I think I'm going to go back to our additional hands on Zoom. And then at the end, I will just speak aloud any questions in the chat that haven't been already spoken to out loud. So I will go to Jeremy first, then we'll get to Judith. Go ahead, Jeremy.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Jeremy. All right, going back to Judith. Go ahead, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Judith. And yes, I think you have been a stalwart participant in a lot of our zoning conversations so far. And I think I think you're right to say that these proposals, I think it's a good point that you bring up about these proposals being, I would say, sequential, but overlapping. And it's true that the you know, the conversation about some of our mixed use districts impacts the neighborhood and urban residential impacts the other corridors. And we'll absolutely be bringing, considering how those contexts from the different districts impact the many pieces that we are considering at various different stages at the same time. And thank you for speaking to that. I was just going to review and see if there's anything else pressing in the Q&A. Do you want to go ahead first or are you going to shift us to the next part of our presentation?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. All right, I will go to Marcela. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: This this this question comes up a lot it came up last night as well when we were talking about Medford square and West Medford square in the planning and permitting committee this interplay between. mechanisms, regulations, and soft power that the city has around persistently vacant buildings and what we can do about that. It is often outside of the purview of zoning specifically. But obviously, when we're talking about development, it comes up. I thank you for raising that. And I think that is, of course, when Alicia, I see you gesturing.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Alicia. And thank you again for the questions, Marcella. All right. I'm going to, um, Keeping an eye on the time, it is 830. I did say I would read more of the Q&A questions that hadn't yet been spoken about, so I'll do that quickly, and then I will hand it back to Paola. All right, in the chat, Daniel shared three-year resident and owner here, and I can't wait to spend many more years here at Medford. I'd love to see Tufts expand, create way more dormitory and lab spaces, spaces so students can start companies and get off their feet, and way more restaurants, small businesses, and such to not only serve the community, but all people who are now commuting daily into the city via the Green Line. If they own the property, they should be able to use it how they want and the surrounding community will thrive as a result. Somerville was the new Cambridge. Medford is the new Somerville. And then a clarification. Get on. Oh, yes. Get on their feet, not get off their feet. That was a comment from Daniel. Thank you, Daniel. Another commenter for Ray Doon, I apologize if I'm not pronouncing that correctly, shares We don't want the stretch of College Ave close to the gym anymore building. It is already a traffic jam and saturated. The density is high. At what point is it too congested to stop? Elizabeth shared to Judith's point about including all of Tufts buildings. Yes, 200 Boston Ave is another example. It should be talked about in the Tufts district and also in the Boston Ave corridor. Let's see, going back to Daniel, height is not the only factor. Plenty of the buildings on Powder House Boulevard are tall but are beautiful and are surrounded by well-kept spaces that are a joy to look at and walk past. I totally agree a huge imposing building next to a two-story would be silly, so being able to quantify very specifically how far from the property line roofs can be and having green space requirements can make this a win-win. I also forgot to mention earlier, to the point of another commenter, I think we can expect to see context standards, including looking at how abutting buildings of different height, how the shade interplays there. We've been looking at those in our conversations about the zoning proposals for the squares. And I think we can expect to see those as we move forward and get more into the weeds on the Tufts Institutional Zone and Boston Ave corridor zoning as well. All right, just a couple more of these here. Jason shares, I know pre-pandemic Tufts offered various usage of facilities to abutters. I think most of those have come back, such as use of the gym, but is there a way to protect that going forward, possibly included in the zoning somehow, so that the abutters who end up with any added traffic slash hassles can take advantage of the university facilities? And Daniel posed the question, what difference would there be by including the businesses on the east side of Boston Ave versus not including these businesses in the Tufts Institutional Zone? It's a good thing for us to consider as we go forward. Great. And I encourage everybody, please continue to review these. And if you see something that you agree with, use the upvote function. Obviously, this is not a scientific study, but this data on the opinions that are out in the community is useful for us as we go forward. All right, back to you, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: And you just said it a minute ago, but I'll just emphasize, because I know that we're looking at a lot on the screen, the maps that you show that you just showed at the end of the Medford side of campus. Again, that is not a proposal that we're putting forward at this time. That's just a kind of a kind of a thought experiment of if. um that strategy that Somerville employs was continued on our side of the campus what that might look like um what we are interested in hearing from folks tonight and also after tonight as people continue to process and digest is um your responses to this kind of first look at Somerville's strategy in their institutional zone, what you like, what you don't like, your concerns, your questions, what you'd like the planning and permitting committee and zoning consultant to be thinking about as we go forward. I think that there's a I think that we're advantaged by having a strategy on the other side of the city line to look at, and we're curious to hear from you your reactions to that. So please, again, as always, feel free to raise your hand or keep using the Q&A. We will go first to Judith. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Judith, for your comments. All right, go next to John. Go ahead, John.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, John. We hope that everybody who's getting a taste of public participation at this meeting will join us at our many upcoming zoning meetings as well. They are frequently long, but there's always public comment. Great. I'm going to go back to the Q&A. I see a Jeremy making a similar point as Judith did. Height maps need to consider that Medford is on the north side of the campus and Somerville is on the south. These sun and shadow implications are inverted. crystal notes for anyone interested in the shadows throughout the year, which I don't think should dictate decisions, but it's informative. You can also take a look at www.suncalc.org. And then another comment about Somerville's density. Thank you for your comments, everybody. All right, is there anybody else who has a question?
[Kit Collins]: Yes, thank you for that. Alicia. excited to have the new GIS tool roll out. I think a lot of people will find it really useful. Thank you to Ennis for putting that together for us. And while we're waiting on that, in the meantime, the presentation slides that we've looked at tonight, pending the capacity of the city's communications department, those should be up on the city's zoning site by tomorrow. So you can at least look at the maps and slides that were shared tonight, and you can download them and zoom in. So for folks who are looking for them on the zoning page this evening and couldn't find them, you're not missing anything. They're not there yet, but they probably will be tomorrow. All right, any additional burning questions or comments from folks at this time? And I'll reiterate, our inboxes are always open to more comments or questions that folks have after meetings, in between meetings, at any time. All right, seeing none, I'm just going to do a quick recap of upcoming zoning meeting dates. So all of these will be findable on the, all of these are findable on the city's zoning website. We have a couple meetings coming up on other topics in the comprehensive zoning review, so please do check out the web page and see if there's something that you want to be involved in. We mentioned the other corridors zoning topic this evening. that other parts of, um, further flung parts of Boston Ave might be incorporated in. That will be, um, that will be before the city's, the city council's planning and permitting committee for the first time on May 14th. That'll be our preliminary meeting on that topic. Um, please feel free to join. Um, and then we expect to have the public Q&A on that zoning topic on May 29th. So please feel free to save those dates and this information is available on the city's own web page so you can reference that and all Zoom links are always available on the city's online events calendar. Anything else? Go back to Jeremy and then I'll go back to Paola and city planning staff to close us out. Go ahead, Jeremy.
[Kit Collins]: Yep, I'll just second what Alicia said. I think for folks who are interested in the area overall, May 14th is a great one to attend. That'll be kind of like broader context we're going to be talking about. That's what you said. other corridors, Boston Ave, Main Street as well, potentially the West side of High Street. It'll also be for folks who haven't attended a lot of the committee meetings. It's a great way to kind of get familiar with the vocabulary that we use when we're talking about zoning. And then we will strive to bring a first draft of the Tufts institutional zoning for May 28. We will be posting updates about the cadence of the zoning topics and the schedule. We mentioned that at the beginning of every planning and permitting, Committee meeting and we'll update that on the website as well. We want to make sure that the next time we talk about this at a public meeting, we have something that is substantial for Councilors and members of the public to respond to. So this has been great source material as we go about this process. So we take next steps. Thank you all so much for being here. and for putting your concerns, your comments, your preferences, and your questions on the record at this point. This is really helpful for us. And because this is really a special case, this institutional zone, we wanted to do this before we had Emily and Paola start drafting anything too specific. So thank you all for being here and for helping this process. Anything else to add from Alicia, Danielle, Paola or Emily. Good.
[Kit Collins]: Close it out then. All right. Thank you everybody for being with us. And like we've said before, any other comments or questions, you can always reach out via email. Thank you. Thank you all.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, it's not a question. I just wanted to say thank you for kicking off the departmental budget. Oh my gosh, two and a half hours of zoning. Thank you for kicking off our budget hearings and thank you for presenting your budget to us tonight. Really appreciate it. Thanks for your time. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I don't have a question, just a comment. It's For me, I started my term when we were still contracting out parking services to a private vendor, so I just want to thank you for taking over the helm of the still quite new department. It is very exciting to see it be brought further in-house and see it solidify there and see what the staff and you as our department head are continuing to do to help it be embedded into our city services here. It's exciting stuff. I know it's a lot to manage, probably one of our more complicated city departments. So I just want to thank you for your work and for your transparency with us.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus. Thank you so much for being here and also for all of the enthusiasm and dedication that you bring to this role every day. It really is evident in everything that you say about your job and the many, many programs that you've spearheaded in it. We're very lucky to have you. Our community is very lucky to have you. And this has been said before, but I We all appreciate how you go above and beyond to make sure that you're leveraging all of the resources at your disposal and staying very laser-focused on outcomes for veterans, which is, of course, why you're here. We're very lucky that you are. So, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: due to some key players being stuck in traffic. So apologies for the wait. We will be getting going as soon as we can, hopefully in just 10 minutes or so. Thank you for your patience. stuff that only Anna's can speak to. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, April 30, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6.15 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George V. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Five present, zero absent. The meeting is called to order. Thank you for bearing with us. Everybody, there was bad traffic on 93, hence the slightly late start. Thank you very much all for your patience. The action discussion item for this committee meeting is, as it almost always is, Paper 24-033, Zoning Ordinance Updates with the Innes Associates team. This is the 24th Zoning Updates project meeting with Innes Associates. Tonight, we will be discussing Upcoming meetings and public Q and A's. We have a few new ones to announce and promote. Updates to the draft Medford Square zoning proposal, updates to the draft West Medford Square zoning proposal, a review of other upcoming zoning topics and updates from now through the end of the year. and other updates as NS associates and city staff and councillors see fit. With that, Paola, unless you need more time to get settled, I'll pass it to you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, thank you, Paula, for that overview. I do think we should probably go through Medford Square in totality before we move on to West Medford Square, just to keep things organized, if that's okay. Great, thank you. So before we move on, if you wouldn't mind, let's go back to I suspect I'm not the only Councilor who wants to spend at least a moment comparing Medford Square Proposal 1 and Proposal 2, just so that we're all clear on the changes to the map that were made since we talked about this three weeks ago. So for folks who weren't at our meeting, three weeks ago. Welcome and if you were, thank you for being there. Or maybe it was four weeks ago at this point I'm mixing up my squares I apologize. We had a robust detailed discussion about the draft zoning map at that time was the first time we had seen a map proposal put forward for Medford square. And there were several suggestions from members of the community and from Councilors about specific sections of the map that we were curious about or wanted to see. If there was another an alternate sub district assignment that might make more sense. It was a wide ranging conversation if you want all that context I encourage folks to watch the meeting back it's linked on the zoning website on the city on the city page. So I just wanted to take another beat with this before we moved on. Thank you, Paola, for the, on the Proposal 2 image you mentioned, and there was a new section study done. Thank you for the area to the east of Clippership Drive. That was one of the things we spent a good amount of time on a month ago asking, is this an area that could be appropriate for even more height and somebody made the suggestion, not me, though I'm very sympathetic to it, that it's in a way that you can argue it's advantageous to have your maximum heights right next to a highway because there aren't abutters on the highway, there are only commuters and it also provides a visual and sound barrier from the surrounding business districts and residential districts to the highway, which can be nice because the highway is quite noisy, air pollution and whatnot. So this map reflects a switch to MX3 on those parcels to the east of Clippership Drive, whereas it used to be a mix of MX2 and MX3. I'll go to Councilor Leming. I know this was an issue of note for you at our previous meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Anything more at this time, Councilor Lemon?
[Kit Collins]: All right. Thank you very much. Check Zoom for hands from my fellow Councilors. Seeing none. Oh, I have a few comments to make before I do. There were a couple things I forgot to mention at the beginning of the meeting. One of them is for folks who are not familiar with our committee meetings. We do take public participation for each section at the end of the section. So for anybody who has a question or a comment, we will absolutely get to you. We'll just go through discussion with councilors and city staff first. And also for folks who are not on the Zoom, we put this in the chat, but if you're that we're looking at on zoom this evening and finding it hard to look at all of these materials that will be looking at tonight are listed. On the city council's public portal, so you can find that from the city website. And if you go to tonight's meeting, you'll be able to view them in higher resolution at home. Thank you. I forgot to mention that earlier. So moving back to the proposal. really appreciate the adjustments that have been made since last time. This addresses a lot of my requests and questions, speaking as one Councilor. Before we move on, I was just hoping if we could quickly get a walk through any other changes to the map that were made. I'm not seeing a ton, I just kind of want that confirmed. I know one other, I had the same request as Councilor Leming regarding the parcels that are now MX3 east of Clippership Drive. Um, I also last time had a question about the parcels south of High Street that are currently assigned MX one. Just curious if MX to a would help create. I was my concern was about the transition from MX one to MX to a, um And relatedly also had some requests and questions about if it would be appropriate to kind of upshift a lot of MX2 and MX3 from MX2a to MX2b, from MX2b to MX3. Based on my non-zoning expert look at these maps this evening, I'm not seeing a lot of changes to the colors on the map except for the now all-magenta part to the east. However, what the colors mean has been tweaked a little bit, as you said earlier, Paula. which I think gets at least some of what the discussion centered around last time saying, you know, the places where it's really appropriate to have more height so that we can enjoy things like more housing units close to this nexus of the community. more people to patronize businesses, more businesses, more ability to hide parking underneath development so that there's still parking but it's not taking up active street space. So I'm really happy to see those increases in by right height. So I was just hoping if you could speak to that rationale just quickly. I think you did mention that it's only the by right heights that have changed. There's no change to the number of incentive zoning floors that could be added. if developers achieve that. But I'm happy to see this upshifting. I think it makes sense to do it in this way. But if you wouldn't mind just kind of providing a summary of those changes before we go on, I think that'd be helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that explanation. I really appreciate it. And I'll be curious to hear if any of my fellow councillors have an opinion on if that would be valuable or if it seems right as is. Go to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for that explanation. That's interesting. And it's good to know that these are getting re-evaluated and re-tailored as we go along and get more information. I think that sounds well-tailored. I think this makes sense. One quick question. It sounds like the development, well, it seems very clear to me that the development standards are an in progress thing. We'll be hearing more about that in future meetings. Would those, the development standards that you brought forward tonight, do you anticipate those being specific to Medford Square? I assume that's going to be kind of a mix of citywide standards and standards that are tailored to different geographies.
[Kit Collins]: Any further questions, comments, concerns from Councilors at this time on the Medford Square zoning proposal? And just to recap, later in the meeting, very soon in the meeting, we will be going over West Medford Square as well. And then again, promoting the upcoming zoning meetings and Q&As after this one. Check on seeing no hands in the chambers, I'll check on Zoom. Seeing no hands from Councilors, we're gonna go to public participation. For this item, you may speak up at the podium or on Zoom. Please feel free to line up behind the microphone if you are in person or just raise your hand on Zoom. Every participant will be asked to give their name and address for the record. And I will set a timer for three minutes. All right, seeing nobody at the podium, I will go to Zoom first. Cheryl, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: All right. Thank you for your comment, Cheryl. Do we have any Director Spicey? Yes. Good idea. We'll finish public comment and then we'll respond and then move on.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We'll go to Emily and then we'll go back to public participation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Emily. And it occurs to me that it's not intuitive when you just look at the map as it is when you're reading the zoning code tip to tail, which I encourage people to do if they have the attention span and patience. But the way that the zoning is written into the zoning ordinance is by district. So I can understand how the misunderstanding would occur, and it's like mixed use two is here, mixed use two here, surely they are the same, but they're not. These standards and rules and what these terms mean is defined by district. Thank you for that clarification. I will go to President Bears and then we'll go back to public participation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that's a good point back to you, Emily.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Emily. All right, we'll go back to Zoom. Daniel, name and address for the record. You will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Go next to Alex. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for your comments. The topic of parking within the square has definitely been enthusiastically discussed during this process and I think the I think everybody's on board that we it's not tenable to see parking disappear from the square we want people to. be able to drive in and patronize our businesses and everything else. Some people need to drive. That's perfectly fine. We've discussed a mix of strategies, including kind of on the private side. I think the city is looking at parking lot development And within the scope of zoning, we've had a lot of discussions about how this zoning would allow us to retain public parking, but on the footprint of lots so rather than taking up ground space that could be activated how it could be folded into the envelope of buildings. And I will pass the mic to President Bears will probably have more to say about that.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you to all commenters. Thank you President Bears for fielding that comment. I know we've got to move on. I know we're short on time, but I did want to pick up on, is there a short refresher on why those residential parcels in the square are NR3 and not UR1?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much. Oh, Paula, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. All right. Any more comments on Medford Square from Councilors before we move on to, uh, our quick and efficient discussion of West Medford Square. I apologize to people who are here for the 7 p.m. My apologies, we got started late. Seeing none, on we go. I apologize for the pace tonight, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: I'll go to.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, we'll go through the whole agenda.
[Kit Collins]: I was just, I didn't want to, I was feeling bad for maybe stressing people out. So I rescind my apology. You rescind your apology. Nobody apologizes for everything. Zoning is complicated. We'll take the time that we need. And thank you, department heads for being here. Great. Well, apologies having been rescinded. Let's go back to the presentation for West Medford Square. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for this overview. This is exciting to see our first meeting looking closely at the West Medford Square zoning map. I think that was the one that was three weeks ago, I believe. It's been a long month. It was an exciting meeting. We had so much community feedback. As one resident, as one Councilor, I'm really excited by the vision for West Medford Square that we see in this map. I think that this will that. Incentivize enable and encourage a lot of the vibrancy and activity and business development. Um. That people already celebrate in West Medford Square and want to see more of and enable the, uh, housing units that will make that. As you went over, just the couple color changes, as I'll call them, the St. Raphael's owned lots have been combined into the same zoning subdistrict, which makes sense. And I do see it's like a really small triangle between the rail and Canal Street that's been flipped from MX2A to MX2B. That makes sense. And so, again, a lot of our conversation at the first committee meeting centered around, you know, The way that I put it, and other people put it differently, was what should the default zoning be for this square? My opinion was it should be MX2B. I think that's the site that makes sense to apply to most of the land area. So here we see those kind of minor additions of MX2B, but I see that the changes to by right heights have been adjusted for West Medford Square, as they have been for Medford Square. So just to reiterate, that's not a change, like we just talked about, it's not a change to what those mean. Citywide, it's a change to what they mean in the squares. So in Mixed Use 2A, it's now five stories by right with two incentive above if incentive zoning applies. In Mixed Use 2B, it's seven stories by right plus two incentive zoning stories above if developers seek and achieve incentive zoning. I think that makes sense. I think that having the residential only zoning in the square be your urban residential too makes a lot of sense because of the specific area and its amenities. So that's just my note of enthusiasm to start off the discussion with. Are there any initial comments and questions from Councilors on this proposal? President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that. I think that's a really important thing to emphasize, probably every time we have this conversation, we talk about, it's one thing to talk about the potential, and another to talk about what that, how that potential is bounded by reality. Obviously, that's zoning, but I appreciate that we can talk about it. It's important to have the discussion about what we want that maximum potential to be in the specific neighborhood. and then make some more tailored predictions based on the actual on-the-ground context. Thank you. And just to reiterate what Paola said in the presentation, there was a lot of commentary at our first committee meeting about the High Street corridor leading down to Arlington and the activation of the Boston Avenue corridor on the West Medford Square side of the river. So I heard that those will be topics that we'll dive deeper into at our next committee meeting. We'll be talking about other corridors. So stay tuned to everybody who advocated passionately for that. Are there any other comments or questions from councillors on this proposal or from city staff? All right, seeing none, we will go to public participation for this topic. As I said before, Everybody will say their name and address for the record. Everybody will have three minutes, I will set a timer, and we will go to the podium first once the microphone makes its way back. All right, one second. All right, go ahead, name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll go to President Paris.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for raising that. Thank you for the explanation. All right, we'll go back to Zoom. Zoe, name and address for the record, please. You will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, we're getting a yes from people who have every stream approved. Okay.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, that's correct.
[Kit Collins]: definitely.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Thank you for flagging that. And yes, preserving and incentivizing greater access to the commuter rail has been something we've been servicing throughout the discussion of West Medford Square. And it will probably be a West Medford Square specific incentive zoning stipulation as well. Great, we'll proceed with other participants. I'll go to Michael. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Hang on, Michael. We can't hear you.
[Kit Collins]: OK.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for your comments. Philosophical questions are certainly always welcome. Plenty to respond to there I'll just say I think your perspective is welcome. I think that there are a lot of ways that we've been discussing on how to preserve and achieve that attractive compelling pleasant neighborhood feel and certainly different successful village centers do that differently. I also think that we're pretty constrained here by the existing character of smaller residential type buildings surrounding the square. And I think it is incumbent upon us to work within those constraints to a certain extent. Thank you for your comments. All right, we will go to Cheryl, unless there's anybody who has not, oh, we'll go first to people who haven't spoken at all yet. Name and address for the record, please, and then we'll go back to Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: I'll pause you then we can get back to the rest of your comments. There's, I will say, I think this is, um, I think what you're speaking to their strategies that we can address through zoning, a lot of dealing with existing small businesses outside of zoning, but I'll go to a quick response to Councilor.
[Kit Collins]: Exactly. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Please do. I frequently say zoning Through zoning, we're taking the kind of long-term vision for the community, what we'd like to see happen over the next five to 35 years, and writing that blueprint in our zoning map. Some of those changes might happen faster than we think. Some of them we wish would happen much faster. I think a lot of the goals of our current zoning, we're still waiting to see them manifest, hence a lack of the vibrancy we'd like to see in the current Medford Square and the current West Medford Square. So all that to say, it's tough to know. when we will, when we will envisage that utopic West Medford Square that I think we can all see very clearly on our mind's eye, but these zoning changes, I think, in conjunction with more direct measures help us to incentivize more businesses coming in populating the squares.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, so no more 14-story hotels, but yes to nine-story Seabee Scoops. Go ahead, Bella.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. And we'll recap the
[Kit Collins]: I'll share the meeting info at the end of the meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks, Paula. All right, let's get to our last two public commentators on deck. Cheryl, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comment, Cheryl. And I will say, I think that some of the differences, actually, I know that many of the differences in allowed uses between the squares and Mystic Avenue Corridor District and Salem Street Corridor District are intentional and have been the product of discussion. I think we will continue to consider how it would make sense to differentiate the sub-district types so that they So it's more intuitive that we're not talking about all MX2A when we're talking about MX2A, for example. Thank you. All right, we will go to Marcella. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for your comments for participating in this process. Going next to Daniel name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for your comments, Daniel. Really appreciate it. similar question from me as there was before to NS Associates if possible. I believe we've talked in a previous committee meeting about the southwest side of the train tracks and they're currently characterized under the neighborhood and urban residential proposal as NR3 to the previous commenter's question about the considerations around aligning these with UR1 or MX1 as part of that step down. I want to phrase it the way I did before. Is there a short version of what we've discussed for that strip along the railway in terms of lot size leading to its designation as NR3? And I know that earlier you said we're anticipating a tool that we'll look at next week that helps us look with more granularity at why certain lots are certain sub-districts and not others, but to the point about grading it into the square.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for those responses, Paola, I really appreciate it. Sorry, too many windows open. I lost my train of thought. Makes a lot of sense. And, um, as has been spoken about the neighborhood and urban residential proposal, which is all of the kind of washed out areas on this map that are outside the boundaries of the squares themselves fall under the neighborhood and urban residential zoning proposal, which is very much still in process. We'll be back at the CBP next Wednesday, May 7th, and I know that you're looking over the version of the map that the city council and you've been working on an adjusted version as well. That's responding. That's respondent to public comment that's been received since that time. I know there has been a lot of talk specifically around. What is the default sub district that should go in the quarter mile radius outside of the T station? I'd be interested to see if it's not already, um. Proposal for an amendment to make that appropriate to consider and help with that transition. Thank you for speaking to that. We'll go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Yep. Thank you. All right, going back to Alex on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for the question. Alex, this is something we've been talking about throughout this process on each of the major proposals that we've come across before. Ennis has been doing great work in considering intersectional studies and a host of context criteria when putting these zoning proposals together. When it comes to specific traffic studies, I think we use that term, that is something, the most appropriate use of a traffic study is kind of where they currently sit in site plan review. A traffic study done now as we craft new zoning that will be implemented kind of based on the will of private developers over the next several decades would quickly become dated and unuseful. So while that is a factor and how these zoning proposals come together. What's great about our public process for when major developments do come in is there's a baked-in process for those kind of context and mitigation studies and mitigation mechanisms that are respondent not to the conditions right now in the year 2025, but these specific conditions when a development is actually getting proposed and is about to be constructed. Um, so all that to say the context is absolutely an ingredient in these and the more specific mitigation studies and plans come into effect when specific developments are proposed. Anybody else want to speak to this quickly? No. Okay. Thank you so much for the comment. All right. I see no more public participation on this item. I think, do we have one more short section in the presentation for tonight, Paola? Oh, sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that overview, Paola. And this is a topic that we have discussed in depth in committee, I think twice before now. So thank you for all of the adjustments that you've made so far. I know we've It's been great to get very solid on what is mandated by the new state law, which requires that ADUs be permissible by right in any zoning sub-district that allows single-family zoning by right, and then to spend the time that was needed on those questions of Those are protected ADUs. For the local ADUs where the city has more discretion, how do we want to answer those questions? Based on my notes from the committee's past couple of conversations, it sounded to me like there was general consensus that we were okay with a second ADU being allowed as long as it was always by special permit, which is what I heard in your presentation. It sounded like there were good reasons for keeping the special permit local ADU at a maximum of 900 square feet, just to affirm that these are intended to be accessory dwellings. I'm always trying to find the synonym for inferior, not inferior to, but smaller than. Diminutive to, the main structure. After two hours, my vocabulary starts to... Correct me if I'm wrong. I think the only two questions that are new to this discussion are, should bigger detached ADUs be allowed for historic accessory structures? And then those dimensions, which will be tailored after the residential districts are proposed. It sounded to me like the recommendation was that larger detached ADUs sometimes make sense for historic accessory structures. because you want the accessory use to fit the building envelope and the intent is to use an existing smaller structure that's not big enough to be a principal dwelling, but can work as an accessory structure. Am I paraphrasing that roughly correctly? Seeing not, great. Are there any questions, comments from councilors on the proposed updates to the ADU regulations? seeing none. I think that's a testament to the lots of discussion that we've had on this in the past. And I also, I know that the NS Associates gave not a presentation of the proposal per se, but kind of an overview and introduction to the topic of ADUs to the CDB at their last meeting, which I'm sure will be very helpful groundwork for when they consider this proposal after it is reported out of committee, hopefully tonight. And some of the graphics that were included in this presentation, I understand, were created for them. I think they're really additive. So seeing no comments from councilors, we will go to public participation. I'll go to the podium and then to Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: If you don't mind, Gaston, why don't you just say your questions now, and then we'll just pass the microphone.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Gaston.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Daniel Murdoch on Zoom. Name and address of the record. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for your comments, Daniel. All right, is there any final public participation on this item? Gaston?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the question. Thank you for the explanation. Thank you to all members of the public for the thoughtful questions and commentary. To Emily and Paola, does that give you a clear answer on the additional questions pertaining to local ADUs? Great. I think that we have, after several weeks, checked every box when it pertains to what decisions to make on the local ADU decisions within our purview then. That's exciting. Thank you to everybody for all the discussion that's gone into that. I see no more public participation. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Absolutely. Yes, looking forward to emphasizing these again. Thank you to Paola for at the beginning of the meeting, running through our upcoming meetings and public Q&As. timeline. I want to again emphasize those before we take the vote and move to adjourn. Oh thank you, I see you're pulling up the slide. We will get this updated. I think this is already updated on the zoning website. We'll make sure that's totally up to date. So we have added a number of public Q&As to our zoning meetings timeline in addition to our regularly scheduled planning and permitting committee meetings and CDB public hearings. So tomorrow, We have a public Q&A. It is not germane to this topic that we discussed tonight. It will be a focus group meeting on Zoom for Tufts institutional zoning. On Zoom only, Thursday, my first, 7 p.m. The goal of this meeting is to hear from area residents on what they would like to see for zoning changes to the Tufts University campus. This is prior to us drafting or workshopping a proposal for this area. The intent is to hear questions, concerns, suggestions, preferences from the residents in that area before we start crafting a proposal and before we go and begin negotiating an institutional zone with the university. So this is geared towards Tufts University neighbors, but it is, of course, open to everyone. And again, that's tomorrow at 7 p.m. on Zoom. All details are on the city website. excuse me, proceeding chronologically on May 7th. The neighborhood and urban residential proposal will be back at the Community Development Board for a public hearing that was referenced tonight. I encourage everybody to join. The CDB public hearings always include public comment. It's a great opportunity to learn about the proposal. and to put your opinions on the record. The following evening, May 8, we'll be having a public Q&A on what we discussed tonight, Medford Square zoning proposal, West Medford Square zoning proposal, and the proposed updates to the ADUs. regulations. We will be having that at 6.30 p.m. at the Andrews Cafetorium, I believe. Yes. Everybody's welcome. Ask questions, hear comments, hear an overview of these proposals again. And just to restate in case anybody is new to this process. Now that this well, assuming that the vote goes favorably now that this proposal will be reported out of committee, it will be referred to the city council where it will be immediately referred to the Community Development Board, all zoning amendments updates or new zoning. After being workshopped in committee, procedurally have to be referred to the CBB for a public hearing before they may be referred back to the City Council, where we will take the final vote to ordain. So this is kind of the end of the beginning for a zoning proposal. There's a lot of opportunities for public comment and learning still to come. And we hope that anybody who's interested will participate in as many of them as they like. So all of these upcoming meetings can be found at medfordma.org slash zoning. Did I miss any important dates? I don't think so. Great. Go ahead, President Burrs.
[Kit Collins]: Maybe we should make all the text smaller.
[Kit Collins]: I will work with Ennis to get that updated. Thank you for the suggestion. All right, so on the motion by Councilor Leming to report the Medford Square zoning proposal, West Medford Square zoning proposal and proposed updates to the ADU ordinance to a regular meeting of the City Council for referral to Community Development Board, seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please, and adjourn. When you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: She may have had to depart.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Oh, did you get president bears?
[Kit Collins]: No, sorry. Uh, four in favor. No, none opposed. One absent. Uh, the meeting passes. The proposals are referred and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. Uh, thank you so much to everybody for sticking with us through a long meeting. Um, thank you as always to our city staff and associates for their support.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Director Marie Cassidy is a woman in Medford who truly needs no introduction. I heard earlier this month that she was announcing her retirement. Never thought I'd see the day. It is hard to think of a person more dedicated and enthusiastic about a role in public service. I think many people in Medford, myself included, find her genuinely inspirational. person so just wanted to make sure this city council had a moment to publicly extend our gratitude to her for her years and years of tireless service on behalf of Medford families and children, and to wish her a very long and happy retirement. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I apologize I motioned a table to our next regular meeting as I did not review them.
[Kit Collins]: The regular meeting. You were special meeting April 15th.
[Kit Collins]: We referred out of committee the proposed ordinance change submitted by the parking department, and we reviewed the draft first annual surveillance reporting by the parking department, which they have resubmitted with a couple minor amendments. And so the council will review those again as part of the council paper on the topic next month.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. At the Planning and Permitting Committee on April 9th, this was our 20-something meeting with the zoning consultant. At this meeting, we were going over in greater detail a draft of the zoning proposal for West Medford Square. This wasn't the first time we'd seen this map, but it was the first time we'd spent a whole meeting concentrating on it. We had a really lively discussion between councilors, city staff, the zoning consultant. There was a lot of public comment. It was a really great meeting and we took in lots of feedback. So this proposal will come back to the committee again before it is referred to the Community Development Board. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears and thank you Laurel for being here again for folks who weren't at the committee of the whole on the CDBG block grant funding a couple weeks ago. That was on April 16, I heard from Laurel with an overview of the annual action plan the consolidated plan. the updated citizen participation plan. We also heard from all prospective funding applicants, which is something that we do every year and speaking as one Councilor, it's always a joy to hear from these direct service providers who are using this federal grant funding to do really good work in our community. It's never glamorous stuff. It's just the stuff that residents really need and very grateful to them for assisting our public sector in getting residents recreation and food and access. and things like that that everybody should have access to. So with that being said, eager to approve this, I would make the following motion to approve the city's five-year consolidated plan for HUD funding, annual action plan for CDBG program year 2025, and updated citizen participation plan with the funding amounts outlined in the consolidated plan and the annual action plan being subject to final adjustment as set forth in the draft annual action plan once HUD has notified the city of its annual allocation of CDBG funding for program year 2025.
[Kit Collins]: Paper 25-063, offered by President Bears, resolution to request mitigation of sound and light impacts of new West Medford commuter rail platform. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that Keolis and the MBTA reduce the light levels and sound levels at the newly installed platform at the West Medford commuter rail station, especially at non-peak travel times. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. Going to Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Is there any further comment from Councilors on this paper? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. You can raise your hand on Zoom or line up in the hallway by the microphone, and I will switch between the podium and on Zoom. Every participant should be prepared to say their name and address for the record, and then you'll have three minutes to express yourself. Thank you. We'll go to the podium first. So name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Yeah. Name and address, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: I appreciate your testimony for putting this on the record. I'll go back to President Thares and then back to the podium. Okay, great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. All right, we got one more hand on Zoom. Jen, name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Jennifer. I'll go back to President Bears and then Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. Go to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro and my fellow colleagues. And thank you again to the constituents who have been spending I'm sure hours and hours of your time that you really shouldn't have to not only not sleeping at night, but also advocating to kill us in the MBTA to make this very simple fix it is. Like very, very obvious that there's no reason to have such bright lights and such loud noise on when the train is not even. running and I share your total frustration that it is so hard to get such a simple thing rectified. So I'm sorry for what you're going through. Thank you for involving us. We will continue to advocate with you. It's nice when a seemingly simple problem comes our way, but it's frustrating when it's not as quick to fix as it should be. So please keep us informed. Thank you for being here. So go back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Was very refreshing. Also had the benefit of derailing me from the anti-keyless, anti-privatization rant that I was preparing in my head. Nobody needs that. Not today. Some other time. On the motion of President Bears to approve and submit to Keolis and the MBTA and the city administration, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and thank you for being here, Bob, and thank you, Brenda, on Zoom for being present to answer the council's questions. I think that the introduction to why this paper is before us kind of speaks for itself. It makes a lot of, it makes, to me, all the sense in the world that we're funding this project and we've been talking about it for many months, and I know that the team kind of preparing the project has been talking about it for a lot longer than that. Thank you again to PDS staff and Peter Cushing, and given that I'm sure that we'll talk a lot more about free cash this budget season. I think that this is an unambiguously good way to spend this pot of $5 million. It will it will relieve a lot of pressure on our FY26 or FY27 budget and budgets going forward to not have that further increase our debt service payments. We are, I think, fortunate to be able to spend free cash on this very worthy and necessary project. And I'm glad that it will have beneficial effects on our future operating budgets as well, because we all know how we continue to be hard pressed to use those dollars elsewhere in our operating budgets. So I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, and I appreciate the way that Councilor Callahan frames this discussion I think all of that is really well put I appreciate the. I think every time that we talk about free cash, it is really important and valuable to state what it is, because the term is so imperfect to what it is. And I appreciate the context that with all of these financial decisions, it is not just seven people and city staff making a decision, but rather making decisions against a backdrop of a lot of state, regional, and federal best practice. Another thing that I don't want to get lost in the sauce now that this project has gotten to the point where we're talking about it in the terms of bottom lines and loan orders is for folks who are not at the committees of the whole that started that started in December or the meetings, since then. The work that we're talking about funding is work that will allow our elementary, in the case of the current paper and and middle schools and the previous one to have functioning HVAC and roofs that do not leak so what we're talking about we're talking about $25 million, and it is a lot of money. Absolutely, if that feels like an eye popping number that makes sense because that's a really really big number in the context especially of individual lives and small businesses and individual households in the context of a city as Councilor Gallagher pointed out. It is still a big number and we're allowed to react to it as a big number but that is also what things cost. And I think that as we're talking about it as a large and intimidating number to be committing. We should also be talking about like, wow, if there's $30 million worth of updates that our schools need, then like the only thing worse than seeing $30 million go out the door is to not spend that money, because that's stuff that students really need and teachers really need. And it's going to make our schools a much better learning environment, which is the whole point of communities having schools. So I think that this is, a really good use, I think it's really good when we can use a relative fraction of our amount of free cash to open the door to a project that it would be completely insensible to fund entirely through free cash and that can open the door to a project that it then makes more sense to complete with borrowing and I'm really looking forward to developing a clearer picture of the spending and appropriation plan for the rest of our free cash in collaboration with the city administration. I think that is critical context for our budget season this year, and we'll continue to work on that. But I think that I, for myself as one councilor constituent, I'm thinking of this as a very good example of how we can use free cash to our community's best advantage. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I really appreciate the overview. from Superintendent Cushing. Thank you so much for that. It is, again, never to diminish the gravity of spending our precious shared resources, but I'm so glad that we have the opportunity to do that on hardware and software that will make our schools safer for our students and teachers. And it is great to hear that we were able to negotiate down the amount that we are paying out in these insurance claims. So thank you for that. And I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears, I have a motion to take from the table and approve 25-045 and approve for third reading 25-053.
[Kit Collins]: That's right, sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, President Bears and thank you to my colleagues for their words in response to this prompt so far and thank you so much for being here and speaking up. I, this has been said before but I don't think it should go unmentioned that in it It's not irrational, you know, in these times, depending on who you are and how you present and have a reasonable degree of thoughtfulness about how out there you put yourself and your convictions and to put your testimony on the record. So really, thank you. And I think for an advocate, such as yourself or somebody in your position, it probably goes without saying, but it shouldn't, which is that when you stand up for yourself and your own identity, you're standing up for everybody, you're standing up for everybody within marginalized identities. So thank you for doing that for the residents of Medford and for continuing to hold leaders to account for doing the same. I think We're in such a unfortunately interesting period right now where it seems to me that a lot of the conversation, the central point for a lot of conversations is like, what are you going to do about it? Which is the right question to be asking, because we all have to be doing as much as we possibly can. And it's unfortunate that the thing that we have to be doing is working to resist a government whose goals are actually to make Americans less safe and less healthy and less well, with worse futures and less safety and less happiness. That's a shame. That's a shonda. And it is thrusting in, I'm not a historian, but it feels to me like kind of an unprecedented time when we are at these various levels of government trying to negotiate what we can enforce and what we can ask of each other. And for myself, as a person with a microphone and a title, it feels very shameful and insufficient to say there is a limit that we can observe to official action. And in some ways, I think that goes without saying. Like, I found out about the ICE presence, the reported ICE presence in South Medford earlier this week, where I live, through Reddit. Because they just come in. Because they just come in. And they don't want us to know. They just come in, and they try to take people. And there's no, obviously, Obviously, there's no collaboration with local or state or regional forms of government because that's not the goal. The goal is not to collaborate. The goal is to displace people and divide communities and to make us enemies to one another, which is a completely false and inhumane pretense. All that to say, I think that like we can all envision responses that would help, that would stack on top of all what we're trying to do. For example, I think it would be really great if the Medford Police Department and other local police departments in communities all over the nation felt more loyalty to their residents than they do to an antagonistic federal government. I think it would be ideal if we didn't have to create this pseudo public service hotline For example, the Luce hotline and other ice watches would be ideal if we didn't have to create a grassroots pseudo public service mechanism. And if people could instead call the police and say, hey, there are people kidnapping my neighbors. I don't think that people in Medford feel that they can do that. And I have not received, I've not seen an indication that that is something that our public safety officials are willing to do. I think that people should be able to call 911 and say, hey, ICE is here and we don't know that they have a warrant and please come protect us. And that is what we should be asking our police to do. What we'll continue to, and this council has to continue to call on the mayor's administration and the police department under her jurisdiction to do more and to have more loyalty to our residents and our neighbors than we do to a federal government, which we know is going to antagonize communities like ours, no matter what we do. But in the meantime, I think it is also rational and needed for You know, and this is the part where I feel a little bad because I want the whole answer to be stuff within our control, but I don't think that it is I don't think I don't think that's that that's realistic. And that's, that's where I get very heartened to see people in our community who do not have official roles nonetheless. Taking creative measures to keep each other safe by joining those ice watches by. taking part in getting trained on the Luce hotline and being a part of that mechanism for keeping each other safe. And I should be clear, like other Councilors have been, I think that the limits to how aggressive our local forces have been in being vocal and assertive and just doing, you know, leaving it all on the field, doing everything we could possibly think of to combat ICE in our communities. I don't think it is in any way attributable to people not caring or being okay with what's going on. I'm not going to speculate about convictions or motives, but these people are members of our community too, and I don't think that's it. I think it's the intimidation machine. and a fear of making things worse because of retaliation. I just wanna make that clear. I don't wanna point the finger at anybody. I think that that's part of the goal of this is for us to be pointing our fingers at each other and that's not what we should be doing. We need to be welcoming each other into extremely resilient local systems of public safety. So to that, I think we need to continue to call upon the mayor's administration, including the NPD and all of our public safety infrastructure to say, let's stand up taller together and if you do that we will have your backs. And at the same time, I've seen wonderful examples in other communities of ways that these resistance methods that are getting distributed throughout the communities like If we could have, you know, a house with a megaphone and some noisemakers on every block, you know, where we train people so that there's like a house with a megaphone and noisemakers on every block. So if you know what to look for, and if you do, again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory, it's just we know this is what's going on. And what we need is a siren that goes off whenever ICE is there trying to kidnap people. And that would be great if that could be Medford police. But if it's not, it has to be the residents. And then ideally, our official public safety capacity can be a part of that too. So I'm sorry if I've gone on a little bit long. I find it very fraught and challenging, the question of As your representatives, I feel the responsibility that we should be able to fix this all on our own. And we can't, and we'll keep trying, but we have to enthusiastically collaborate with each other to resist this for as long as it takes. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a Medford City Council committee of the whole April 16 2025 this meeting will take place at 6pm in the city council chamber second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P has to drive Medford ma and via so Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Four present, three absent. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this committee of the whole is paper 25-060 Community Development Block Grant, CDBG action plan for fiscal year 2026. We are joined by manager Siegel. Thank you so much for being here and funding recipients. So the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the city's Community Development Block Grant annual action plan for community development and planning. The action plan contains the proposed use of CDBG funds for the program year, which extends from July 1st, 2025 through July 30th, 2026. CDBG is a program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that began in 1974 and fiscal year 26 will be the city of Medford's program year 51 of CDBG funding. That's exciting. I love a prime number. I'll turn it over to you, Manager Siegel, unless there are any preliminary comments from my fellow councilors. Seeing none, please take it away.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. So this is the proposed grantee ABCD and the amount of CDBG funds requested is $42,497. That's $40,000 of CDBG funding received the prior year and the recommended amount for 2025 is 35,000. Am I reading that correctly, Manager Siegel? Great, thank you. Welcome. Thank you for being here. Please state your names and addresses for the record. A business address is fine. And I think in previous years, the council has found that a two to three minute overview is perfectly sufficient.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for the overview. Are there any questions for ABCD from my fellow councillors? Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you. Any additional questions from Councilors for ABCD? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. So this is Jaina Stafford from Housing Families. I see the amount of CDBG funds requested as $22,800. Prior year funding was $20,000 and the recommended amount for program year 2025 is 19,000. Jaina, I'm going to click ask to unmute on Zoom. Just your name and business address for the record, please. And thank you for being here. All right, I think you're live.
[Kit Collins]: I think the clerk may try to work on that, but in the meantime, please feel free to go forward. Sorry.
[Kit Collins]: That's great. Thank you so much. I see Councilor Leming has a question. Sure.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Seeing no other comments from councillors, thank you so much for being here. Jayna, we really appreciate it and thank you for your work.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for being here, Pam, and I see the amount of CDBG funds requested at $29,717.50, amount received in the prior year, $27,000, and the recommended amount for program year 2025, $24,000. Where'd you go, Pam? Oh, there you are. Good evening, everybody. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to fix my camera. Okay, there we go.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for being with us, and thank you for your hard work all year round. Thank you. Are there any questions? I see Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And thank you, Pam. Seeing no other comments. Let's go along to the next proposed grantee.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Oh, you're right in front of my face. There we go. Thanks for being here, Megan. And for the Medford Public Schools, we have the amount requested, 10,000. Amount of CDBG funding received in the prior year, 9,107. And the recommended amount for program year 2025, 8,303. Please take it away. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for your vital work in our community. Are there any questions or comments for Megan from members of the council. Seeing none, thank you so much for your overview and yes I think that all Councilors can attest from what we hear from the community for, I mean, year after year. This is meeting a an ever rising demand in the community. Thank you for your work.
[Kit Collins]: Great, so Mystic Valley Elder Services, I see the amount of CBBG funding requested at $10,968. I see that you did not apply last year, perhaps you're a first-time applicant, and the recommended amount is $9,000. Welcome, name and business address for the record, please, and thank you for being here to give us an overview today.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for your work. Any questions on this programming or comments from my fellow councillors? Seeing none, thank you so much for your overview and thank you for your impactful work.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. So for the Mystic Valley YMCA and Mystic Community Market, I see amounts requested, 12,000. Amount of funding received in the prior year, 12,000. And recommended for program year 2025, 10,000. Welcome, thank you for being here. Name and business address for the record, please. And thanks for giving us an overview of what you're working on.
[Kit Collins]: So we thank you very much for your help. Great, thank you so much for that overview. And it's always striking to hear about just how many distribution channels you have through our community. And also apart from the distribution itself, I think it's so meaningful to have the kind of statistics and bird's eye view of the problem of food insecurity in our community that you are able to help us apprehend. So thank you for that. Are there any questions or comments from the council for Debbie? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for your work.
[Kit Collins]: Welcome. I see the amount requested at $94,500, amount of funding received in the prior year, $90,000, and recommended amount for program year 2025 at $75,000. Nice to see you again. Welcome back. Name and business address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much. Any questions or comments from my fellow councillors for SCM, aka door-to-door? Seeing none, thank you so much for your hard work. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Great. So for the Welcome Project, I see amounts requested. Amount of CDBG funding received the prior year, $7,000. And the recommended amount for program year 2025, $7,000. Thank you for being here. Sarah, just name and business address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for the overview. Thank you so much for your work. Any questions or comments from my fellow Councilors for the Welcome Project? Seeing none, just tacit support. Thank you so much for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thanks for being here, Terry. So for our final proposed grantee, West Medford Community Center, the amount of CDBG funds requested, $21,000. CDBG funding received the prior year, $18,000, and the recommended amount for program year 2025. 12,000. Terry, nice to see you. Name and business address for the record please.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for the overview, Terry. Thank you for your work with the WMCC and throughout our community. Any questions on this programming or comments from my fellow Councilors? Oh, thank you. I just asked if there are any questions from my fellow councillors. And I see none. Thank you so much for the overview, Terry.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Are there any further questions or comments from councillors on any of the proposed grantees that we heard from tonight or the general plan for FY 26 for CDBG while we have manager Siegel?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. That's a very helpful clarification. Okay, I'll go to Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Loewen.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Councilor Saik. Going to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Did you have a hand up counseling. Sorry, I think I turned on the wrong one.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for your comments. And yes, I want to echo the praise shared by my fellow Councilors. It is hard work, work that I do not envy having to divvy up limited funds for a whole host of organizations. We're all doing deeply critical and laudable work. And I know that you and your team do that with extreme thoughtfulness. So thank you so much for all of your work in making funding recommendations and reviewing proposed grantees and putting together the one in the five year action plans. It. This is what we don't have a lot of good vibes meetings but personally I always end the CDBG proposed grantee meetings and the action plan meetings feeling a little bit warm and fuzzy because it's great to see how funding that we as a city is going to direct service provision to our residents. And that makes me feel really proud. So I wanna thank all of the proposed grantees for sharing a little bit about your programming with the council tonight. And thank you manager Siegel for organizing and for teeing up this work. So the next step is a public hearing at the April 29th city council meeting, if I have that correct.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. So residents can find that at MedFrontofMay.org slash CDBG if I have that right. That's one of our few short URL slugs going around. So folks can check them out there for another month, I guess. I'll entertain a motion to refer this paper out of committee to regular session.
[Kit Collins]: I'll motion by Councilor Tseng to refer out of committee, seconded by Councilor Leming. Oh, and I guess we're all here now. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Before we adjourn, is there any public comment on anything that we heard tonight? You may raise your hand on zoom or come up to the podium. Seeing none, I'm shocked. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All in favor. All opposed. Motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bearson. I apologize to my colleagues for being late to the chambers. I was listening on Zoom while commuting through heavy traffic. Thank you for the discussion so far and I appreciate everybody's patience with giving this process the time that it needs to get to the voting stage. And though we disagree, I appreciate Councilor Lazzaro's thoughtful consideration of my motion in our last meeting and the conversation that's followed. I know we have a couple of ideas being floated in the past half hour or so, and one of the questions is, should we vote to reinstate the mayor on the school committee or not. I said a lot about my reasons for making the motion to remove the mayor from school committee. A week ago and I won't give that same spiel again, because all of my colleagues have heard it already and anybody else who's interested can find it online. So, just to with more brevity, explain my thinking. I think with our review of the city charter, something that has been kind of in the back of my mind as we have considered various possible changes and adjustments that we could make to our current city charter, something that I have been kind of coming back to as we go along is this question of when is it worthwhile to make changes for the sake of change? When is it worthwhile to make progress for the sake of doing things differently? When is it important to hold out for different changes? A reason that I have not been more along throughout this process is that I am wary of Medford, all of us invested in things such as a new charter that will make our community better. I am wary of us spending momentum on changes, on a new charter that I believe that a new charter should meaningfully engage with the question of power and balance because that is a fundamental thing that the city charter decides for the city and then we live with that for a long time. I was wary of the city charter process that allowed us to spend our momentum and our energy for positive progress and change in productive ways but in ways that also deferred progress that I think that we really need to see such as renegotiating that question of power and balance. I'm not saying I'm the only one with the right opinion about this I'm saying that that has been heavy on my mind throughout this process because we deserve a product that is not only good, but great. And as Councilors we sign up to have the conversations and take as long as it takes to try to get to the product that we think best does that. To that end, thinking about what is my role, I want to speak for other Councilors, what is my role as a Councilor in this process? This was not a process that was initiated by the council. This is a process that was initiated by the mayor, and it is our statutory responsibility to review the charter, make amendments, and then approve a version that will then go to the mayor and hopefully the voters. There's one way of looking at my role as a Councilor on this process, saying my role is to look at the draft city charter, make sure there's nothing glaringly problematic, and then vote it out so that the voters can decide either yes, this is worth doing or no, this is not meaningfully better than what we currently have. I think there's another way of characterizing my role as a Councilor in this process, which is to say my role is to insist on an outcome that I think is so good, so meaningful, so important, that I would personally endorse and campaign for the outcome. That is the attitude with which I have been approaching this project. to the inconvenience of many, including myself. I believe that this charter, unless it reimagines the balance of power in regard to the school committee and the city council, in regard to the other branches of government, I'm not saying it's not a good charter unless it does that. I'm saying it does not represent a meaningful change to the level of representation that residents will enjoy. And that's why That's why I made my motion last week, and that's why this has been important to me. Because as we've taken time to assimilate what we've been hearing in our inboxes and on phone calls and from the surveys and with our meetings, that has, at least to me, been what I interpret as the through line of this. People are asking for increased representativeness. We had a lot of fights about what that meant for the city council, and I think those were productive. And as everybody knows, I backed off on 5-4. 8-3, I think, is clearly what most people would like to get the chance to vote on. But what I hear is that people want better representation, full stop, and they don't just mean the city council. And I think that that has to include at least a beginning to ask the question of the balance of power between the mayor and the other two branches of government. And that is why I will not be supporting the motion to put the mayor back on the school committee.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears quickly. Um, while I was looking at the amendment proposed by Councilors Scarpelli in section nine for to change the first periodic review of the charter to within five years of the charter's approval I noticed in section nine for subsection I believe a motion was passed one week ago to amend that section so that it would reflect three appointees of the mayor, three appointees of the city council, and three appointees of the school committee, but that is still reflected as four, three, and two. And I believe that motion passed.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to flag that and make sure that it made it into the final version that we take a vote on tonight. I think that there will be things that will have a variety of contentment with the draft that we vote on tonight, but I also want to make sure that our procedure for going forward is at least reflective of the motions that we made. not about emotion, but I just want to state because of a couple of comments from a couple of different people that I've heard in this. Actually, it's a couple of comments that I've heard from elected in the past 15 minutes or so, and something that has characterized this process, not to mention a lot of other discussion topics before this Council this entire term. I think that we do a really good job of talking to each other productively when we share Our feelings and our preferences and our rationales and we make a lot of ground we have a lot of meetings we have a lot of productive conversations. When we engage with a topic and we say why we feel a certain way on that topic. This chart review process in the city council chambers, in particular, has been characterized by. some people choosing not to explain why they feel the way that they do, but rather illustratively ascribing motivations to other people. It is really frustrating that not all electeds can just rest on the laurels of their own opinions and have to time and time again resort to the political manipulation of putting words in people's mouths, speculating about what the public will perceive in other people's actions. I just think it cheapens this process. I wish we could leave it in behind. I hope that can die with this process. It is really tiring. It doesn't make any of us look good. But I hope that all electeds
[Kit Collins]: I just, I wanted to make a request that we sever the different aspects of that motion. When we take a vote. Okay.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to check my understanding of what you just paraphrased. If a method for appointing a city officer department head or member of a multi member body. The process for that if it is prescribed in the city charter or an ordinance, we just do that. And if it's not spoken to in the city charter or in any ordinance, then the process described in section two dash nine applies.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. That is my understanding.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: a draft proposal for the West Medford zoning proposal. This is the very first time we'll be looking at a preliminary proposal. It is by no means the last time we'll be looking at this proposal before it proceeds along in the process. The object of tonight is to review a presentation giving us an overview of the proposal by NS Associates that will acquaint us with the boundaries of the West Medford Square zoning district. preliminary proposals for which areas, which blocks should be which sub-districts and why the goals of this zoning and how that aligns with the overall goals of the comprehensive citywide zoning project. Folks who have been regularly attending this meetings will know this already, but the West Medford Square and also the Medford Square proposal also still in progress. These two proposals follow on the heels of kind of a more general discussion of our approach to commercial and mixed use, sorry, mixed use areas in the city. I think about a month ago, we held an initial discussion on a commercial framework for the remaining corridors and squares throughout Medford. There was a lot of public comment on that kind of bird's eye view, 30,000 foot view discussion. One comment that we did hear quite frequently, I think, in my opinion, was that people were very specifically asking for height and density in West Medford Square to support it as a more vibrant commercial square to piggyback off of its kind of unique location with the commuter rail stop. And it's true of West Medford Square as it is with the rest of this citywide zoning project that I think wherever we look as we kind of look all around the city to do these updates and these re-evaluations, our goal is to preserve what we love about these places, preserve the uniqueness of each of these space, each square, each corridor, each neighborhood. and to make sure that we're preserving what we love about those places, but not down zoning everywhere. We know that we need development, we need to support development, we need to vastly increase housing. So we're looking to do that in each square, in each corridor, in each neighborhood in a way that is tailored to each square, corridor, neighborhood. So that applies to West Medford Square as it does to each of our zoning topics. Before I hand it over to Paula I just wanted to mention because I know there are folks who are attending tonight who are maybe new to this process, because they're West Medford residents or business owners who haven't been involved in the zoning overhaul process previously just to state this in the context of the rest of the kind of the arc of the overhaul. This proposal, this draft proposal, this draft proposal process for West Medford Square has been preceded by many other topics in the Citywide Zoning Review timeline. The first package that the City Council ordained was the Mystic Avenue Corridor District that was back last fall. We then followed by ordaining a green score rubric, which updates environmental and climate resiliency related incentives and rewards for rewards for developers and major building projects. We ordained the Salem Street corridor district. Currently in process is the neighborhood and urban residential zoning topic, which is going to have its second date before the Community Development Board this month, I believe. Medford Square zoning proposal is also in progress. It's still in this committee and updates to the ADU ordinance is still in progress. It has not yet been referred out of this committee either. So this is one piece of a citywide process, and we welcome everybody's participation and involvement in as much of this project interests them. With that, Paola, if there's no initial comments from any of my fellow councilors or from city staff, I'd love to turn it over to Paola to begin her presentation about the draft West Medford Square zoning proposal. Oh, great. And I see that Councilor Scarpelli is with us as well.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being here. All right. Seeing no hands raised and the chambers are on zoom for my fellow Councilors, I'll turn it over to Paola whenever you're ready to begin the presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that overview, Paola. I really appreciate it. So again, it's the first time that we're viewing this proposal. This is just a draft. We're not going to be taking any votes tonight. This is not the last time we're going to be talking about this. This is just the very first step in this process of iteratively creating the proposal that will then be sent on to the Community Development Board and then back to the City Council. So having taken that in, first we'll do comments and questions, suggestions and preferences from councillors and city staff. When all that has been pretty well depleted, at the end of the meeting, we will go to all public comment. I see non-voting member Councilor Lazzaro has her hand up. We'll go to you first. Please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. And yeah, Paula, if you're able to speak to just a little bit, I know there's the train station is already woven into the fabric of West Medford Square, but if you could speak just maybe a little bit to how that factored into the preliminary design of the interplay of mixed use around the train station, where it is in the center of the square, and how we could see that being part of the transition into the residential areas around West Medford Square. I think Councilor Lazzaro was just looking for like a little bit of an explanation around how do you approach integrating the train station into the fabric of the square the surrounding residential area in this updated version of the zoning proposal. what I see from this original, from this preliminary map, is that it's, you know, mixed use to match with that heavy use that's already there, and then the gradient into mixed use too, and urban residential too, but if you could speak just a little bit to maybe the process there.
[Kit Collins]: I'll go back to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you Councilor will go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And yeah, I think it's generally not the first thing that I think to bring up when we're talking about these new mixed-use sub-districts, but I do think it's very relevant to the discussion, especially in a district like West Medford Square, that a type of sub-district like this and the type of development that allows by right allows the type of development that is large enough in scale and scope that it could be a partner to the city in the kind of transformational development that we've been wanting to do for a long time and the kind of transformational development that would allow us to cohere some of the neighborhood, just have it integrate better with the railway infrastructure. So to me, that is another That is another benefit of integrating this mixed use zoning, especially concentrated in the square and along the rail line. Go ahead, Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that could be a really interesting thing for us to look at and for this committee to discuss as we go forward. We've had some discussion before about tweaking the incentive zoning structure is something that we'll continue to do throughout this process. I don't think that the incentive zoning table is by any means baked and we have had some discussion about which incentives will apply citywide and which are gonna be tailored to different districts. So thank you for putting that on the record. I'm going to make a note of that. I'm sure our consultants will as well. All right. Seeing no other further hands raised from my fellow Councilors, I'll just give a Oh, I'll go back to Councilor Lazzaro. Sorry, that was a different hand. Well, the purpose of this meeting is to get our initial two cents on the record. So I'll just give my my first reaction to our first look at the zoning proposal. I think that this is a really strong place to be starting in. I feel really good about this map as the first thing that we look at in this proposal process. Like I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, I think our goal is with any zoning proposal that's a part of this process is to match existing by right heights or build upon them where it's appropriate. And this proposal does that, as was shown in the maps in the presentation. Currently, the zoning for a lot of the center of West Medford Square is already six stories by right. There's a lot of apartment one, which is three stories by right. So I think it's really appropriate for us to be looking at this map and considering next use to be kind of as a default for a lot of that commercial center, because I think what I have heard from a lot of constituents so far is they'd like to see increased development potential in West Medford Square. And given what's already allowed by right, I think that mixed use 2B allows that. Another thing that pops out to me comparing this proposed draft with the map of the current zoning for West Medford Square is that this is a really cool opportunity for us to create a more thoughtful gradient from the center of West Medford Square into the kind of surrounding neighborhood. We were looking at the current zoning map earlier, you know, we have a lot of those six story by right three story by right, and then it's surrounded by a ring of single family. That's just a really abrupt drop off. And I think that, um. We should absolutely consider and present to the public a map more like this one that has that central ring of six stories by right. Four story by right next used to a where where it makes sense where mixed used to be doesn't make sense. And then the step down employing you are too. I think that we should employ you are too pretty intensively around here because of the commuter rail stop. Something that we've been trying to prioritize throughout the zoning map is ground floor commercial. And obviously that's something that people already, you know, I would say both love and miss about West Medford Square. We love the ground floor commercial that's there and we miss the storefronts that we used to be able to patronize that have been vacant for a really long time. And I think people are really, really eager to see those storefronts get filled again and mixed use zoning. This is true citywide is like a way for us to allow that by right while also allowing the residential units by right that will support that commercial base. And that's part of the reason that I think we should be looking at mixed use to be as a default here. A point that was raised during our ongoing discussion of neighborhood and urban residential is that with the mixed use zoning, being able to add more housing units on upper floors through those increased by right heights has a benefit in that it allows us to free up a little bit more of our green space on those lots potentially. This is, in some cases, a developer decision. It allows us to not need to use so much of the footprint of a lot For adding housing units. And I think that we are so really It gives us an opportunity to think about how does increased development increased density interplay with protecting green space in West Medford square and with the residential areas surrounding it. Um, So I have some specifics in mind where I'd like to see us consider expanding mixed-use 2B, where there's currently mixed-use 2A in this initial draft. Harbord Ave is one of those. And just a question about the map itself, actually, Paola, if you don't mind. There are some lines that are solid black line, and then there's others that are dotted black line. And then there's other areas on this map that are colored in but outside of the boundary. Could you explain like what folks are looking at with the solid line dotted line and then I assume that the areas outside of the line are the currently included in the neighborhood and urban residential proposal, but could you clarify that please.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for clarifying that. That's really helpful. And I'll be very curious to hear from community members and my fellow councillors on their thoughts on the proposed extension of the West Medford Square boundary I know for myself, I'm looking at Harvard Ave and wondering if it makes sense to continue it all the way down Harvard Ave to where it, or it continues all the way down on Harvard Ave on the Northwest side, but not the Southeast side. Maybe that can be one area to consider. And I'll be curious for other suggestions. Yeah, Director Hunt, please.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, down to Boston.
[Kit Collins]: I agree. And I think that this is kind of the right time to be talking about that, because this map is in a very, very early stage. Go to President Bears. And also, I just want to clarify, because I see some hands raised on Zoom, we will get to all public participation. We'll do that following discussion by committee members. Go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. And, um It is true that in addition to these kind of more major squares and corridor discussions, we are also going to have a discussion about kind of mixed use nodes that are very intentionally in the fabric of neighborhoods that are smaller in scale ways so that there can be by right you know, amenities, neighborhood stuff, convenience stores, restaurants, et cetera, in neighborhoods outside of just the major squares to be useful to people. So that, I think this is a good time to be talking about that and we can continue to discuss if it makes sense as part of this process or if it should be part of the neighborhood nodes process. I'm gonna go to Planner Evans.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. Okay, so broadly, it sounds like we're talking about. If we have reactions to specific sub-district assignments in this early draft, and also initial thoughts on where the district boundary makes sense and where we might want to see it extended or earmarked for a future discussion as part of the mixed use neighborhood notes discussion. And I also, because I forgot to, I do think Director Hunt makes a really good point, especially now that we're you know, in earlier parts of this process, we didn't have kind of the fully realized neighborhood residential proposal to look at. Now that we do, I think it would be helpful in future discussions if we could look at those side by side, at least in one slide. I think it could help us bring up some things that we'd want to discuss. So just for now, my last two cents on the topic of where we might extend this boundary. I think I'd I'd put on the record that yeah I would see kind of extent so the. the side of Harvard Ave closer to the river. I could see that being made into a parallel line extending the district boundary all the way down to Boston Ave. And I would want to consider that, just have a discussion about that in the context of the commercial, the restaurants that are on the other side of Boston Ave. Because I think that could be relevant as well. I know there's a lot of beloved restaurants right there. And they would kind of, I think they're relevant. I think that that kind of mini commercial area is relevant. President Bears, is that a new hand raised or if it is, feel free to go ahead. Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments at this time from councilors or city staff initial reactions to this draft? Things we wanna get on the record, suggestions, questions for how this draft should evolve. Next. All right, hearing none, we can begin with public participation. Unless there's anything else that city staff want to add. So we will just give me a second to get set up with my.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for flagging that. Go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for flagging that. Oh, is that a hand? Go ahead, Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: I was also thrown off by that. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for that Councilor Leming. Any additional notes at this time by city staff or committee members? Seeing none. All right, great, well, I know there are a lot of people here to give their thoughts on this preliminary proposal, so we'll go to public participation. We will switch between podium and Zoom, though the people on Zoom vastly outnumber the people in the council chambers. Every participant will have three minutes to speak, and I'll endeavor to remember to alert people when they are coming up on 30 seconds left. So if you're in the chambers, feel free to just line up. Go first to Emily on Zoom. Please give your name and address for the record and I'll start the timer for three minutes. Just asked you to unmute.
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you and please feel free if you have more questions, feel free to say them all at the same time. We can get to your questions at the end of your three minutes. Nope, that's all. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Great question. So the two circles and just saying this for anybody who doesn't know it already, the inner one is a the quarter mile radius from the train stop and the outer circle is the half mile radius from the train stop. And I believe that everything not included in the squares proposal, everything that's not colored in would be encompassed by our neighborhood and urban PB, Lisa Smith-Miyazaki, she-her-hers, she-her-hers.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much, Paola, and thank you, Emily, for your comments. Go next to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Oh, sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, William. All right, we'll go back to Zoom. We'll go to Jennifer Yanko. I'll ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes. Go ahead, Jennifer. Oh, we can hear you now. Go ahead. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much, Jennifer, for your comments. And I just wanted to highlight, we will work on getting a version of the updated proposal superimposed on what we did for Neighborhood and Urban Residential when we were further along in the process as we superimposed the proposal on top of the current zoning and on top of, yeah, on top of the current zoning. I'm sure that we can do that for this proposal superimpose it on top of the current zoning, and also situated within the context of the neighborhood and urban residential zoning which will surround it. I think that'll be helpful for folks. In the meantime, President Bears did pop into the chat. the section of the City Council's public portal where you can see the proposals for the neighborhood and urban residential zoning. So everybody, please do check that out. And hopefully that will give everybody a good start on absorbing some more of that context. And then I think we can, I'm sure we can follow up with super superimposed imagery. Go ahead, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Paola. And just while we're talking about the other materials on neighborhood and urban residential that are available right now, there's the link in the chat that President Bears dropped. And then if anybody looks that up and fails to bookmark it and wants to see it again, if you go to medfordma.org slash zoning, those same diagrams are available there. All right, we'll go to the podium. Yes, we'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. All right, we will go next to Gaston. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Gaston. We will make sure to consider your comments. Great. Go next to Harrison on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions, Harrison. Go next to Marilyn on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. All right, I'm going to click the ask to unmute Marilyn, you should see a button appear on your side. Oh, there you go.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for your comments, Marilyn. All right, go next to Caitlin. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments, Caitlin. All right, going next to Judith. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for your comments, Judith. Really appreciate it. Um, Something that was discussed in brief when we were looking at the section studies just earlier, and we kind of spent a little more time talking about this in the context of West, sorry in the context of Medford Square actually something that we'll revisit. I'm sure both with Medford Square and West Medford Square are opportunities with the mixed use zoning for covered parking. Obviously, I hope it goes without saying, but it shouldn't that, you know, certainly in West Medford squares and elsewhere, we're conscious that we really need to prioritize land area for uses for residential for commercial, but we're not unaware of the need for parking, both for the active business area and for the commercial and for the commuter rail. And Paula and Emily from the associates team so far I've done a really great job of presenting some I think novel and very compelling ways that we could integrate parking into the fabric of some of these mixed use developments so that it doesn't. doesn't necessarily monopolize some of the area that could be put to productive use and developments, but does retain some parking in and around the square for those who will continue to need it. I see that Paula has put up one of those slides on the screen. Do you want to speak to that just briefly, just kind of an overview of what some of these mixed uses enable in terms of covered parking, just for context?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for that overview. We'll certainly, we can revisit that topic and those possibilities. I'm sure that we will in future discussions. Great, thank you. I see no further hands raised. So there are just a few emailed comments that I'm going to read into the record. This one is from Dave McKenna to Vine Street who requested this read aloud. Dave says, I am very supportive of the changes that have been made to allow more development in West Medford Square. However, I would like to make a few additional suggestions. You are too should be allowed to go to four stories. The area under consideration could be expanded one more block to the west with mixed use one, which is three stories by right, plus one story with incentive zoning. On the south side of High Street at the west end of this plan, there is already mixed use one block beyond the limit of this plan. On the north side, this is within a stone's throw from the commuter station, and I believe MX1 would be appropriate additional density while stepping down from the center of the square towards the residential neighborhood. The area under consideration could also be expanded to the east one to two blocks with MX1 to step down away from the center of the square and expand the corridor. I think the MX1 doesn't have to require ground floor commercial, it could be left optional so that based on the evolving needs of the area, it could be residential or mixed use. That was Dave's comment. There are a couple others that indicated they wanted to submit comments tonight, but they didn't specifically say they wanted their comments read into the record, so I will read them but not use names, just in case the commenter would not have preferred that. One says, Since I can't attend the committee meeting tonight, I'm submitting this. While I applaud the citywide zoning effort all around, I would like to see the proposal for West Medford go further to increase density in the proposed district and to expand the boundaries of the mixed use and urban residential district. In particular, I would like to see all of High Street from the Brooks School down to the Rotary by the river, as well as Boston Ave from High Street to the river, be some combination of mixed use and urban residential. This would be reflective of the land uses that are there now and create more opportunities to expand housing in an area that has good transit service. And the final one in my inbox. simply reads, any chance the business on Harvard Ave could change to mixed-use 2B? Currently, it's mixed-use 2A. Go ahead, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. All right, well, we've gotten a lot of reactions and suggestions on the record this evening. I think that's great. I feel like there's a general coherent interest in continuing the conversation around where these boundaries make sense and where we'd like to see them extended. And we've gotten a lot of suggestions for where certain sub districts could be tweaked to go from 2A to 2B, from 2B to 3. And a lot of interest in the next time we look at this, considering it side by side with the context of the residential areas surrounding which will also help us continue the discussion of where this district boundary should end and where we should be making that shift from mixed use to residential and how dense that residential should be. So this is great. I'm excited. Thank you all so much for a very substantive discussion. Lots for NS associates and city staff and myself to take back and make sure it is considered and incorporated into the next version of this proposal. So since I don't see any additional hands raised from members of the public or committee members, I'll just give a quick overview of next steps. We will meet in committee about this proposal again. I think, Polly, you may have said in your presentation like a draft next date for this proposal, but if you did, I missed it. We have a number of proposals that are all currently in progress. Sorry, did you have a date for that? I want to say it if you did, but it's okay if you don't.
[Kit Collins]: No, that's okay. I'm sorry.
[Kit Collins]: great. Thank you so much. So we will be discussing this proposal at our next planning and permitting committee, and it sounds like probably alongside the Medford Square proposal as well. Those will be April 30. All of these dates will be updated on the city's zoning website. And so we'll have another chance for committee members and members of the public and city staff to discuss them in this public meeting before the committee will potentially take a vote to refer it to the Community Development Board, where we'll have public hearings. So please save the date, April 30, if you want to be at the next Planning and Permitting Committee meeting about this topic. Myself with President Bears, Director Hunt, and NS Associates are also working to schedule our next several public Q&As about this topic and many others, as you can see on this timeline in green. We are working out locations for those, so as soon as we have all of the details firmed up, we'll be sure to be publicizing those. Are there any additional questions or comments before we close out for the evening? Seeing none, thank you all so much for your questions and suggestions, and thank you so much, Paola, for the presentation. Is there a motion? hear a motion to adjourn from Councilor Leming. Is there a second?
[Kit Collins]: Seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the whole April 8 2025. This meeting will take place at 5.30pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall, 85 George B has to drive Medford ma and via zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Kit Collins]: Present. That is five present, two running late. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion items for this evening is resolution 25048 offered by myself, a resolution to meet on parking department surveillance report, the Green Line Extension parking zone, and parking ordinance updates. So we're going to go in, I think, that order, and we'll see how much we can get through tonight, hopefully all of it. And if not, we'll schedule a follow-up committee of the whole expeditiously to get to whatever we don't get to tonight. Sure, Councilor Scarpellile.
[Kit Collins]: Wait, I apologize. What was the request?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you. I think I'm I apologize that it wasn't listed on the action discussion items I think the intent was that we could ask those of the parking director while he's here for the GLX update.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. So we'll go in that order. First to the review of the parking department surveillance impact reports and use policy. So as a quick overview, these are parts of reporting requirements that are mandated. under the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance, which was ordained in 2023. All city departments that use surveillance technology must complete certain reporting requirements, they must have an impact report for the surveillance technology that they use, they must have a use policy, for the surveillance technology that they use, and this must be annually reviewed and approved by the City Council. There's also an annual report submitted by the city agency that's using the surveillance technology. and an annual report that is compiled by the city council that kind of compiles all of this information into one publicly accessible report. So this is the first time that we're having the parking department before us. They have one surveillance technology in use, I believe. And thank you for being here to present and thank you for the timely application of the impact report and use policy. Councilors had this in their packets to review before this meeting. So I'd like to invite up parking director MacDermott, to give a brief overview of anything that you'd like to say, Jermaine, to the use policy, the impact report, the technology that we're talking about are the automatic license plate readers. And if you could give an overview, you know, just you don't have to read word for word from the report, but just an overview of what these are, how they pertain to like what the surveillance element is, why the parking department uses them. That would be helpful to kick off the discussion. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you very much. Are there any initial questions from councilors? Seeing none, would you mind also giving an overview of the impact report that you supplied to the council? Just the headlines.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you and I appreciate that. I think that this is kind of the the intent of the city working together to put these kind of safeguards around surveillance technology so that we can make sure that there's a structure for exactly that kind of checking and rigor which is to say any access to surveillance data or surveillance technology that does not have to exist, should not exist, because it makes us all a little less safe and less cyber secure in the city. So appreciate that. I'll keep an eye out for questions from my, oh, I see one question from Councilor Callahan. Go again, Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Great, thank you for that answer I appreciate that and great to know that this has already been at least raised to sense energy techno. I know for myself and this brings up a question that I was going to kind of the question around the longevity of this data both locally and with G techna and sense and. I think it would be useful in the use policy to have some language that specifies like a concrete sunlighting date for the data, whether it is stored locally, and some clarity around the municipal records retention schedules. I know that those are citywide, but I think that people are generally familiar with what that actually dictates. I think it would be a helpful amendment to the use policy to see that specified how long this data is being stored. I can understand that it needs to be stored for some amount of time in case somebody wants to make an appeal, which they should be able to do, of course. But I think it'd be helpful to have some concrete language about for how long is it remaining.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And according, and kind of going along with that, sorry, looking back at my notes here, I think that it would also, it sounds like the information that we've received from CENCEN and GTECNA so far is that there's no indication that they have any agreements with other entities to use the data that is transferred back to them in any kind of way, which is great to hear. That's what I'd like to assume. I think it would be helpful to have that, some language around that and like, even if it's an annual confirmation of that in our contract with them written into the use policy. I think that is in a lot of cases with surveillance data and surveillance technology, you know, it's kind of the concentric circles of it all. It's not just, is it secure here? Is it secure with the people who have access to it? Is it secure with the people who created the software that allows us to get this data in the first place? So if that could be kind of a related amendment in the use policy, just that we're confirming with the people who enable the surveillance technology that it is also, not being transferred, not being sold, not being shared, and like a very specific sunlight date on their end as well. I think that would be very valuable. Okay, great. Thank you. Seeing no other further questions from councillors at this time. I just had one other. Let me pull up the section of the, this is on the, still on the use policy. For number six, you mentioned, and you spoke to this at this time, the parking department is not seeking to share access of the technology or the data with any other agency, department, bureau, division, or unit. That's great. That makes sense. I think it would be helpful just to shore up that language to make it a declaration of this is something that will not happen. Not only are we not intending for it to happen right now, this is something that we are not allowing within the parameters of this technology's use, would be a helpful amendment.
[Kit Collins]: Any other questions, comments, concerns, compliments from other councilors on the parking department's impact report or use policy? Seeing none. So we just caught along to few hopefully quick amendments to the records retention, some confirmations there and a quick amendment to the use policy section six to state affirmatively, you know, the switch from no intent to share access to will not share access. If that can be updated and then submitted back to the council next week to be included in our annual surveillance reporting, that would be great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Is there any public comment on this item before we proceed to the next item on our agenda? Great, come on up. Thank you, Director.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks, Barry. Is there any additional public comment on this item?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you. Feel free to approach the podium.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that context. Great, thank you all. Seeing no additional public comment on this item. Thank you, councillors, Nina, Sarah, members of the committee for the review of these documents. Thank you for, again, for your thoroughness and timeliness with this very first submission. Appreciate it, especially you being, well, not really that new to the department, but appreciate it anyway. All right, moving right along. Our second topic is updates about the Green Line Extension parking program and other related questions about the parking program. So I know you've prepared an overview. Please feel free to give us an overview of the GLX program, how it's been going so far, whatever you think is germane to the topic, and then we can entertain questions from Councilors.
[Kit Collins]: long term. Thank you. And just super briefly, we don't have a lot of attendees and chambers are on Zoom this evening, but just in case there are folks watching online who are kind of new to this issue, could you just in like a snapshot explain the goals of the G-Zone parking program and just in general the geographic area that it sits over?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. And as a G-Zone resident, that matches my experience as well. Councilor Scarpelli, we'll go to you for questions.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Director I agree I think that I think will be worthwhile I there is some great information about the green line zone on the city website, it's been up there for a while and I think the Councilors point to sound that it people like things to be really at their fingertips, and it has been a while since the G zone was piloted, since it was codified as permanent. I think that, you know, more information is always better to make sure that it reaches people here in this, you know, rather fragmented information environment that we have here in Medford. And I will say for myself, again, as a resident of the G zone, I really like it. I think it's a huge improvement. You know, it's not my job to proselytize for the zoned parking, but I find myself wanting to just because living in that neighborhood. I think it's a vast improvement and I think it would be helpful for there to be more readily available information about what are the reasons why this was instituted in the first place to help people understand the pros in addition to the changes or some of their perceived cons as we continue to get used to it.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. Is there any other questions or comments from Councilors on the G-Zone or other related parking enforcement? Seeing none, and none on Zoom, is there any public comment or questions about this topic? Seeing none, thank you so much. Really appreciate the overview. And thank you for your work in the parking department, an undersung but important department in our city.
[Kit Collins]: All right, on to our last topic for the evening. We are making good time. This bodes well for the rest of our evening, knock on wood. The third topic is the proposed ordinance change. Let me, sorry, I X'd out of my agenda, but I think had the information about that. Yes, so this is a proposed amendment from the city administration regarding Chapter 78 Article 3 Division 2 Subsection 1 Section 78-173 pertaining to municipal employee and business parking in back of City Hall. Would you like to give an overview of the what and the why of this proposed amendment?
[Kit Collins]: If I'm reading this correctly, this would be to repeal the use of one of these lots as the overflow lot.
[Kit Collins]: OK, thank you. And sorry, just to double confirm, the lot that's being repealed for visitor use.
[Kit Collins]: It's just the area immediately around City Hall in back is just for City Hall employees.
[Kit Collins]: And then visitors can park like the next lot over.
[Kit Collins]: Got it.
[Kit Collins]: I really need a diagram in front of me at all times. Great, thank you. So that would be repealing the visitor parking during business hours provision, so it remains as only an overflow lot for municipal employees. Correct. Great. Any questions or comments from my fellow councillors on this proposed change? Oh, thank you. Sorry, my computer screen is not big enough. Go ahead, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, can you hear me?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that overview. I think this is reasonable. I think we certainly have a lot of parking in the square very close to City Hall that people can also take advantage of I hope that decreases all over time, and as our transit system improves and you don't need to have quite so much parking surrounding City Hall but given that we now do I don't think that this is. a bad change to make. I would request, I'm sure that this is, I'm absolutely positive this is a policy you've discussed already. I think it would be great to see a 30 day warning period before tickets are given out, just so that people can adjust their habits. I'm seeing nods, so I see this as something you were already thinking about.
[Kit Collins]: That's great. Thank you. Sounds like the ducks are in a row on this. Are there any additional questions or comments from Councilors on this proposed change? Seeing none. Thank you so much for the overview. So let me just get organized here with the motions to come out of this meeting. I think that we will need a few emotion to receive and place on file, the impact report and use policy for the parking department, and that's of course this doesn't need to be in motion but that's what the expectation that the updated version will be coming this week ahead of the annual reporting deadline. A second motion to. request more communication from the parking department and the city administration about the G zone parking program to distribute to residents. Is there anything you wanted to add to that Councilor Scarpelli? I think my colleagues like to second that. Great, thank you so much. And then I think we could use a third motion to approve, to report out of committee. Thank you. That's the motion to let's finish the sentence report out of committee. The proposed repeal of chapter 73, article three, division two, subsection one, section 78, one 73. We'll let the clerk catch up and copy and paste from the agenda. Okay, I will restate to you in just a sec. Okay, so these three motions are all by Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by Councilor Tseng. They are to receive and place on file the parking department's impact report and use policy for ALPRs, to request more information and communications on the G-Zone parking program from the parking director and city administration, and to report out of committee the repeal of the ordinance. and I can send you this text if that's helpful, Mr. Clerk. Great, will do. All right, on the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. So seven here, seven in favor zero opposed motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We'll go to President Bears and then we'll circle back to our final two motions.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. Seeing no further comments or hands on zoom. So we have a couple other motions to vote through. So the second one is the request for more info and communications on G zone parking program from the parking director and city administration, Mr. Clark whenever you're ready please call the role.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Seven in favor, zero opposed. The motion passes. And on the final motion to report out of committee, the ordinance repeal that we just discussed. Whenever you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, seven in favor, none opposed. The motion passes. Thank you so much for, yep, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: I think that's probably fair. I don't want to speak for other Councilors. I doubt that I will have further questions on the topic. If I do, I'll try to email them ahead of time and encourage other Councilors to do so. So that's the best I got. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all. Great. Thank you so much for your presence with us for this multi-topic committee of the whole. Really appreciate your time and all your hard work. Is there a motion to adjourn? On the motion by Councilor Tseng to adjourn, seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. The planning and permitting committee on March 26th met to discuss two additional topics that are part of our comprehensive citywide zoning overhaul. The topics discussed at this meeting was the first topic meeting for the Medford Square zoning proposal And I believe our second look at updates to the ADU's ordinance, we will meet on both of these topics again before they are reported out of committee and referred to the Community Development Board for public hearings. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I wanted to thank you again for coming before us to again, describe this project. For folks who weren't at the previous presentations that the city council received on this, just to quickly paraphrase the overview that you gave, my understanding is this is to support the urgent and necessary HVAC repairs and roof repairs so that when kids go back to school in the fall, they'll have functioning air conditioning. and non-leaky roofs to enjoy at the start of the new school year. Very glad that we can support that. I'm so glad to hear. Obviously, taking on a major capital expense is not something that any of us take lightly, but I'm glad that this project is one whose scale enables us to do those ADA upgrades that I know people in the community have been asking for a long time. Thank you for your diligence around that as well. I appreciate all of the documentation for continuing to keep the council abreast of this and I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I just want to share my gratitude for this Councilors for the sponsors for shepherding through this draft which strongly and boldly defines protections for seekers of gender affirming and reproductive health care in Medford. This draft has gone through a careful legal review, and its sponsors, Councilors Sang and Lazzaro, made sure it was in alignment with other communities and with state law. And I want to highlight that this is protective of the whole city because it guarantees that if the federal government decides to pick a fight over cities allowing unfettered access to health care, then we won't be fighting that battle alone. We'll be going in as part of a regional and statewide cavalry. We are in a moment where the federal government is attacking women's access to health care and trans and non-binary people's access to health care in a deliberate attempt to punish political enemies and create a distraction from this administration's catastrophic economic agenda. They're making a goal of actively making Americans' lives worse. And I'm very grateful for this leadership to do what we can on the city level to say that won't happen here. So I want to extend my gratitude to the sponsors and also to the residents who held this council to account for making this ordinance happen.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to thank yourself and Councilor Lazzaro for putting this together for this meeting's agenda. I just think this is a moment in which it's really, really important for city leaders and leaders at all levels to be vocal. We're in a really scary era where the federal government is using all sorts of strategies to try and actively make people more scared, more vulnerable, more unsafe. The goal of detentions like Ramesa's is to intimidate activists into hiding, to intimidate organizers into silence, to make non-citizens feel endangered, to make everyone afraid to speak up. And I would hate to see the city of Medford perpetuate that because it's not going to help us withstand this very insidious culture. So I'm very grateful to your leadership and putting this language forward. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I do wanna take this opportunity just to read into the record some of the basic rights and resources that I think we need to be making every effort to communicate and distribute via city communication channels. They include, you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to not answer questions, including questions about your immigration status. You have the right to call your attorney. You have the right to see your warrant. I must have a warrant signed by a judge to arrest or detain you. You have the right to not sign any documents, even if ICE instructs you to. If ICE comes to your home, you have the right to not open the door. If ICE claims to have a warrant, you have the right to ask them to slide it under the door. If ICE agents do not have a warrant signed by a judge, they cannot enter a home without permission from an adult. If ICE comes to your business, you have the right to not answer questions about specific employees. You have the right to not introduce ICE agents to employees that they request to see. If ICE comes to your business, you have the right to not allow them into private areas of your business. If ICE agents do not have a warrant signed by a judge, they cannot enter private areas of your business without your permission. So I think the least that we can do as a city, and we should go further than this, but the least we can do is make sure that all of our residents and business owners and community members unambiguously know their rights in this scary and uncertain time. I've had a number of residents reach out to me stating, I actually don't know what a person's rights are. Maybe I know what I can do if ICE comes to my home or to my business, but what if they just approached me on the street, like Ramesa was approached on the street? We have the resources to, I mean, this information exists everywhere. There are tons of nonprofits that are doing really good work at sharing this information. It would be an extremely light lift for the city to put together really basic immigration, know your rights documents. We could work with our community liaisons team and other resources that the city already has to make sure this is translated to every language that is spoken in the city of Medford. and then use all of our official and informal communication channels in the community to try and make sure that everybody is empowered with this information. It's not all that we should do, but we have to start there. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And I want to start by thanking everybody who's worked so hard in this process. Genuinely, thank you so much for your hard work volunteering on behalf of this community. This has been an interesting process, and it's been characterized by hard work by many volunteers to bring this forward. The CSC's process was long and as expansive as it could be, given the resources they were allocated for a project of this size, scope, and importance. The council's process, I think, has been good faith, but fast. Back in 2024, the council requested to begin the charter review process earlier, earlier than 2025. The mayor's office did not indicate that this was something they could. compromise on. Um so in the past few short months, we've tried to do as thorough and thoughtful of of a review as this project deserves. Um I don't think that that's quite a long enough time for something as important as this but we've done our best. Uh this is after all as we're all very well aware the city's guiding foundational legal document and I have maintained that it would be inappropriate and irresponsible for the council to consider its role as a rubber stamp on this document, no matter how eager we all are to complete this project and get it to the next phase of its journey. The past few months of public meetings on the charter have been, in my estimation, largely consumed by one issue, which is council makeup. We've had a lot of conversations about council makeup, wards or districts. And as everybody knows, I preferred the district model. Four district Councilors plus three at-large was the original proposal. And then it was compromised to four district Councilors plus five at-large to allow for a bigger council, more total representatives. I was pretty dug in, but I've been thinking about it. And that is not the hill that I'm going to die on. Because in my thinking about this over the past several weeks, if that central kernel is representativeness, whether the council is 5-4 or 8-3 doesn't really get at the heart of the issue. I think the most important thing that we could have done or could do for meaningful representativeness, which is a spectrum, is reevaluate our strong mayor system of government. Because a more representative city council only goes so far when the mayor, most of the time, holds all of the cards. An alternative to a strong mayor system was never given terribly serious consideration in this process. I'm not, I do not mean to criticize the Charter Study Committee for this. It was a volunteer process with volunteer resources and they made incredible strides given the resources and the time that they were given. But this process did not interrogate our current strong mayor system, notwithstanding what I perceive to be genuine community interest in considering other alternatives, including recent specific efforts to renegotiate the balance of power between the city council and the mayor relative to the budgeting process. This was brought up in our previous fiscal year. And it shows up in lots of different ways. Something that I really, I think it's important to surface is that On balance, the types of requests that I get from residents most often is essentially asking the city council to do something or fund something. And the answer is almost always, we can't. That's the mayor's purview. All of our major functions, ordinances, zoning, budget review are constrained by the much, much greater jurisdiction of the mayor. And I think that when residents say they want representativeness, they want representative not just for talk, and for exposure, but for action. That's meaningful representation. What I mean to say, and I'm sorry, it's taken me a bit of a walk to get here, but this is important, and I really wanna make myself clear, is that this process has clarified for me that I believe the interest of the community is for a more genuinely representative system of governance where the executive office has less power, not no power, less power, and is more meaningfully checked by the school committee and the city council. In addition to people enjoying more local representation on the school committee and on the city council. So, on top of that, the mayor's most recent draft which gave us a week to consider amendments. Many of those amendments further expanded mayoral power relative to the power of the Council and some of them were totally benign, but there are a number that I found very problematic and. Frankly, I think that's the opposite of the direction that we should be going in. I'm not saying we should scrap this and build a strong council or city manager draft charter, though we could do that with an elected charter commission. I don't think that we should. We could. That's not what I'm advancing. But I, as one councilor, I'm going to need to see some additional amendments that at least start to move this issue of power balance in the right direction. and start to engage with that topic of the balance of power between mayor, council, school committee. I will support the amendments to protect and preserve the city council's right to make appointments to commissions unless otherwise specified. I support the proposed amendment to remove the mayor's residency requirement for ward Councilors, which as the councilor stated, places a burden on ward Councilors greater than other electeds. I would also like to make a motion to amend section 9-4B to amend the number of appointees allocated to future charter study committees by the mayor, city council, and school committee. To change that language to this review shall be made by a special committee to be composed of three appointees of the mayor, three appointees of the city council, and three appointees of the school committee. That's changing four mayor, three city council, two school committee, to three mayor, three city council, and three school committee. And I would also like to make a motion to remove the mayor from the school committee. That would be amendments to section 4-1, beginning with striking the last sentence of section 4-1A. These amendments In my one councilor's opinion, skip over I think the relatively smaller issue of four, three, or sorry, five to four versus eight to three, and more meaningly begin to engage with the city's balance of power. Those amendments would leave me feeling comfortable supporting this draft, including eight ward councilors and three at-large councilors. And again, I want to acknowledge that there's impatience to get this done. I hope that in my willingness to make uncomfortable motions, people and my fellow Councilors might consider that this stems from a desire, that this stems not from an enjoyment of making uncomfortable and perhaps unpopular motions, but rather from a sincere desire to get this as right as possible because it's important. I changed my mind on five and four and eight and three, and I've changed my mind on some other things too. And I think it's my responsibility to take the votes that I think will be best for this community. Our next charter needs to advance the cause of improving the balance of power between the mayor and the city council and the school committee. And I think this would move the ball forward. If it takes a special meeting next week to discuss this and then move this forward expeditiously, staying in April, that is fine with me. And we are not the only body that has affected the timeline of this draft project. So those are my two motions. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: No, sorry, finish your thought.
[Kit Collins]: Did you finish your thought?
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Um the motion to refer to committee of the whole was not mine. Uh though I do support it. I think that we should take the available committee of the whole meeting next week and then immediately meet on this again in a regular meeting or special meeting. Um but the the motion to move this to a committee of the whole wasn't mine.
[Kit Collins]: to what?
[Kit Collins]: No, I'd like to vote on it now.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Super briefly, I support sending this not to a committee of the whole, but to a special meeting so that we can have one more time to discuss this and then pass it forward. Hopefully, if it is the will of the council expeditiously with a strong vote when we talk about moving this along in the process. Yes, we had a goal to approve this in mid-April to give it its best chance for success. That is not the only criteria to guarantee to guarantee a higher chance of success. A strong vote for the council also affects its likelihood to be taken up by the legislature. I do not think that we will have to push this off to the spring 2026 election. I do not want that. I don't think anybody wants that. I don't think that taking one more week to have another discussion about this to get this right so we can feel comfortable putting this forward with a strong vote I do not think that hurts this process. I think that it is incumbent upon us to give this one more discussion if that's what it needs. I think that improves this project's chances of going forward successfully, which is what we all want. We don't just want it to go forward, we want it to go forward successfully. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'm not going to restate my rationale because I think I spent at least five minutes explaining myself earlier and nobody wants to be kept here for longer than necessary. But to any folks who weren't present for that part of the meeting, I gave like a fairly long speech explaining my rationale for why I made the motion to remove the mayor from school committee. And if folks want to watch that back on the live stream that's already on the city's YouTube and send me their thoughts and comments and show up to the special meeting next week, I think it'd be great to continue the conversation about this. balance of power.
[Kit Collins]: I only wanted to make the point that based on some of the hypotheticals that were being asked this evening, I have a concern that people are going to come out of this meeting saying this process is definitely going to happen in spring of 2026. That is not an accurate thing to say. And I want us to be proactive about not spreading that speculation in the community. It's because I want this to go forward successfully that I support that I'm going to support the motion to have a special meeting on this next week and I just I Every community is a fertile ground for rumors. I don't want this to get out the gate and have people thinking this is definitely going to be a spring of 2026 election. It's certainly not what I want. And I don't think that this timeline at all locks us into that timeline. And I feel very confident that we'll all be making best efforts to stick to the November 2025 timeline. So I just wanted to be very clear about that because there was this question and questions about it just earlier. Thank you. And with that, I'd like to move the question.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. So I remember the very first resolution that I ever sponsored after becoming Medford's first Jewish city councilor. It was about condemning anti-Semitism because it was in the wake of an unintentional but still real and painful anti-Semitic event that occurred in Medford in December of 2021. I know that the councilor's intention with this resolution was simply to make Jewish residents, or at least certain Jewish residents, feel supported. But this resolution makes omissions that imply that supporting Jews is contingent on ignoring, erasing, and minimizing the genocide in Palestine. And as a Jew, I find that offensive, unhelpful, and unacceptable. This city council has already passed a resolution about Israel and Palestine in March of 2024. On that one, frankly, I think we got it right. Jewish, Arab, and Muslim residents and allies came together, we collaboratively crafted a statement that did not receive universal support, but earned hours of impassioned support from community members, many of whom had never been inside these council chambers before. In that statement, we condemned the murder of Israelis by terrorists on October 7th and the taking of hostages. We did not fail to condemn the murder of Palestinians by the IDF for every single month since then the taking of political prisoners terrorism in the West Bank by Israeli settler extremists and Israeli war crimes to name one but not the other. However, unintentionally sends a very strong message that messages, some pain is more real and more important than other pain to specifically mourn the 1200 Israelis murdered by Hamas on October 7 2023, but with no acknowledgement of the over 62,000 Palestinians murdered since then in Gaza by the IDF. which, according to the Lancet Medical Journal, could be undercounted by up to 40% and does not even include the over 100,000 people who have died of starvation and disease in Gaza. and does not include Palestinians murdered by extremist Israeli settler terrorism in the West Bank, that is participating in the dehumanization that allows this genocide to continue unchecked. And to affirm Israel's right to exist while failing to mention Palestine's right to exist is offensive to Palestinians in our community and perpetuates a false, unhelpful right-wing ideology. It is incredibly radical to suggest, as this resolution does, that the Palestinians, quote, lack a permanent homeland. The city of Medford cannot be in the business of normalizing this objectively fringe and right wing opinion. If the council is going to be bold enough to weigh in on Israel and Palestine, we should be bold enough to call things what they are. What's happening in Palestine is not, quote, hardship. It's not difficulty. It's not complexity. It is war crimes. It is genocide. It is apartheid. Supporting Jews is not contingent on erasing the genocide of Palestinians. Supporting Jews is not contingent on erasing the solidarity, pain, and outrage that so many Jews share with Palestinian victims of genocide. Personally, I will never support any language that clearly does not dare to weight all human life as equal, knowing that as a Jew, I'm supposed to read this with gratitude. Further, I find it really irresponsible to force anti-Semitism and Israel and Palestine together into one topic. The implication is that it's anti-Semitic to criticize Israel. That is false. That is a false premise that we must not entertain. Right now we are in a moment where many people, including many people in our community, including many Jews like me in our community, are actively exercising their free speech to criticize Israeli genocide, Israeli war crimes, Israeli terrorism. In response, across America, conservative movements are weaponizing the language of Jewish safety and weaponizing accusations of anti-Semitism in a coordinated effort to delegitimize criticism of Israel. They see clearly that a good way to shut people up is by suggesting that they are being anti-Semitic. And that is why we cannot afford to entertain this false premise anywhere. Even here at Medford City Hall, we cannot entertain this. It is dangerous, it is corrosive, it stifles free speech, and it silences Jews. Again, I really do want to be clear, I appreciate any opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to ending anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is real and deadly. which is why we should not allow it to be twisted into a tool for stifling pro-Palestinian activism. It does not make Jews safer when we cheapen a real phenomenon with irrelevant and politicized conflations. It does not help Jews when we reaffirm right-wing messaging that ignores or legitimizes the genocide and the war crimes that occur every day with American tax dollars, when we legitimize false claims about the dangers of peace activism. It really makes me wonder how weak does a person have to think Jews are, that our safety is contingent not only on the eradication of Palestinians, but on that genocide also going unmentioned and unprotested. At best, that premise treats Jews like children, and at worst, it allows us to be used like pawns. If we want to pass a different resolution that aligns with the language we passed last year, that would be fine with me, but this isn't it. This language takes more issue with certain forms of protest than it does with a historic genocide that is directly affecting members of our community who have family in or displaced from Palestine. And I have no idea why we would entertain the notion that the city of Medford should weigh in on how its residents should or should not exercise their constitutional right to protest. We are Councilors, not parents. It is not our job to tell people how to use their free speech. It is condescending and we should not pretend that it is anything other than irrelevant to the goal of supporting and protecting Jews. I also know that there are people who will agree with what I've said tonight and those who won't, that's also fine. There's obviously a difference of opinion on this within and outside of the Jewish community and anyone who pretends otherwise is lying. But that doesn't make it okay for this council to normalize, however unintentionally, right-wing messaging that uses Jewish identities as an excuse for stifling free speech and protest. It doesn't make it okay for this council to conspicuously fail to stand equally strongly against anti-Palestinian hate and anti-Palestinian rhetoric as we continue to condemn the poison of antisemitism. And it certainly isn't for anyone outside of the Jewish community to tell any Jews how we should feel about it. a motion to table.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. The statistics I was referencing was pulled from BBC and Al Jazeera, internationally respected incredible news sources. Obviously, any Jew would take issue with being called anti-Semitic. It's not the first time I've been called anti-Semitic, but I think it's It's very convenient to have a term for why it's anti-Semitic to observe and literally describe a genocide that is going on. It doesn't make it Holocaust inversion. It doesn't make it anti-Semitic to observe and tell the truth. I struggle to find words for how offensive it is to be told over and over again that telling the truth about this is in any way offensive to my religion and my family, who are only here in the first place because of real, not rhetorical, not invented, not fictionalized or exaggerated anti-Semitism.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I was listening in on my commute here. Sorry for being late to the chambers. On the specific amendment, I just wanted to clarify, is this replacing any text from the draft?
[Kit Collins]: I would say, in general, I want to be deferential to the sponsors of the ordinance. And you have been very, very closely involved in crafting a language to meet the intent of this. And I trust that intent is to be as strongly protected as possible, which is my preference as well. I like that the original second paragraph calls out very explicitly what we're trying to do. I hear the concerns about adhering this with other city ordinances and state law as a protective mechanism for being able to do this protective work while also making sure that if the federal government decides to pick a fight legally, we'll have allies. I think that's a good idea. But I'm curious if we think there's a utility to keeping both.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, depending on if other councillors disagree and, you know, have a good reason, then I'm amenable to that, but I would keep both.
[Kit Collins]: I will, if there's any, if anybody has a reaction to that, I'd hear it first, but if others agree, then I would. I just don't want to step on any toes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I'm sorry. I don't have a direct response to what you were just speaking to. I'm just I'm noticing some areas. I'm noticing some discrepancies between the two versions of the ordinance that aren't noted in the markup. So I just want to be certain that there, I think that there might be things that were changed by legal counsel in the markup version that just weren't aren't being called out using the traditional markup notation like we're not seeing the strikeout we're not seeing this was added or at least I'm not in this version of the printout and I just want to make sure we call those out and discuss them if we need to. For example, the definition of gender identity has been changed, maybe not substantively, but substantially. And I think we should talk about that. And I also note that these are just two that I noted off the top of my head, and I suspect there may be others. Under definitions, pregnancy related service has been deleted. So I think unless I'm missing something, and that's always entirely possible, I think it might be worth going through this section by section, because there's some stuff that's been changed that is not apparent. Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the clarification.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for those clarifications I appreciate it. So just to be clear, the updated definitions. They now match the language in state law. Okay. All right. Thank you. There are ones that I would change but I guess that would require a changing state law and I see the merit of having them be in alignment.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, sorry. I'm just thinking, I admit I was reading over the state definition of gender identity and the part that says like provided however that this gender identity may be demonstrated through like essentially paperwork was surprising to me. Obviously that's a statewide vulnerability if that's the language that the state has. Sorry, I feel like I derailed us. I'm happy to continue going through. flag. That's for circling back at the end.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry. I don't want to cut you off. Yeah, I think that that's one of those things that we, as a matter of practice, tend to put into ordinances. And it also should go without saying, and does, even though we write it. So I don't think that it substantively changes the ordinance to leave it out. And I also don't think that we need to go out of our way to be reminding city agents to comply with federal laws that are increasingly in direct opposition to the well-being of people who live here. There was a different point I was gonna make, but I forgot what it is. You can make that one too. No, I forgot what it is, so.
[Kit Collins]: Um, not a suggested amendment. Just I just want to make sure that we talked about it. I noticed that the legal counsel recommended that we take out the drafted section, um, which would have. Limited limited service and limited service pregnancy centers for like advertising their services in the city, and I know that that was because it was a potential like first amendment violation. Um, So I just didn't want that to go unnoted for the reason for it to be deleted from the draft. I know that in a lot of other communities, there's been action taken to not prevent anybody's constitutionally protected right to free speech, including to spread misinformation about abortion and pregnancy. it's my understanding that where our ability stops is being able to say you're not allowed to talk about your business, even if your business is fraudulent, you still have a right to be able to advertise about it. Is that, am I correct in that being the motivation for taking that section out of the ordinance?
[Kit Collins]: That makes sense, and I was happy to hear that the legal counsel flagged that as, you know, we want to pass a strong ordinance that doesn't open us up to any unnecessary liability, and this still emphasizes the city's responsibility and intent to publish consumer protection information that can help empower people to know, like, what these are should they come into the community. We just wanted to, just wanted to clarify, just wanted to confirm that that was the intent behind that.
[Kit Collins]: That used to be... In the old draft. In the old draft?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, yeah. Sorry. I should have said that.
[Kit Collins]: It used to be, like, I think it was G2. G2.
[Kit Collins]: Where is this?
[Kit Collins]: And on the City Council. Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah. I think this will be the last comment that I make. Overall, I just want to say thank you so much to the sponsors. I think that this is started out strong, got stronger, both in that I think the intent is still really there, really protective. I'm really proud that we're passing as strong of an ordinance as has been passed in any other Massachusetts community, maybe beyond. And also, I think that part of that strength is making sure that we're not We're not leaving anything in there that doesn't that potentially opens the city up to liability that doesn't also help us better protect residents because that is not useful to our cause. I do think circling back to the definition section I do think that if you know subject to. you know, a vote by the committee. I would, just for the purpose of what we report out of this committee, and if it changes before we take a vote to ordain it, that's fine. I would make a motion to delete the part of the gender identity definition that comes after the first semicolon. I know that that's in alignment with state law. But I personally was surprised to see that language. The first clause also aligns with state law, and then we're just like getting a little less descriptive. Again, if my fellow Councilors don't agree, I won't take it personally. I think that's fine. I understand the motivation behind having it align perfectly with state law. But that part that I'm... suggesting that we take out would be the part that says, provided however that gender identity may be demonstrated through medical history, care or treatment of the gender identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender identity, or any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity, and provided further that gender identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose. And my motivation behind that is just especially in this environment, I think we're gonna see more people with gender identities other than like woman assigned female at birth and man assigned male at birth who don't have documentation that it's a core part of their identity because it's less and less safe to do that. I just don't think that we need to uphold that premise in our definitions. If that's something that legal counsel insists we change before we take a vote to ordain this, that's fine, but I'd rather we delete it.
[Kit Collins]: Um, my assumption perhaps is that Maybe the intent in this language is that local police counts as a law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth, but I think that we should, I think we should make it really clear.
[Kit Collins]: We're talking about Medford, yeah. No, I think that's a good point.
[Kit Collins]: Do you know the answer? Sorry, I was just trying to sidebar you. The meeting documents for this meeting, if they're not already uploaded, they'll be on the City Council's public portal website, which you can go to the City of Medford website and click on City Council and you'll find our public portal. If the documents for tonight's meeting aren't up yet, I'm sure they will be by tomorrow. and after this is voted on, if it is approved, it will eventually be added to the city's muni code and search city of Medford muni code. I know there's a backlog on ordinances that still need to be uploaded there, but in the meantime, you can find them on the city council public portal from the date on which they were voted on.
[Kit Collins]: I just wanted to thank you both for your hard work over many, many months to bring this draft forward and for making sure that this got a lot of attention right now so that we can get it on, get it up for a vote as expeditiously as possible. And I've been really working very hard to make sure that this both captures the spirit of what Medford residents want this to be and also has the protections of being closely aligned with other communities ordinances and state law. So thank you for your hard work. Thank you to all the community members who reached out to us to hold us to account for working on this. Appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: Right. Mr. Clerk, please let me know when you're ready to go and I'll call the meeting to order.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. He did let me know that he would probably be running pretty late tonight and that he would join whenever he can.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. All right, there will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permanent Committee, March 26th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: present. For present, one absent, the meeting is called to order. Thank you all very much for being here tonight. The action and discussion item for tonight is 24-033, zoning ordinance updates with the NS Associates team. So tonight what's on our agenda is to follow up on two topics that we have discussed once before at our committee meeting two weeks ago. On March 12th, we reviewed a early framework for updates to Medford's accessory dwelling units or ADUs ordinance. We had a long discussion to get this update project started off. The update from Innes Associates flagged updates that the City of Medford must make to our ADUs ordinance to become in compliance with the new state law that requires that ADUs be by right in any residential district that allows single family homes by right. So we talked about that and what that means for our zoning ordinance. And the zoning consultant and associates also flagged areas where there are more decisions left up to the city when it comes to local ADUs and options that we have for further updates we can make to further regulate or encourage ADUs beyond just the new regulations that are required by state law. And so we'll be looking at an updated draft of the ADU's ordinance tonight in response to the questions and feedback that councillors and committee community members had two weeks ago. We will also tonight be visiting the topic of updated zoning for Medford Square. This will be our very first time looking at a proposal of an updated zoning map for Medford Square and it will not be the last time we talk about it either. Two weeks ago, we looked at a really preliminary introductory, a 30,000 foot view of a zoning map that encapsulates a commercial framework or a zoning map encapsulating a commercial framework for the city touching on all major squares. corridors, mixed-use, and commercial districts, and we decided that from there we're kind of going to draw the telescope in. We're going to go from that bird's-eye view commercial framework and focus the dial on Medford Square, and then West Medford Square, and then other major corridors and mixed-use and commercial districts. So the first one up is Medford Square. I know that the Innes Associates has presented, has prepared Um, some maps and some diagrams for us to look at and respond to tonight. So we'll be able to get a lot of questions and ideas and concerns on the record. And that will be followed up by, um, further conversations on this topic in this committee, um, over the next several weeks. So I know that Paola has a presentation, um, on all of this before I throw it over to Paola. Um, I want to ask if any of my fellow Councilors have any questions or comments to start off the evening. Great. Seeing none, plenty of time for that later on. Paola, please go ahead with your presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. Yeah, I think that I've previewed the section studies that you're going to present next, and I think folks will find them very interesting context. But let's take a pause here in case there are any preliminary questions or comments on this aerial view. Councilor Leming will go to you first, unless you wanna hold your question for later.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you for putting that suggestion in that question on the record, Councilor Leming. I don't know if Paula has a response to this. I'm certainly always helpful. I think these are exactly the areas where we should be evaluating for where our subdistricts of greatest height and density makes most sense. And I've thought before that I'd really love to see some increased height along 93 so we can kind of kill two birds with one stone. adding some development potential while blocking some noise from 93 for the residential and business areas that are closer to the square or bordering the highway. On the matter of the traffic patterns, I think most folks on this call, whether they're Councilors or community members, already know that through zoning, we cannot and we won't directly change traffic patterns. I know that you know that, Councilor Leming, I'm just stating that for the record for in case there's any newer to zoning folks on the call. Not that that's what you're suggesting. I think is the the question is kind of like forecasting ahead for feel free to clarify.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I'll go to Planner Evans and then Councilor Callahan. I do just want to note kind of at the beginning of this discussion, or kind of whenever we're talking about like traffic patterns and zoning changes at the same time, I think it's wise to enter into that discussion, not assuming that development that increases in development will always necessarily at every step of the way also result in increases in car traffic, especially since we're considering policies such as TDM, transportation demand management, at the same time as zoning. This can interact with traffic patterns in In many ways, it's not a 1 to 1 relationship, so I think this is going to be 1 of those incredibly multifactorial things. I would think that the short answer would be zoning would not. Directly overlay onto our ability to update our future traffic patterns because. eminent domain taking of public lands that are used for our roadways, and a lot of our roadways leading into Medford Square are state roads. We're going to have the same land mass available for traffic lanes that we could design however we wish if we had the millions of dollars required to do that. But I will go over to Planner Evans for a response and then Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that planner Evans, Councilor Kelly and go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, Councilwoman.
[Kit Collins]: Is there any further questions? That's a great catch, Councilor Callaghan. Thank you for that. And thank you for running over those initial suggestions, Paola. It sounds like there is interest in, you know, I think the point of these early discussions is to put these kind of ideas and suggestions out on the record, and then the consultant can follow up, look more deeply at the areas where we want to investigate a little bit further and get back to us with an answer on, you know, for example, Is it feasible to consider a higher and more dense sub district for specific parcel it sounds like there's an interest in that being further investigated for a further meeting if it does turn out that it's confirmed that the lots directly abutting 93 to the east of City Hall are really too narrow to accommodate mixed use three, then that'll be good information to have. Maybe the same is not quite true for that large kind of triangle-shaped parcel, but I think that that's a great thing for us to take out of this meeting as a point for future research. So thank you for speaking to that. Paola, I'll put that on my notes as well. It is great to hear that potential traffic and roadway changes are being considered at the same time as respondents to the Medford Square RFP are being considered. Because if improvements can be made faster than perhaps I pessimistically hoped, then I suspect that everybody would be happy about it. Gosh, the Medford Square traffic really needs to be made slower and safer and better for actually enjoying the square. So we have a lot of other views of this, and I'll go to Director Hahn first.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Director Hunt. That's great to know, and we'll be sure to find that link so councillors can further promote. That's a big deal. Changing the signaling would be a really big deal for traffic in and out of the square. So I know we have many other diagrams that Paola has prepared for us. I want to make sure that we have time to look at them, respond to them, and also talk about the updates to the ADU ordinance. So let's proceed through the presentation, Paola, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Paola. This is certainly a lot to digest. This is a great jumping off point for our discussion of Medford Square. And I know this will feed into our discussion of West Medford Square as well. So we've had the chance to look at a bunch of these kind of snapshot section views from around the square. And I think that this could be a great opportunity to get Councilors and city staff's initial impressions and questions and more suggestions like we had just earlier. And then of course, as Councilors and community members have additional feedback we can be taking that in between these meetings as well. And I thank you for that last note that you made, Paola. I think it's always helpful to keep re-emphasizing what we mean when we look at these maps and when we talk about zoning. I think the way that you put it was really well. When we look at the zoning map, this is not you know, one, this is a proposal, this is a draft, I'm sure this will change before it is something that we vote on. But also, this is not a map of what the square will absolutely look like, even if this zoning were to be adopted. This is a map of one version of what could be made possible. So even when we say, you know, this could go up to eight, this could go up to 12, this could go up to six, that's depending on if developers are trying to develop just within what's by right, or if they're taking advantage of incentive zoning, to a certain degree, to maximum, to minimum, not that under this new zoning, every building shall be a certain height, setting a minimum and a maximum. With that, I'll go to comments and questions from councillors. Councilor Callahan, please go ahead. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I see a couple hands. I'm sorry. I totally forgot to say this at the end of the meeting or sorry at the beginning of the meeting will take all public participation on this topic after Councilors conclude their comments, then we'll move on to 80 years and we'll take all public participation on 80 years at that time. So please hang tight. We will get to you. Um. Seeing no other Councilors hands raised right now. I just want to put a couple of my own comments on the records on the for some of these specific sections. That we looked at in general. I think that this framework is about right. I'm sure that we will massage some of where some of the sub districts start and end as we continue to iterate on this. including some of the suggestions that have already been made tonight. I just wanted to note, I find it particularly exciting what the consultants are bringing forward around how we can use these like topography changes and the slope of the earth below our buildings to our advantage when it comes to creating more potential for development and also hiding parking. Like for example, yeah Paola knew exactly what I was talking about. These places where we can use the slope of the land to our advantage to add height in a way that does not feel like you're adding height in bulk from for in this example High Street. So we can have two more additional floors and it doesn't feel like two more additional floors from the pedestrian's perspective. I think that's great. I think that especially when we're considering like the south side of High Street to Mystic Valley Parkway. I know for myself I'm so used to seeing those parking lots kind of right along the parkway in front of the river that it's hard for me to even to imagine those being destinations instead of just parking. But I'm particularly enamored by version two for the south side of High Street and for Mystic Valley Parkway. We know that we need parking to, you know, parking has a big role in the square. It is where a lot of our city's major destinations are. We need people to be able to drive and park there. And we also really do want to be using more of our, I think we want to be using more of our land area for giving people places to live and stuff to do and companies and offices to visit. So I will be, I just wanted to throw my support behind version two for this particular section and then for the south side of High Street as well. I think that's a really smart way to be using our topography. And in general, I know this is brought up for Clippership Drive as well. I think in general, hiding parking is a great idea because it allows us to keep our building frontages exciting and full of places that people can walk into. The only kind of question that I think I'll have going forward is, and I'm not sure if this is really an answerable question or if this is something that will vary development by development, is when we're talking about putting parking inside of a building, how does that impact the actual usable, rentable, inhabitable space within that floor map or within that parcel? Though as I think more about it, it seems that that's probably more of a economic consideration on the developer side. But I just want to make sure that we're not trading, useful commercial and residential space for parking, whether it's inside or outside of a building envelope. Having put that on the record, are there any other additional comments, suggestions, references from Councilors on the maps that we have looked at so far tonight? Things that we want our consultants to be keeping in mind as these are being revised for our next meeting. Seeing none, we've got a couple great ideas on the record already. And of course, councillors can always contact the zoning consultant with ideas, either via me as committee chair, Director Hunt in between meetings. All right, seeing no further comment from councillors, I will go to public participation on this item. I will call on you. Go ahead, Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for the question, Councilor Gallahan, and thank you for the answer, Director Hunt. All right, I'll go to public participation. I'll ask you to unmute on Zoom, give your name and address for the record, and then each participant will have three minutes. Dave, go ahead, name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Dave. We'll go next to Gaston. Name and address for the record, please. And three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments, Gaston. Well heard and well taken. And I think that we will absolutely be continuing to consider traffic parking and increasing density in tandem as we go forward this spring. So thank you for your comments. We'll go next to Navar. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you very much, William. All right, I see no more hands raised from, oh, Councilor Callahan, please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Graham. I think that's, um, it's a really interesting prompt. I think it's one that, um, well, I just say that I think the concept of how do we, how do we get the type of stuff in the square that we feel like the community is really clamoring for is a question that is kind of frequently on people's minds. My understanding, and I'll pass it over to city staff or economic development director after this, but I think that how, as folks know, um, how uses interplay with zoning is that we have this ability to say, clearly defined uses that are allowed by right, that are allowed under certain circumstances, and that are never allowed. And it's my understanding that it is both tricky and we also get into heavily constrained legal waters when we start saying, we start cherry picking, picking and choosing, and that would require You know, perhaps I think there's always a long list of things in a commercial district. It's a lot of different types of companies and offices that are going to be available by right. It's often a smaller list of those that are more regulated by special permit or explicitly not allowed. And I think it gets very complicated when we try to use zoning to get more specific about that, which is why I think this overlaps so heavily with the work of the economic development director and city planning staff. But I will go to Director Hunt. and then our Director of Economic Development for more on this.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, go ahead, sell. Then we'll go to you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the question, Councilor Callahan. And thank you, Sal, for the very informative response. Councilor Scarpelli, please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Of course, Councilor, thank you so much. I appreciate you putting that all out there. And I think your points are really well taken. I hear you. I think that Medford Square is probably our best example of all of the areas that we're going to look at in the comprehensive rezoning of like just all of these themes interacting with each other. And I think people really feel that. And I think that know this is our chance to use the structure of the zoning overhaul to continue to try to use this as a container for bringing together residents and butters and members of our business community and the great minds inside city hall together with our zoning consultant to look down at the plans that we already have the people already waited on And continue widening that net and making sure that with every meeting, with all the meetings that we're going to have in this committee on this proposal, and then in the Q and A that we'll have on the squares, and then with the public hearings that the CDB will have, totally every step of the way, we have to be widening that net and making sure that more voices are included. And I also think that it's, These, these committee meetings in a way to me are kind of like a think of it as like a tip of the iceberg where so many things get concepts get mentioned and plans that have like hours and hours of work and collaboration behind them and these meetings can sometimes feel like a really brief snapshot of all this work that's gone on. to become the plans and the themes that just get mentioned in passing here. And I think that, I hope that when residents interact with that, they can see that and take it as an on-ramp for continuing to attend these meetings and learn more about the things that get mentioned. But thank you so much. Thank you. Really appreciate it. And I saw your hand up. Do you want to comment or do you want to wait until we have one more bit of public participation on this topic? And then we can, if you want to.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Thank you. And then we will get to our second topic of the evening, which is ADUs. So I hope we've all been pacing ourselves. Just kidding. So I see one more hand raised for public participation. Cheryl, go ahead. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for coming, Cheryl. I do just want to state for clarity for any folks who are watching, the ramp issue, I'm glad folks are talking about that. That's not something that we could do through zoning, so I just want to make that clear. I think the speaker, I know that's not something that they were putting forward, but I just want to state that for clarity. That's not a change that we'll be making through this process. Seeing no public participation, thank you all so much for weighing in. And this is, I just want to state again, I'll state at the beginning, I'll state at the end, this is our first draft of the zoning proposal for Medford Square. This will be an iterative process. We will see this again in this committee. And if community members have additional feedback or ideas that they want to share in between or outside of committee meetings, they can email those to me. I will get them circulated to our zoning consultant and our planning staff. So Paola, please feel free to respond and then we can go ahead to our overview of the latest updates to the ADU's ordinance. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the clarification, Paola. Let's proceed along to the overview of the latest updates to the ADU's ordinance, unless there's anything more on this, but I think we have a lot to respond to for the next draft of this proposal.
[Kit Collins]: And while you're getting set up, Paola, I'll just state I wanted to give you a brief vocal rest since you've been presenting a lot tonight. And while you're getting the PowerPoint up, I said this at the beginning of the meeting, but for anybody who's joined after our initial five minutes, at our previous committee meeting on the 12th, we got an overview of potential changes to make to our existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance. We already have a regulation around ADUs. We are considering kind of two buckets of updates and changes to that. One are changes that the city is compelled to make because the state passed a new law and it is now required that wherever single family homes are allowable by right, ADUs must also be allowable by right. So we have to make some changes to the ordinance to be in compliance with that state law. And beyond that, there are additional decisions that we could make per our local jurisdiction. We kind of got a initial conversation on all of those areas and questions two weeks ago, and councilors and community members got some ideas and thoughts out on the record. And I think we're going to revisit some of those questions tonight and kind of develop a path forward on some of those on some of the questions before us in terms of local ideas. Go ahead. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola, for that overview. That's really helpful. I appreciate the way that you organized it. I see a hand on Zoom. Thank you so much. We will take public participation on ADUs after questions and comments from Councilors. So sit tight. We will definitely get to you. begin with my own clarifying questions and then see if there are others from other Councilors. So I'll just repeat some of this to make sure that I am understanding the presentation correctly and hopefully for the benefit of other viewers as well. So kind of going down the line of these various questions before us. to the first question around local ADUs, municipal jurisdiction. It seems like per our, it seems like you adopted the preference that it seemed like it was voiced for most Councilors at our last committee meeting, that we do want to allow local ADUs in more residential sub-districts beyond just those where single family homes are allowed by right. So is this understanding correct that in this draft, yes, local ADUs are allowed in all sub-districts, by right, but they're not allowed by right on lots that have for those larger residential building types, such as townhouses, multiplexes, multifamily units, sorry, multifamily buildings greater than six units. On your single family homes, your two families, your three units, those can have a local ADU by right, regardless of the residential subdistrict. Is that, do I have that right?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for verifying my rambling paraphrasing. Just to return quickly to the municipal jurisdiction, municipal decision topic of can we have a second ADU on a single lot by special permit, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this. So the conditions that trigger a special permit process, it's not that every local ADU must be approved by special permit. It's that if a second ADU on a single lot has to go through the special permit process. And through that special permit process, they may go as high as 1,200 square feet. Is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Personally, I am fine with having the maximum area be up to 1,200. In this case, where it is moderated by a special permit process, I don't think that I would want any local ADU to be able to go quite that high. I think that 900 is reasonable. But since this is kind of bordered by the special permit process, I'm kind of OK with it because it has that level of supervision over it. And then the last comment that I wanted to put out before my fellow councillors, like I was saying, I think that the 900 square foot number seems about right to me for local ADUs in general in this non-special permit scenario. I understand the concern about, you know, if we're going above 50% of the gross floor area, then like which unit is inferior to which, I can understand that could get a little murky. I do think that in cases when you have an attached or internal ADU that it could, there might be a situation there would be helpful to be able to go above that maximum. So pending what legal counsel, what Attorney Silverstein has to say about this, I think it might be helpful in cases of an internal or attached ADU to be able to go up to 60% just in cases where like that is what makes sense for how the building is structured internally. So if we keep that flexible pending, a comment from Attorney Silverstein, that would make sense to me. And all of the other changes from my perspective as one Councilor sound good. I was not particularly in favor of us growing our base of ADUs just for them to be used as short-term rentals. We want them to be used as housing for people who need housing of the scope and the scale. So that looks great to me as well. Are there any questions or comments from my fellow Councilors? Being none, I'm just going to pause for a second to deal with a Zoom issue. One second, please. CoB, Christina McLean she-her-hers All right, seeing none, we'll go to public participation. I will ask you to unmute, please state, or you know what, actually, I need the, sorry, the Zoom issues we're having is that the clerk's computer keeps throwing him off the Zoom and I realized I actually really need him fully capacitated for the public participation part so he can write down people's names. Sorry for the interruption, folks, just give me a couple of minutes. Mr. Quirk, do you have co-hosting abilities again?
[Kit Collins]: On my end, it shows you as the host, but clearly is going on.
[Kit Collins]: I will do that.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Great. Thanks so much for your flexibility. Okay. Going back to public participation. Um, all right, Daniel, we'll go to you first name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great comments, Daniel. I think that's a really important thing for us to note and investigate either in this meeting or something to think about for the next draft. Paola, I see your hand is up. Do you want to respond directly?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paula. I think that's helpful. So it's in considering the dimensional standards governing what's possible for the ADUs. It is about conformity with the building code, but when we're considering the interplay of the code regulations on the principal dwelling and then on the ADU, it's always the more permissive of those regulations that can be used. I think that this is something for us to take a closer look at before we get the final version. of these updates to make sure that we're taking a fine tooth comb to how this plays out in each of our districts. And I think that we're all aligned with the perspective that was shared. We're doing this update because we want more ADUs to be built. That's the reason that we're expanding them into all residential sub-districts. That's the reason we're going further than the state mandates. And so we do want to be turning over other stone when it comes to making sure that the new language makes it easy for people to take us up on these regulations and add ADUs beneficially in a way that's good for property owners and also good for the community overall. So I'll be making a note of those, talk about that more. Next up, we'll go to Mark. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes. Mark just asked you to unmute. I'll click again. You're gonna have to click a button to unmute yourself. Try one more time, and then I'll go to somebody else and try to come back to you later. All right, we will come back to you. Next, I will go to Gaston. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, Don, if you want, if you have multiple questions, feel free to state them all.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your questions, Gaston. So if I understand it right, I think you're asking, is it redundant to list? NR 1, 2, and 3 under local ADUs, because per the state law, ADUs in those sub-districts are protected ADUs, so.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, I believe that's correct, but I'll go to Paola to run down your three questions.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for noting that, Gaston. We'll definitely take a note about that and look into it further. Great. I'll go to Dave. Name and address for the record, please. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much. Dave really appreciate those comments. And, um, in hearing you reflect on that section, it occurs to me that my paraphrasing earlier might have actually. Miss characterized or misunderstood part of what was stated there. Paola, could you speak to that point briefly please? Is it, I think that Dave's read might actually be correct. Is it that the ADU may be a short-term rental if the principal dwelling is owner occupied? Or is it just in any case, the minimum rental period is 30 days?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Thank you for that. Yeah, make sure it makes sense to me to run that by our attorney on the zoning project and just make sure that that's correct. As I stated earlier, my preference would also be to have to not be in any way encouraging or incentivizing the use of ADUs as short-term rentals. We have a lot of out-of-compliance short-term rentals in the community already, and I think the best use of these would be to add housing and a version of housing that we don't have a lot of in the community already. So it'd be great to confirm that, and thank you for bringing it up, Dave. Go next to Martha, name and address for the record please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Martha. Really appreciate that. Mark, I'll go to you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. I'm going to click the ask to unmute button that should, the button to unmute should pop up on your end. All right. I'm not sure why this isn't working. I apologize. We can't seem to get your audio. If you're not able to unmute before we adjourn this meeting, please feel free to email me your comments. We'll make sure that we get you a response from myself, the zoning consultant, or city planning staff expeditiously. We'll try again before we give up. I'll go next to Kirsten. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you so much for your question. I appreciate you trying to move that project forward. I think that this conversation is probably a bit broader scope than will be useful for you. We're talking about kind of, as I'm sure you know and have gathered, this is a bit of a higher level conversation and those particularities. I think that our building commissioner and our city planning staff would probably be very capable of giving you some useful instructions and next steps. If you do not have their contact information already, it's easily findable on the city website. It sounds like you might be in touch with a couple of those city staff members already, but I think that'll be a better source of information for you than this kind of higher level discussion. If you do need any contact info for city staff, please do feel free to reach out to me if you're not able to get in touch with the relevant parties and I will connect you. Go next to Tara. I'll ask you to unmute and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your questions. Paolo or city planning staff, is there any initial reactions to that question around, is there guidance in the scenario of two ADUs on one lot, is there guidance around, is it possible to do stacking like Tara described, and how would height permissions apply in this case where both of the ADUs are attached to the principal structure, if that's allowable? It's also something that we can circle back to if it requires further research. I see Planner Evans has her hand up, or Paola, we can go to you first, if you have a reaction.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Danielle, please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, I definitely heard clearly that the, um, kind of the. the height allowed for the principal structure would apply in this case, because we go by what's most permissible. I'm not hearing that there's, I would be surprised if there was guidance already on the stacking of two ADUs, both attached to a principal structure. Do you know, Danielle, if there happens to be like design.
[Kit Collins]: It seems like this might be a case where there is maybe not the most readily available precedent or guidance currently. So I think this might, unless there's further guidance from Paola on this, this might be another great candidate for following up with the city's building commissioner directly, who might be able to give you more guidance that's specific to your situation. Paola, anything that you want to add on this?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Thank you. And thank you for the question, Tara. All right. If there's anybody who wants to attempt to speak in public participation again, or anybody who wants to speak a second time, please raise your hand. Otherwise, I think that we have, I think this has been an especially productive round of public participation. I've been taking a lot of notes on some very specific feedback that we have from community members. It's all certainly well heard and well taken. We'll be looking deeper into all of these as we dig deeper into dimensional requirements for the ADUs and looking at how they interact with principal structures in the various districts. All right, Mark, let's give it another go. I'm asking you to unmute. I'm asking you to unmute once more. I apologize. It seems like your Zoom does not want you to speak today, but rest assured that we do. I apologize that you can't seem to come off mute. We'll go to Marie. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the question. Pamela or Danielle, do you happen to know offhand, is there a minimum square footage or might it be just dependent on if there's the minimum allowable setbacks? I'm sorry, Director Hunt, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks. Great. Paola, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that clarification. Great. Well, this has been a very substantive conversation across two topics. Thank you all very much, community members, city staff, councillors alike, for your feedback on the updates to the ADU's ordinance. I think that there's a lot for us to take back and incorporate into our next draft. Ditto for the draft in progress of the Medford Square zoning that we discussed earlier in the meeting. Um, it's getting late, so I will entertain any further comments, questions or motions to adjourn from my fellow Councilors. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready. I want to thank Paola for the very thorough presentation and discussion tonight. Thank you so much, as always, for walking us through it. Thank you, city staff, for being here to offer your insight on our discussions, and thank you to all community members for being a part of our ongoing zoning discussions.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Three in favor, two absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you president bears some of these topics have been discussed before this council before I've been going back and forth with the chief of staff and our parking director to try to find a date for the entire council to meet in committee of the whole about these topics with our parking director. We landed on this date for the topic specifically the ordinance change. that hadn't been brought up and assigned a paper number before. I wanted to make sure that councilors had advanced notice about the matter and that we could all gather in committee of the whole to begin the discussion about the parking department's use of technology, as well as a general update about the GLX program and other parking-related updates before our next regular meeting. Thank you. Any motion for approval?
[Kit Collins]: Yes, absolutely.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, president bears at this meeting, we reviewed a draft framework for updating the city is accessory dwelling units ordinance and we took a very first look at a zoning proposal for Medford square. Both of these topics will be met about again, including at the planning and permitting committee tomorrow night at 6 PM on zoom. Thank you motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you president bears for reading out the full text of the resolution. I'm glad to have collaborated with members of 509 on this resolution and I thank them for bringing their fight for a fair contract to our attention. I was talking about this resolution with some community members before the meeting and over the weekend and they said, you know, why is this a Medford issue? And to that I say, you know, Tufts is a huge employer in our community. So many members of our community are involved with Tufts. In various ways, perhaps they work at Tufts or teach at Tufts. Tufts is a major employer in our community. It has a major footprint in our community. And when it comes to fair employment, fair wages, and the right to collectively bargain, this is a rising tide lifts all boats issue. And with a large, ostensibly non-for-profit that is such an outsized presence and an outsized footprint in our community, I think it's the least that we can do to say we must participate in holding you accountable to treating all workers with fairness, and at the very least, participating in good faith with efforts to collectively bargain. Our relationship with Tufts University and the city of Medford overlaps in many ways. We've spoken at length in these chambers about the payment in lieu of tax agreement that the city of Medford has with Tufts. What we are talking about is a very large, extremely well-endowed, very powerful institution that absolutely has the resources to pay its workers commensurate with their value, to pay them competitively, and to pay them so that they can comfortably live in this community. And so I hope that my fellow councillors will join me tonight in urging them to do just that and to engage in a good faith negotiation process with these essential Tufts University workers. But more importantly, I understand that there are a couple members of the bargaining unit that are attending the city council meeting tonight, and I'm sure that they can speak to their efforts much more eloquently than I could. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the bears 1st, I apologize if my audio isn't coming through. Well, my Internet is unstable right now. I. I hear the counts are appreciate him bringing that up. Preference would be to. Vote on that as a B paper. I would certainly be in favor since these workers requested that the most persuasive to this employer. I'd like to honor sentiment for our bargaining units here in the city.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, president bears for the overview. I was going to just summarize much in the same way that you did. I thank my colleagues and city planning staff for their collaboration on this draft proposal over 4 meetings in January and February in committee. And I was also going to take the opportunity like you did to promote the public Q and a session that will be this Thursday at 6 PM in the city council chambers. This will be in person. There will be big graphs. It's a great opportunity for people to learn more and ask questions and state their ideas and concerns about the proposal before the Community Development Board public hearings. I also heard from Director Hunt just earlier today that this Q&A will no longer be only in person. There will also be a Zoom option. So just encourage people to take advantage of that opportunity. And with that, I motion for referral to the CDB.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Is my audio coming through okay?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, everybody. How's that? All right. Thanks so much. Well, thank you so much to my fellow councillors for your comments so far. It's exciting to be at the beginning of another budget process again with you all, and I'm grateful for all of everybody submitted, I think. very additive and thoughtful preliminary budget recommendations. It is, you know, the work ahead of us is funneling down the request from the Council into a tight, succinct list that we can hope to fit into the overall operating budget of things that we think are the most critical and most needed by the community this year, and I think that we're off to a strong start because I see a lot of overlap between a lot of different Councilors, based on the comments and feedback that we've all been hearing from residents over the past year and longer than that so I'll quickly summarize. The priorities that I submitted ahead of this meeting, and I'll skip the entire preamble. This goes without saying, but I think it is worth saying out loud that we cannot permit any reduction from the school committee's budgetary request for Medford Public Schools. It would be very important to me that we prioritize meeting that this year, as we always prioritize meeting that. Similarly, prioritizing meeting the library department budgetary request and maintaining at least level service and hours of operation. In parallel with what some other Councilors have mentioned about prioritizing the funding recommendations, the funding asks from the Medford Bicycle Advisory Committee, I'd like to see us fund one additional traffic engineer for a total of two within the Department of Traffic and Transportation to focus on walking, biking, transit, and the implementation of a vision zero and complete streets policy. I won't get too into the details here, obviously, that there's a lot of ground that such a position could cover. But other councillors have said a lot in this meeting about things, kind of things we can fund where we'd see a very big return on impact. And I think this is one of them, because these are the people who, if we're able to get them inside of City Hall, could help us out not just with responding to constituent concerns and doing things with the resources that we already have, but also applying for state and federal grants that would help us do the transformative road design and pedestrian and bicycle safety projects that we already know that we need. I will also mention funding a therapeutic recreation and inclusion specialist and an office manager for metric recreation. We heard a lot from the families of youth with disabilities about where these two positions would fit into the puzzle when it comes to making Medford recreation and just not even recreation, but participation citywide, more accessible for people with and without disabilities. And I think it's incredibly important that this year we start putting things into the budget that will move us closer towards a fully accessible future for Medford. I also recommend that we increase the budgeted amount for our city solicitor salary so that we can, God willing, this year fill that position, which I know we are all very, very keen to see that filled. My estimate was that infusing $36,000 into that line item would bring this into competitiveness with our neighboring municipalities. I'm not sure if we've received yet the classification and compensation study that could give us further guidance on what that should be raised to. And lastly, I'll just mention similar to in previous years, I'd like to see us maintain all grant funded personnel in the health department, the Office of Outreach and Prevention, the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. aligned with what I said about Medford's Bicycle Advisory Committee's funding recommendations. I'd like to see us increase our capital spending earmark for expanding our network of separated protected bike lanes, completing the bike master plan, and doing design studies for Vision Zero and Complete Streets policies. And this one, I think, is small dollars compared to things like salaries. But I think we should also be putting more money into installing and maintaining road safety equipment interventions, everything from bike racks and flex posts to increased signage, as well as planning new crosswalks where we already know that we need them, such as on Salem Street. Pardon me, just finding my notes that I toggled away from. I also wanted to co-sign recommendations that I've heard so far from a couple other councillors that I haven't mentioned. I'm really glad that Councilor Lazzaro brought up the dive team training for the Medford Fire Department. It seems to me that a lot of recommendations from many councillors have all been circling around safety improvements that will have such a vast qualitative impact. Improvement for the people of Medford. I think that we should really be focusing this year on things that will make life safer for the people of Medford so I think that talking about accessibility improvements talking about pedestrian cyclist and driver safety improvements talking about trainings that we can fund for our First responders that they can do a better job and do the do the job that they want to be doing making life ever safer for Medford residents is where we should be focusing in this budget cycle and I'd also like to just quickly co-sign the idea from Councilor Leming, funds to help us jumpstart our affordable housing linkage and update our linkage fees program. These are funds where if we invest them now, we can see a return on investment from, we can make it so developers in our community are paying into these funds that we already know that we need and that will manifest in better funding for infrastructure and better funding for affordable housing. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I was also trying to keep a list of suggestions that were made by multiple Councilors. I'll quickly run through mine, and if yourself or other Councilors hear ones that are missing, I'd welcome to hear that. The notes I was taking, it sounds like from many of us, there was a shared priority around the citywide therapeutic inclusion recreation specialist, the office manager for Medford Recreation, Prioritizing the suggestions of the Medford Bicycle Advisory Commission as it pertains to both city staff and increasing infrastructure and signage. One of those, of course, being a rather larger spend than the other. The request from the fire department on training for a fire department dive team. increasing the salary line item for a city solicitor, meeting the Medford Public Schools and Medford Public Library budgetary requests, the nexus study for affordable housing linkage, and to update the linkage fees program. and maintaining our grant-funded positions, notably the Community Liaisons Project, as well as other grant-funded positions in Outreach and Prevention, Planning, Development, Sustainability, and the Health Department. I'm sure that I missed a few, and I'd welcome additions to that list. I think this is a great list, I think it's an ambitious list, and I think that these are all things and more that we absolutely should be funding this year as soon as possible because these would provide such an incredible return on investment for Medford residents. beyond the realm of what is quantifiable because of course we're talking about important educational experiences for kids in Medford, we're talking about important recreational experiences for all people in Medford, we're talking about safety improvements for all people in Medford, and we're talking about the city being better resourced to provide the type of services that Medford residents deserve and also expect from our city. So this would be my short list for recommendations to come out of this meeting that we could push forward in additional meetings. But of course I'd welcome discussion, modifications and additions to this list from my fellow Councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Yes, I don't want to, I'd be happy to make the motion, but only if there's no other discussion or ideas from the fellow councilors. I think that process sounds good. It closely mirrors what we did last year. I feel comfortable with this shortlist going forward. I think it represents a lot of the ideas that we've all talked about. And it'd be good to have this kind of top six compiled for our next meeting and sendable to the mayor. I would request that the individual budget memos submitted by Councilors also be included in the packet. And I'm happy to make that in the form of a motion if there isn't any other discussion from Councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bearson. Yeah, I think that's a really good question. A question that's, you know, always on our minds and probably on the minds of residents as well as we approach budget season. One of the reasons that advocated two years ago for increased powers of the council during budget time so that we could have a seat at the table for that kind of question exactly. We do not have the power to make those decisions when it comes to how that reallocation process happens in the budgetary process. and how to, we don't have a seat at the table when it comes to getting in the weeds and saying this is exactly how we square that circle. When we get to the end of the budget process and we're trying to do everything that Medford residents deserve with a finite pool of money. But at this stage, I do think it is valuable to put on the table and to emphasize everything that we know Medford residents deserve as prioritized as much as we are able to do. And then through the process, through our budgetary meetings with department heads, through our back and forth with the mayor to get that better understanding of what is possible, both financially and politically this year, and give us a clearer idea of if we are in a position of having to advocate for a small set of priorities, to be empowered to say, all right, given what's on the table, these are our non-negotiables and try to make sure as best as we can that those happen for the good of the community. So kind of a higher level question but just to reinforce that the city council doesn't, you know, I'm sure that we all would love the jurisdiction to get into the weeds and be able to talk reallocation and seeing exactly how these things play out in the line items. For myself, I think it's valuable to start on the principles and to start saying, we know that all these things are things that we want and things that we believe the community wants. And we know that we don't deserve anything. We know that residents don't deserve anything less than what they're already accustomed to. Let's start the conversation there. And then in the process of the budget, we're going to continue to have. Discussions in public meetings. Um let's see how let's see how close we can get to making that real in budget.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, for bringing that up. I'm glad that you raised that. I wasn't thinking about that when I was putting together my memo, but I'd be happy to put that forward at this time. I think that we all want to be in a position where if we do take a vote and approve a residential exemption this year, we want to be able to implement it. And the interim assessor made it very clear that he would need increased capacity in his department. starting early in the fiscal year to be able to do that so that residents could see the effects of it. So I'd be happy to forward that at this time to also include that as a funded priority increased capacity for the assessor's department so that they'd be able to implement a residential exemption if one is approved. I also think that dovetails with some other notes that were raised by some of my fellow Councilors around capacity for the assessor's department. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee on Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 6.20 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: present. Four present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Apologize for the late start this evening. We had the swearing in for Fire Chief Evans in the chamber immediately before this meeting, and folks were busy doing the good work of mingling after that event wrapped up. We didn't want to rush them out. So the action and discussion item for tonight's meeting is, as it frequently is, paper 24-033, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. This is our 21st meeting on the zoning update project. We have with us Paola from Innes Associates, in addition to city planning staff, We have a couple topics for tonight. As folks who have been engaged in this process might be aware, we recently wrapped up the Green Score Zoning Proposal and the Salem Street Corridor District Zoning Proposal. Those have been ordained as of last night. The neighborhood and urban residential zoning proposal was workshopped in this committee over the course of four meetings in January and February, and we are working to find a date for a public Q&A for that topic, after which it will be sent to the Community Development Board to begin the public hearing process. Tonight we're going to cover two topics. We're going to start with a really high level introduction to a commercial framework for all of the city. Paola is going to walk us through a really bird's eye view of a way of looking at the commercial districts of our city, squares and corridors, major hubs. We are not going to be voting on anything tonight. This is intended as an introduction to this topic and an opportunity for councillors city staff and members of the public to state their initial questions, initial preferences, initial concerns for what they'd like to see in which areas, in which quarters, on which squares, what they'd like to see, what not they'd like to see, what questions they have. then City Council leadership, City staff, and NS Associates will take all of that feedback and work together to combine it into the next iteration of a commercial frameworks proposal for our next meeting on this topic. So we're going to go through that introduction with Paola, and then after that, Paola will give us updates to the ADU zoning ordinance to incorporate the new state law on ADUs, and we'll have a further discussion of other ADU zoning proposals. So with that, unless there are any initial comments by councillors, and seeing none, I will pass it over to Paula from Ines Associates. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for the overview, Paola. Really helpful. So like we stated at the beginning, this is intended as kind of a bird's eye view introduction to this topic. So I think the best use of our time in this meeting is kind of our first impressions, preferences, questions, and comments that Councilors are coming into this discussion with. I know I've gotten some questions and preferences from community members already saying, Why not this there? Why not this there? So we'll save public comment for the end of this topic. But I first want to recognize Councilors who have some thoughts on this kind of initial jumping off point. And I'll go first to President Bears on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Lazzaro on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Actually, that was a motion or a request that I made during the UR slash NR discussion. I offer that if that's helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. We'll go next to Councilor Latero.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. In my comments, I'll be brief. I know I received a couple of comments from community members earlier this week, requesting specifically more density in Medford Square and West Medford Square, and I hear that reflected in the comments from some of my fellow councilors. Of course, we know that what exactly that means, what sub-district that means, how we're going to tailor it to specific squares and specific corridors will depend on where it's going and will depend on the research that Paula's already said she's going to do of lot size and what is feasible, kind of scaling down what we decide we want, the consensus we come to, to what is actually feasible on the lots in these specific locations. the city. Um but I do think in keeping with the goals, I think that here we have to in every part of the city that we look at that we rezone. We have to be focused on the goals of, um. Allowing for the type of development and density that we want to need in these specific places, and we also have to be keeping an eye on parity between all of the zoned much differently, given a different treatment than another, and that each area is able to enjoy the same potential for commercial and residential development and not left out of that potential. I also wanted to note, and also I see that the section on the The section to the west of 93, north of the river, that's currently penciled in as mixed-use 3, I just wanted to note, I think it's really interesting to be able to consider using mixed-use 3 zones along 93 where it's appropriate, and I think that there's a potential benefit there. where taller buildings could serve as sound insulation and kind of aesthetic insulation from the highway, from people who are living or just doing business or being around in those abutting areas. So I'm really eager for us to look at using those lots along the highway to concentrate more development, taller development, city. When we go when we go tall, near the highway to block it out. It's also the point was made to me recently, I forget by who, that when you are developing at those level of heights, that's when the economics really makes sense for the kind of air filtration and soundproofing that can make quality of life inside those buildings better. Lastly, I just wanted to note I forgot to mention this at the beginning of the meeting, but the map that Councilors and community members are looking at tonight. A lot of this is the proposal. Some of this reflects proposals that have already been made in the case of some of the neighborhood residential and urban residential. Parts on this map, that's part of the proposal that's going to the CD board next. And as I think we're probably all aware, the Mystic Avenue corridor and the Salem Street corridor reflects zoning that was done earlier in the citywide process. So I just wanted to make that clear for folks. A lot of this is just our jumping off point that we will further workshop and change and tweak and become part of the proposal. And some of it along Salem Street and Mystic Avenue in particular reflects rezoning that we've already done earlier in the year. I'll go back to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Looking for fellow comments from Councilors. This is a great jumping off point. I think that this gives us kind of enough to get out of the starting blocks on tweaking this initial proposal. And I believe double check with Paula but I believe that our next meeting in two weeks we can probably expect to see a revised version of this map, including just some formatting changes to make it clear to Councilors and residents, which parts of the map have already been updated which have not. And we might see some changes as well, perhaps in sub districts. Along the lines of President Bears his comment or begin to see tweaks to the map. Based on Councilors and community members feedback for what they'd really like to see prioritized in each of these squares and corridors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Great, thank you, Councilor Halihan. And as Councilor Leming noted, we're having some trouble getting the agenda files published for this meeting. I'm not sure why. I was inside Civic Clerk just at the beginning of the meeting. The agenda files are there. They're not on the public side of the portal. I apologize for that. We will make sure that is figured out ASAP, and I'm sure that these Files that we're looking at tonight will be viewable by everybody by tomorrow. And we will also make sure that the updated that the version of the of this map that Councilors received on Monday didn't have the legend on it will make sure that the public portal is updated with the one that does have the ID for what each of the MX sub districts mean. So apologize for the technical difficulties. We will make sure that the publishing function on Civiclerk is fixed ASAP. Great. Seeing no further comments from Councilors. Thank you for your initial feedback. So far, I look forward to seeing this in its next iteration and I think it goes without saying to anybody who's engaged with this process enough to be a part of this meeting, but I do just want to reemphasize for folks. I think sometimes when we see these zoning proposals come out you know a piece here a piece there can sometimes be confusing. Why is this quarter colored in and this current quarter isn't why is. This is certain color and this is blank. It is because that we're, we're kind of breaking the city into its different, you know constituent parks, which are corridors which are squares which are squarely residential which are kind of none of the above. and we're taking a different approach to each of those. So if you happen to be looking at your street and you're saying, why are they talking about that? It seems like they should be. It's likely a part of a different discussion. And of course, if you ever have questions, if you have further feedback on this proposal, you can always feel free to reach out to city councilors in between these meetings and we're always happy to clarify. see no further comment from city Councilors on this part of the presentation. So before we move on, I want to take Oh, sorry, I didn't invite participation from city staff. Is there any feedback or notes that you want to put on the record at this time? No pressure.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Director Hunt. All right, we will go next to public comment. We're eager to hear your thoughts on this very initial framework, which is due for a lot of tweaking and feedback. I will alternate between the podium and Zoom. Every speaker will have three minutes. I will endeavor to give you a 30 second warning. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, William. All right, we will go next to Zoom. Gaston, name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Gaston. We'll go next to Cheryl. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Cheryl. All right, seeing no one at the podium, we will go with Zoom. I'm going to ask you to unmute, JMN. Great. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: All right, we will go to J.R. Elliott on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes. I'm asking you.
[Kit Collins]: Uh, you have a little less than a minute left. Uh, please feel to feel free to ask any questions and I'll answer them all at the end.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great, thank you so much. Just didn't wanna cut you off on your time there. No, this map is absolutely not finished. This is our very first meeting on the commercial framework. And the intent of tonight, as I stated at the beginning of the meeting, is for this to serve as a jumping off point. This is kind of our first crack at looking at the totality of the commercial framework. So your comments are extremely welcome. The point of tonight is to get this kind of initial feedback, impressions, questions, concerns, with this draft of a commercial framework. Our goal is absolutely not to down zone any part of the city through any of these proposals. So if there are aspects on this map where inadvertently a mixed use area is not included as a mixed use zone, that's something that we'll absolutely want to check and make sure that's not the case because any area that's already mixed use, certainly it's not the intent of the overhaul to decrease mixed use uses in the city, we want to increase them where they make sense. And another goal is to decrease non-conformities. So if you're noticing them on the map, please do put them in writing. You can send them to Director Hunt and myself and we'll make sure that we look at them and make sure that they fit in with this plan. But to your overall point, this is by no means final version of this map, we're actually going to be going square by square, corridor by corridor, to make sure that the new subdistricts and the uses are tailored to each specific square and corridor. So this is intended as kind of a 30,000-foot view. We'll collect all these questions, concerns, and then we'll go granular on each area. So thank you for your comments, and don't worry, we'll be talking way more about this before we take any votes. Is there any additional public comment on Zoom or in the chambers before we move on to our second topic for the evening? Seeing none, thank you for your comments. We've been taking copious notes, and I'm sure that we will have a very interesting updated version of the commercial framework map for our consideration. or a portion thereof for consideration at our next planning and permitting committee meeting. And I also do just want to clarify, depending on what makes most sense for the council's workflow, we might see a updated version of this map in its totality, or we might kind of dilate the telescope onto a specific square or corridor like we were talking about. Great. Thank you all so much for your comments. Paola, I'll turn it back over to you and we can begin our discussion of the updates to the ADU ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. So just to repeat that back in simplified layman's terms, for those less familiar with this topic, the new state law places several new mandatory regulations on cities. around essentially that we are not allowed to prohibit ADUs in these new sets of circumstances. And so we are updating our ADU ordinance to be in compliance with the new state law. Beyond that, there are several options that we can take for ways we might want to tailor. construction the use of ADUs further based on our specific zoning. So it strikes me that the work before us is to essentially approve the amendments to our existing ADU ordinance, incorporating the mandatory updates from the state, and then to make those decisions on ways that we might want to further handle the treatment of ADUs based on the decisions that the state is leaving up to municipalities. I'm sorry. I don't know if that's correct. Um do I have a correct that a lot of the updates that were suggested in the new draft 80 ordinance from Councilor Leming. It sounds like many of those have been covered by the new state regulations. Is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Sorry, Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: great. And I do think that gets to one of the questions before us. Um, but we're not bound by state law. One of the things that is up to the city of Medford. Um, should we allow 80 years in any residential district, not just the districts where a single family housing is allowed by right? Um, so we hear recommendation from Councilor Leming, um, to paraphrase you that we should Go next to a couple of our non voting members on zoom Councilor Lazzaro, and then we'll go to Councilor Tseng
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Council Liz Howard. So to paraphrase, and please let me know if I captured your concern correctly, I think I'm hearing a question about if allowing ADUs beyond what the state mandates, if we're making those by right, sorry, if we're making those by special permit as opposed to by right, if that is gonna be prohibitive to people actually following through on those projects. Planner Evans or Director Hunt, can you speak to a recommendation on that?
[Kit Collins]: I think there's maybe two questions here, because the ADUs in districts where single families are allowed by right, the ADUs are allowed by right. I think the two questions before us are, If we decide to allow ADUs in other residential districts where there were single families not allowed by right, do we want to allow ADUs there? And if so, should it be special permitted or by right? And then in addition to that, if we're allowing a second ADU, are those by right or those have to be by special permit?
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, we should probably be both speaking into the microphone.
[Kit Collins]: If I can zoom us... Oh, sorry. I'll go to you in just a second, Councilor Tseng. That's really helpful, and I do think, especially for people who are new to this topic, it can be a little bit confusing. I think that there's kind of a flowchart of options before us. There's the bulk of this, we don't have an option on because it's state law. In any sub-district that allows single-family homes by right, we must allow ADUs by right for all types of housing within that sub-district, not just the single-family homes. I think we kind of have a short flow chart of decisions before us that are under our jurisdiction as a city. Should we allow ADUs in any residential subdistrict, not just the ones that allow single family homes by right? If so, should they be by right or special permitted and should be tried to tailor by on what lots, they may occur either by right or by special permit and I do agree with the comments from our PDF staff that there are some types of structures, especially in you are one and you are two or just wouldn't make any sense. to have an ADU on one of our denser housing, on one of our most dense housing types. I think the next major decision bucket is should we allow a second ADU on lots that already have one, by special permit, and if yes, in what districts? There's another question. Who should be the special permit grant authority for ADUs that are specially permitted? It seems like the clear recommendation there is it should be the CDB. I would agree. Do we want to allow ADUs that are bigger than 900 square feet or more than half of the floor area of the principal area? And if yes, by right or by special permit? And then finally, we haven't even touched on this yet. Do we want to consider a short-term rental option for ADUs and what would the recommendations for regulations be there? So far, our conversation has been mostly around those first three questions, but I did just want to orient us in the questions before us so that when we leave this meeting and as associates kind of has a better all of the feedback that they might need to start drafting the updates to the ordinance for us based on the stuff that is under our jurisdiction. So eager to hear more comments from councilors on kind of the three main questions. In my mind, should we be allowing ADUs in any residential sub-district, not just the ones that allow single families by right? Should we be allowing a second ADU and special permit and in what districts under what conditions? Go next to Councilor Tseng and then President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Sheng. Go next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Bears. Go back to Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sorry, we couldn't hear your last comment, Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for the question, Councilor Tseng. Go next to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: And if I'm that. If I may. I do want to note and sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Thank you for the discussion on that. I do want to note. I think all Councilors are certainly aware of this. Um. The current Medford short term rental ordinance gets most closely on this ordinance, that the issue really has been enforcement. And I think that that is our first major obstacle to clear, which is, I think we're all aware of the enforcement issues across many departments of the city. Outside of the scope of zoning, I think that the first question is, what is the, kind of, what utility would we want to get out of allowing creating special regulations for short-term rental of Airbnbs, sorry, short-term rentals at all, maybe guided by the context of our enforcement problems so far. Personally, as one Councilor, I am not interested in kind of tailoring our updated ADU ordinance to short-term rentals at all. One of the reasons why I'm excited about this ordinance is because studies of housing in Medford have shown that You know, we have a housing shortage, but we also have a shortage of very specific types of housing, in particular, including small apartments for people who live alone, students, people who are downsizing. And I think that's one really important thing to come out of allowing more ADUs, I would be, I'm kind of, I'm feeling very protective of if we are able to pass regulations that allow more ADUs to flourish where they're appropriate in our community. I would really want those to be protected as a mechanism for adding more of those small types of housing to the community because we know And I think this is in the housing production plan, that a particular shortage of housing type is people who would really like to live alone and they don't need a lot of space, but they have to live with roommates or with family when they prefer not to, because there just aren't studios and one bedrooms available. That would be my preference, is to not consider regulations for a short-term rental for ADUs at this time. Seeing no hands raised from councillors at this time, I'll just throw my two cents in. I want to make sure that we leave this meeting with at least kind of a draft of the consensus for where to go on these main questions for Innes Associates that we can hopefully look at draft amended language in a meeting or two. For myself, I would like to see ADUs allowed in all of our residential districts, not just ones where single families are allowed by right. I think especially since we have this kind of like staircase mechanism with our residential districts, a lot of housing types carry over from one to the next. So to me, it would be arbitrary to say, well, this historic conversion, or this two-unit dwelling unit can have an ADU because it's in this subdistrict, but this other housing type, which is exactly the same, but it's in a different subdistrict, cannot have an ADU under the same conditions just because the subdistrict that it's in. So I'd like to see ADUs allowed in all residential subdistricts. But I agree with the idea thrown out by President Bears that I think when we get into UR1 and UR2, it makes sense to be looking at by right for detached, like kind of where detached is spatially possible. I think it makes sense for that to be by right. And then by right for attached or detached in any neighborhood residential district for anything other than a multiplex. Um... In terms of the question around, should we allow second ADUs by special permit? I think I agree. It's hard for me to picture. Obviously, I'm always happy to consider recommendations from city staff or our consultants, but it's hard for me to picture a lot where it kind of makes sense to have two detached ADUs on the same property. I think it could make sense to look at where would it make sense to allow a second ADU if detached, where there's already a detached one, or vice versa. I'm happy to defer to the planner's recommendations on if we should allow ADUs bigger than 900 square feet. 900 square feet is quite small, so I don't think that that square footage needs to be set in stone. I'm happy to consider something a little bit larger. Was there anything that I missed? I'm not sure I don't think so. Any other comments from Councilors at this time on the treatment of ADUs in other sub districts than the ones where single family is allowed by right? And how those ADUs should be treated, i.e. by right or by special permit? Or if it depends on what housing type. All right, hearing none, we will go to, sorry, give me a second here, I'm rearranging my windows. All right, so I think we're kind of winding down for the night. I wanna make sure that, oh, Councilor Leming, is that a hand raised? I'm sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, was that you wanted a reiteration of the zoning timeline that we got at the beginning of the meeting?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think I'm not sure if Paula covered that. We can... Yes, let's close out councilor comment and public comment on ADUs, and then we can start with a review of the... Then we can... Sorry, we can end with a review of the timeline. All right, let's go to public comment, then I'll summarize our next steps on ADUs, and then we can review the timeline before we adjourn. All right, public participation, seeing nobody at the podium, I will go to Gaston on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Gaston. We'll go next to Matthew on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Matthew. going next to Judith. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you for the question. Paola, are you able to speak to that, how lot size of the principal structure would factor in in areas where ABUs per state law should be allowed by rent?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you very much for the clarifying question, Judith. You have one minute left if you have any other questions for us tonight.
[Kit Collins]: All right. Thank you to all who gave public comment and asked questions about this topic. So just to quickly recap. We went over what is required of us per the new state law. And then we have discussed potential answers to the questions that are before us as a city, things that we do get some leeway on from the state that are left unanswered. What I heard from the discussion on the question of should we allow ADUs in any residential sub-district and not just those that allow single-family homes by right? I heard from my fellow councilors that yes, we do want to see ADUs allowed in all residential sub-districts. We want to have some level of parity. in what's allowed for these different housing types, even across residential sub-district lines. Oops, didn't turn my timer off. But we do wanna see some tailoring and exceptions, especially when we get into the most dense housing types. And I think it makes sense for us to receive a recommendation from the zoning consultant along those lines, factoring that in, whether it's certain types of ADUs being allowed on certain housing types, by special permit, depending on the district, along with the recommendations that were made by councilors earlier in the meeting. So more allowance of ADUs across residential areas, but tailoring to make sure that it's appropriate and makes sense with housing stock, especially when you get into those denser housing types. We discussed allowing a second ADU by in residential districts, which residential districts and should it be by special permit. It sounds like there's an interest in seeing a special permit option and also seeing a little bit of tailoring, depending on that we're not seeing. two detached ADUs on one yard. I think all of these should reflect that the CDB should be the special permit granting authority where there is a special permit involved. I think we're looking for a little bit of flexibility when it comes to that maximum square footage. You could hear a recommendation there. And it sounds like we would also like to see some information about possible mechanisms within zoning for enforcement of short term rentals of ADUs for if that becomes relevant now or in the future. Any additional comment from city councilors or city staff at this time? Great. Seeing none, thank you so much for kicking us off on these two topics tonight, Paola. Really appreciate it. I think this was a very substantive discussion. We're looking forward to seeing an updated We're looking forward to our next step when it comes to the commercial framework. And next, we will be dialing in on specific squares and corridors and giving those a granular tailored treatment. And also look forward to seeing updated draft amendment text for the ADU ordinance to incorporate the new state law and also the local ADU options. With that, can we quickly review the upcoming schedule before we adjourn? Great, so it is our first planning and permitting meeting of March. We discussed We had our first look at a draft commercial framework earlier tonight. We're going to be focusing next on Medford Square and then West Medford Square and then proceeding along to other corridors. We're going to be taking a really specific look at each of these the same way that we did with Mystic Ave and with Salem Street. At the same time, we are going to continue talking about updates to the ADU, and we also plan to talk Let me start over. At the same time as we are talking about these geographies, we will also continue talking about these citywide topics, such as ADUs, which we just discussed. Also included is community solar, nonconforming uses and structures. By April, we hope to have progressed along to West Medford Square and our discussions of squares and corridors, part of the commercial street framework. And hopefully by then we'll be able to talk about transportation demand management, site plan review, and neighborhood nodes as another citywide topic. By May, we hope to be looking at the Wellington slash Glenwood geography and talking about parking. Any questions on the timeline? continue to update this as we go along. Great. Seeing none, I'll recognize Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. We will work to work that into the timeline. Great. Thank you all for a substantive discussion tonight. Do I hear a motion? Motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. And while I'm waiting for the clerk, I will just note that we will, like we said, we'll figure out what's going on with civic clerk post haste. And we will also work to quickly get the zoning page of the website updated with these new topics in progress and all schedule updates will be posted there.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Four in favor, none opposed. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Just want to thank you so much for being here tonight, to you and the rest of the commission. Really appreciate the work that you do year round and I, you know, I want to echo the point that you made earlier in your presentation that it is unfortunate and outrageous that a lot of the time action on bike safety, road safety issues in general is motivated by preventable tragedies occurring in the community. So I'm sorry that you have to do the work that you do, but thank you for helping us rise to the occasion and make things safer for cyclists and pedestrians and drivers and everybody going forward. I'm so glad that this discussion is happening. I'm a cyclist myself, but I think we're all, whether you own a bike or not, we're all aligned for doing what we can concretely to make the road safer for everybody and as I think people know if you look at the side of the road or right in front of you when you're driving around or on the bus in Medford cyclists in Medford in our in our surrounding communities they look like everybody, their commuters, their kids going to school, their elders. it's incredibly important that we do whatever infrastructural work and whatever funding is necessary to bring about these changes that are documented to keep people safer. So I will support any budgetary proposal that we submit to the mayor this spring for FY26 to move the needle on these things that will make cycling safer in Medford. I want to echo your gratitude to Director Blake for the hard work that him and his team have been doing to expand our network of bike lanes in the city. Bike lanes alone are not enough. It is also incredibly important. I know the commission has been working hard on this. It's incredibly important to know that, to work so that drivers know how to behave around cyclists and around bike lanes. And we have a lot of work to do in the community. so that people know the rules of the road and they respect them for their own safety and for other people's safety. So I look forward to continuing these conversations so that we can put money where it needs to be so that people are safer on the roads. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Our deepest condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of Maxwell liner Max was my friend of over 15 years and together we are both graduates of Medford High School class of 2011 and University of Massachusetts Amherst class of 2015. He was a deeply caring person who spent his personal and professional lives, making a positive impact on people through his work in medical care and his loyalty. I'm going to start. I'm going to start again. Thank you. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we send our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and loved ones of Maxwell Leiner. Max was my friend of over 15 years, and together we were both graduates of the Medford High School class of 2011 and University of Massachusetts Amherst class of 2015. He was a deeply caring person who spent his personal and professional lives making a positive impact on people through his work in medical care and his loyalty and devotion to family and friends. Be it further resolved that we dedicate this meeting in his honor. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Any further comment from Councilors? I will just say, only knowing a little bit about Maxwell, what a deep, deep loss that our community has suffered through his untimely passing. We are going to dedicate this meeting and its offer, and I'd like for us to all stand for a moment of silence. Thank you. On the motion to approve by President Bears seconded by Council is arrow all in favor. I all opposed. Motion passes. Shall I continue. All right, reports of committees to five dash 023 offered by George Scarpelli city councilor education and culture committee, February 25 2025. Thank you. You can see I don't run meetings very often. The records of the February 25th meeting were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find them? Thank you. On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, all in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. 25-023 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, Education and Culture Committee report, February 25th. Who is the vice chair for this committee? May I recognize you to give a brief summary of this meeting?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan on the motion by Councilor Callahan to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all in favor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Bears this was our final of four meetings in the planning and permitting committee on the neighborhood and urban residential topic which proposes an updated and modernized framework for residential neighborhoods of the city. Like I mentioned, it was preceded by three other topics during which we workshop this proposal. And at the February 26 meeting we referred it out to the city council for its immediate procedural referral to the Community Development Board for further public meetings, public feedback and promulgation of recommendations motion to approve on the motion to approve of Vice President Collins seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, President Bears, for the overview. I know a lot of people are here tonight for this topic. I'm really excited that we've made it to this point. I'm excited that so many people are here engaging with the comprehensive zoning overhaul. Before we get into discussion, I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion. I want to give a brief overview of the proposal before us, how we got to this point, the meetings that we had, what the proposal says. I'm then going to ask President Bears to recognize Emily Innis from Innes Associates to walk us through on a more the planning and permitting committee meetings. Detail technically technical level and overview of the proposal before us tonight now that it's come back from the CD board, and then I am eager to hear discussion from my fellow Councilors and from the community. So I'll start with a quick outline of the public meetings on this topic that got us to today. This proposal was developed as all of the other zoning proposals were in this process. Um in the planning and permitting The CDB began its public hearing on this topic on January 22nd. That is a step that we always take with any zoning proposal or any zoning change or amendment. It always goes from the city council to the CDB board for their public hearings before it comes back to the city council and that's what that last step is what's happening tonight. but the CDB began its public hearing on January 22nd. There was a lot of community feedback. A lot of people in this room know. So the public hearing was continued to March 5th to allow more time for the board to consider and deliberate and to allow for more opportunities for public comment. In the interim, we added a new step to our review timeline, which is a public Q&A. We had that on February 10th. This wasn't something that we did for our phase one zoning updates. It wasn't something that we did for the Mystic Avenue corridor district proposal, which passed in December. But with Salem Street, we heard really loud, really clear that people wanted more information. They wanted more opportunities to ask questions. They wanted more opportunities to give public comment. So I want to thank city staff and Innes Associates for their flexibility and making sure that we got a local in-person Q&A on the calendar, which I understand a lot of residents attended, and I'm so glad that they did. On March 5th, the CDB had the continuation of its public hearing on the Salem Street Corridor District. They reviewed updated recommendations from the zoning consultant that were put forward after all of the public feedback that was heard on February 10th, and they heard additional public comment on that night. So that brings us to today. And in addition to this public meetings, these public meetings, they also want to note, I know for I as one Councilor, I've been receiving a lot of public feedback throughout the process of the zoning, through emails, through phone calls, through texts. I'm sure that all of my colleagues have too. And I want to again, thank everybody for engaging with us on this topic. And I hope that you'll continue to do so as we approach other topics through the spring. Another important part of this process, I think, are the new resources that we added during the Salem Street phase of the zoning overhaul. While Salem Street was working its way through the committee to CBB back to City Council process, city staff have worked alongside myself and President Bears to overhaul the communications and online resources that we publish about zoning. creating new ones and making sure that we're using all of the communication channels that the city has. We spent many hours on a total redesign of the zoning website so that it's easier for residents to learn about proposals, upcoming meeting dates, look at visuals and graphics, and separate fact from fiction. I say it a lot, I know that zoning is really detailed, it's really technical, it's often confusing, and not just for residents, for city staff and Councilors alike, but I also know that Medford residents don't scare off that easy, and I'm really glad that the community has encouraged us to overhaul the information that we have online so that it's easier for residents to be informed and involved, and we're continuing to work with the mayor's office to keep making that better and better. So onto this specific proposal. I will give a high level like I said I'll give a high level overview of what's before us before Emily will walk us through more of the details. The Salem Street corridor district proposal is one part of our comprehensive and citywide zoning overhaul. This began in the spring of 2024. Green Score and the Salem Street Corridor District are the third and fourth major packages to come out of this process. They were predated by the phase one technical updates and the Mystic Ave Corridor District proposal. Overall, the goal of this process is to take the goals and the visions of the Housing Production Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and help make them real in our community. These plans were not written by the city council. They didn't come out of this room. These plans were the product of years of community feedback, community meetings, and community feedback. They speak to our shared goals for the future that we all love. A future of the city where there are homes for young adults who can afford to settle. Apartments where students and workers can live comfortably and where our elders can downsize. Neighborhood squares that are lively and full of businesses and people running errands and meeting friends close to where they live and where we are more climate resilient than we are today. So what do these goals look like for Salem Street specifically? How does this end up in the proposal that we're talking about tonight? This proposal allows for moderately increased residential housing on Salem Street from the 93 Rotary up through Haines Square. We can do that by regulating density, height, and lot size principally. By-right densities are moderately changing. By-right heights are also moderately changing, but they are not always increasing. Right now, maximum by-right heights for most of the corridor is three stories. Under this proposal, that's staying much the same everywhere except for in mixed-use two sub-districts. In mixed-use two sub-districts, it's proposed to go up by one story, so you can build to four stories as your buy-right maximum. In Haines Square, this proposal would actually lower maximum heights. Right now, if you wanted to, which I don't think a lot of residents would want to, you could be building a six-story apartment building or a 15-story hotel. This proposal will bring that down to scale. I next want to quickly touch on commercial. Salem Street, we all know, is characterized by many beloved small businesses from convenience stores to karate dojos to bike shops, and all of them are nonconforming under our current zoning. This proposal allows for ground level commercial buy right to encourage small business development and make it easier to see more of these things and these types of businesses that we already love. I'll quickly touch on incentive zoning. Through incentive zoning under this proposal, it is possible to build above the three-story maximum and the four-story maximum by right. Developers could build up to four stories in mixed-use one sub-districts and up to six stories in mixed-use two and commercial sub-districts if they maximally satisfy a certain community benefit conditions. Incentive zoning increases are not allowed in multi-unit residential sub-districts. those areas top out at three stories permanently. There's no opportunity for going above three there. I do want to stress that incentive zoning is not a blank check for developers. Any uses that are not by right uses will still go through site plan review and public permitting procedures that involve studies and negotiation of community benefits and impact mitigation agreements on a case-by-case basis. This proposal also includes development context standards, regulations for how upper floors must be built and shaped to ensure that new buildings don't feel out of place nor block light from existing residential homes. The committee, the consultant, and the CDB also paid special consideration to what kind of uses the community did and did not want on Salem Street. And Emily Ennis will speak more about that next, but I'll just quickly mention this zoning proposal does reflect changes to allowed uses based on a lot of community feedback that we heard throughout January and February. Under this proposal, the only medical uses in the district will be quote-unquote neighborhood medical, which is a new defined term. They are no more than 1,500 square feet and no more than five employees. Neighborhood medical will be allowed by special permit only in mixed use two and commercial sub-districts. Hotels, which are allowed under our current zoning, would be prohibited under this proposal throughout the entire corridor. And I want to quickly speak to what this proposal does not allow, because there's been a lot of talk about this proposal in this community, and not all of it is accurate. I want us to be armed with the facts. I know that there's been a lot of concern about what zoning in the city will allow for large dorms. This zoning proposal does not create conditions for large dorms on Salem Street. In fact, this proposal recommends no dorms at all, and no sub-district all along the corridor. Neither would it create the conditions for pot shops, all marijuana commercial uses, including retail are prohibited along this corridor boarding houses are allowed only by special permit, they are disallowed in multi unit residential sub districts. I know there's some concern about historic buildings. Buildings over 75 years old are protected by the city's demolition delay ordinance. Buildings can be further protected by the establishment of historic districts, whereby changes can be regulated by the Historic District Commission. This council this term has been supportive of those districting measures. and I'm sure would welcome further collaboration on historic preservation along Salem Street and along other corridors. Broadly speaking, and this applies not only to historic structures, but to structures in general, if any use or structure is rendered nonconforming because of zoning changes, they can continue. There are specific rules that govern nonconforming uses, but right now, Salem Street and much of the city is peppered with nonconforming buildings and lots, which may remain in perpetuity except as outlined under Mass General Law, Chapter 40A. Lastly, I'll quickly speak to a concern that I know a lot of people have around traffic, traffic impact along Salem Street. First, I will note there are no parking changes proposed in this proposal. I know that a lot of folks have been concerned about impact on existing uses and structures through traffic on Salem Street and eager to see the impact on traffic because of changes that might come about through zoning. When we talk about zoning, We're talking about changes that will occur over the long term. Some changes might occur relatively quickly within the next five years. Some changes might not become manifest for decades. That is why in the review process, it is more effective, more beneficial to the community to keep traffic and impact mitigation studies where they currently reside, which is at the point of permitting. A traffic study done today or done this year might be completely outdated, irrelevant, unhelpful to the community when a new proposal is proposed under the current zoning in five years, in 10 years, in 20 years. Those type of impact studies are located at the time of permitting so that the community has the best information it can use when it's doing those negotiation, impact study, and community benefit negotiations with developers. I've spoken a lot. I want to pass the mic. I'll ask President Bears to next recognize Emily Innis from Innes Associates, a familiar face to most of us. She is going to walk us through a more detailed, more technical overview of the recommendations to this proposal that have come out of the Community Development Board. I thank my fellow councilors for giving me this time to give an overview of this proposal, and I look forward to our discussion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And before I begin, I want to say thank you to every person who attended and spoke and shared your perspective with us. I know it takes a lot to spend your evenings this way, and it's really appreciated. Not everybody will feel represented by this, but in listening to public comment over the past few hours I noted that many speakers, even when they were here to explain why they were not in favor of this proposal, affirmed that they agree that zoning in principle is needed. We also heard a lot about concerns about problems that zoning may worsen, or that zoning will not help us to make progress on. I again want to quickly restate and affirm that changing zoning is not the same as flipping a switch. Some lots may be developed very quickly. Many will not. Many will take years. This is a long-term plan. As we deliberate, I urge my colleagues and my fellow community members to not mistake standing still for moving forward. And I want to make really clear that neglecting to rezone for the 21st century will not allow us to improve parking enforcement, slow traffic, get cars off the road, improve sidewalks, improve crosswalks, improve infrastructure capacity, prevent businesses from getting displaced due to escalating commercial rents, prevent people from getting displaced due to escalating residential rents, make it easier to buy homes in Medford, improve heat islands or pollution, or force the MBTA to speed up the bus network redesign rollout. Zoning alone will fix none of these things. zoning is one part of a multi-part strategy. It must fit in with, and it does fit in with, linkage fees, impact fees, increasing our school capacity, improving our water and sewer infrastructure, improving our roads, holding electricity utilities accountable, expanding our tree canopy, holding developers to higher environmental standards citywide, making it easier for businesses to find a home in Medford, traffic calming, road improvements, holding the DOT and the DCR accountable to making state roads safer, All of these projects are currently underway. They occur parallel to the zoning effort at the same time as we contemplate rezoning and stopping a decades overdue zoning project will not help any of these projects that are occurring in tandem. They're also towards goals that I believe we all share. It will much more likely help us. I know a lot of people have tonight talked about the revenue that we will enjoy because of uptoning through permitting fees and for new growth. That is not the reason that we zone, or at least it's not the reason that I come to the zoning effort. I think that that's true for most people. We don't zone because of the revenue. But it is true that the development will raise our commercial tax base and help us pay for the things that we know we need, many of the things that were mentioned tonight, from infrastructure improvements to paying our public workers better, and attracting great new workers to City Hall, to stump removal and planting trees and parking enforcement, and being able to fund more school buses. We need funding to do these things, and this will help. I also want to touch again on studies because those were talked about a lot tonight. Not to be repetitive, but site plan review process and special permit process is governed by state law. Direct debuttors are always notified. These projects appear on public agendas. They're reviewed in public meetings of the ZBA, the CDB, or the city council, depending on the project. Impact studies such as traffic impacts reviewed by police and fire safety inspections. These are done. It is current practice for developers to take on the cost of their studies, which are then reviewed by city staff, including our public safety officials, boards and commissions. They are done on a project by project basis because that is the point of decision for the city and the community. A traffic study done in 2024 would not be useful nation. useful information when in 2020, sorry, would not be useful information when, for example, in 2034, a developer might want to develop on Salem Street. It would not be useful information for when we are negotiating with that developer for what parking and traffic mitigation they are going to do then to address the traffic patterns, congestion level, and parking needs for that development at that point in time. And finally, regarding gentrification and displacement. The displacement that people are so afraid of and offended by and saddened by is already happening commercially and residentially. Refusing change is not a solution to gentrification. The solution to increasing housing stock, the solution is increasing housing stock. while expanding public housing, while growing our affordable housing trust portfolio, while considering a residential property tax exemption, while doing first-time homebuyer support, while pursuing rent stabilization, because otherwise there is no backstop in the world that will prevent out-of-town corporate landlords from cheating tenants like numbers on a spreadsheet. It would be wishful thinking to say that rezoning is a panacea for housing affordability. That is why nobody behind this rail has said that. This is one piece of the puzzle. It is not our only strategy for increasing affordable housing. And to all those who are upset that this proposal is not bullish enough on affordable housing, I would welcome your partnership with this council on any and all of those other strategies. Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion with my fellow councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Now for a zoning proposal that will undoubtedly garner the same level of excitement as the prior. The green score proposal is a rubric for grading and essentially rewarding developers based on various requirements incentives that they meet for meeting environmental standards in their building projects. It does this by incorporating the new green score rubric into our site plan review process, and it defines new development waivers. Green Score is not a grading rubric that applies to every development. It applies only to projects that are located in certain zones within the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer and projects that are subject to site plan review. The green score zoning proposal includes and then builds upon Medford's existing environmental standards for developers. It goes upon these existing standards such as stormwater management and permeable surfaces or open space and permeable surfaces to include additional flexible new ways for developers to meet environmental standards that we already know we want developers to be meeting in Medford. from meeting these specific and defined environmental and climate resiliency criteria. Developers may receive, I'm going to say quote unquote rewards, such as development waivers or bonuses. These waivers or bonuses are very clearly defined. It's not just anything, it's things that we have decided are worth trading for these specific environmental achievements that developers would probably not find it economically feasible or enticing to do otherwise. This is our way of encouraging developers to be more climate friendly than they would be otherwise, within this defined structure of waivers and rewards that still fit our vision, vision, sorry, long night, for our community. The incentive structure is a menu of different landscape and infrastructural elements that provide options that can be tailored to different building and site conditions. So it's designed to be flexible to different developers' needs and what conditions are on different lots, so that there's something that every developer can take us up on. They might include, just for example, planted areas, different types of plantings. green or blue roofs, vegetated walls, permeable paving. And there's quite a long list if folks are interested. This is laid out in the meeting materials that are linked on our public portal. And for the environmental set, you'll probably find it quite interesting. Lastly, I just want to clarify, green score does not allow developers to exceed our existing height or story maximums. Um, any incentives or waivers earned through green score or incentive zoning are still constrained by our total height maximums. Um, and I also want to clarify because we get this question a lot that green score is a separate process from building energy efficiency standards. We have already adopted the state specialized energy code, and this is different from that. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you for the question. I think that's a really thoughtful one. The planners may know they might have studies that accompanied their study of the municipalities where this has been rolled out before. I would have to follow up and ask them. I believe they dropped off the call a couple hours ago. We can try and get that information for you. What I will say is that, and again, I would want to fact check myself on this, I Green score is so multifactorial because essentially what it is, and I know you understand what it is we're saying, over here are a fairly long list of environmental or climate resiliency improvements that we would have developers do on a quite broad constraint, but still quite broad type of structures on a quite broad type of surfaces, not all commercial, not all residential. And over here, we have a series of you know, again, quote unquote, rewards or waivers or bonuses that they might get in return. Those are the reason that they're doing the increased environmental stuff over here. Because of the level of permutations just in that kind of framework alone, if there's a study on the economic impact overall, I'd be really curious to see it. I'm sure if there's one, our planners have consulted it. But I think this entire project for developers is an exercise in saying, What should we do over here that will make this a net positive for us economically over here because of what we will get in return? I feel like the example of this that we talk about most frequently is kind of pick any environmental criteria. Okay, we'll do a green roof. And in addition, you get to build one more story than you would otherwise. I'm not pulling that from the proposal. I'm just using kind of like round numbers such as it were. The developer in choosing which kind of environmental add-ons can they feasibly do, do they think is worthwhile, they're doing that calculation to say what can I do to meet green score at the minimum or optimal level to meet the minimum waiver structure to try to level up for increased benefits. I feel pretty confident that put this another way. Developers are interacting with the system in a way to increase their net gain in a way that also increases our net gain in terms of climate resiliency benefits that we wouldn't see otherwise. We can look into if there's plans that augmented in associate's study of the topic. But I don't have a clear answer for you because this could go in so many permutations of ways when it's implemented. Sorry, I don't have a clear answer for you.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to adopt the CDB's recommendations and approve the zoning ordinance amendment.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Motion to suspend the rules to take 25-042 out of order.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro beat me to the motion but I just want to say thank you so much Superintendent Cushing especially for hanging with us to present this paper so late in the evening. And, you know, all of these projects happening at the same time and the prioritization efforts speaks to how diligent the school's administration is about making sure that what needs to happen on what timeline is being paid attention to so closely by the school's administration to make sure that students will enjoy the upgraded buildings that they need on the timeline, that they need to not be impacted by a building problem. So just thank you so much for your work and excited to get to vote on this.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Paris. It's exciting to get to this phase in the process. Just want to begin by thanking the community for advocating for a new charter. This advocacy has been going on for a long time. It predates the specific chapter in the charter review process. Community members, many of whom are in the room tonight, and I'm sure watching on Zoom, Council. Um have been advocating for this before. There was a charter study committee assembled by the mayor. Um I'm excited that I get to vote. Yes on a new charter twice in my time as a city Councilor first a couple years ago, and hopefully again in a couple weeks. I want to thank the Charter Study Committee, especially Chairman Donald for all of your hard work. The count the Collins Center for consulting with the Charter Everybody tuning into this process knows this already, but I think it bears repeating the council's role in this process is not to draft or craft the draft charter, but to review it and to make targeted improvements and adjustments the Charter Study Committee We know they worked really hard, diligently gathering community input, interpreting that as best as they could, creating this long and technical draft. That's no mean feat. And now it is our responsibility, it being passed off to us at this part of the process, to have given it a thorough and earnest review. Our review is not a rubber stamp. but a responsibility that we know we all, none of us take lightly to make adjustments that in our perspective, given our access, given our information, given our perspective as Councilors, to make this draft as strong as it can possibly be for the long-term good of the people that our body governs, for the good of the community. I believe that this draft Excuse me. I believe that this draft charter really does constitute a very major step forward towards a better functioning and more modernized guiding structure for our city. I especially want to shout out the simple fact that this charter would require a review of the charter every 10 years, which is really important. I'm so glad that the draft charter would include a review of itself for going forward, because I think that this process has illustrated how much we need that to happen on a regular cadence. Councilor Tseng, I think, gave a really helpful overview of the two most substantive changes that the Council made in committee. I do believe that these will make our governance better and stronger for the people of Medford. I've said this before in our committee meetings, but I do believe that moving from an all-at-large Councilor system to four district Councilors, plus three at large. I think this is a positive change. This is substantially more localized representation than Medford has ever seen before in its city council. Guaranteeing representation from all four quadrants of the city. while balancing against potential negatives that I do believe could come from having one Councilor from eight small wards such as uncompetitive elections and parochialism. We have had a really substantive back and forth about this issue in particular in these chambers. I'll speak as one Councilor. It's given me a lot to think about. I think that I'm so grateful that the community challenged us to think really, really deeply about this issue of representation. I know that we do not have consensus on this council about what the best system of localized representation will be. And I'm so grateful that my belief is no matter how we go forward, Medford will enjoy more localized representation on the city council than it has before. And that is what the residents deserve. Councilor Tseng has also outlined additional technical edits, which I do think shore up this legal document and resolve unintended ambiguities. That's again, that's a really important part of our responsibility here on the city council. And thank you Chair Tseng for your diligence in making sure that we caught all the nitty gritty. So I am grateful to my colleagues and all members of this process for such earnest participation. I second the motion from Councilor Tseng and I look forward to hearing further comment from my fellow councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate the discussion from my colleagues on this. Um, in this question of who we're talking about, not the only change we've made to the charter, but one of the changes that I think a lot of the community that's paying attention to this issue at all is most delighted to. And I hear it being brought up a lot, what we don't know, what we can't know, what we do know. And I think some of my fellow Councilors have made the point quite well that we cannot purport to know what the community as a monolith knows or feels. I don't believe that we know what the majority of the community thinks about this particular issue specifically. I'm really grateful for the outreach that was done. I think that's informed this process very meaningfully. I'm glad that we have data from the residents that were polled through the Charter Study Committee's process. But I don't think that what we can say is that we know how the community feels about this proposal. I don't think that anybody can say that. I can't say that my fellow councillors have said that they don't feel that they can make that statement. I don't think that anybody can. However, I think what's important for this city council, what feels important to me as a councillor is to focus on what we can know for certain which is that what residents want out of this process is a governance structure that works better than before and gets us closer to what we can know will be better for this community, which is more localized representation that seeks to balance what it seems like what we can extrapolate from the community feedback that we've gotten, which is that most people favor a mixed system, and to balance that with the research and the data statistics that we've gathered in good faith, from various sources, including the Collins Center, including also supplementary studies and research from sources that are renowned and should be respected in the field and certainly shouldn't be condescended in this conversation that are enriching this process. Our responsibility is not to take a vote that will make people closest to us happy with us. Our responsibility is to take the votes that we think are right and best for the community long term, even if it will cost us politically short or long term. The responsibility is to outcomes and not popularity. That is why I have come down in favor of four district Councilors and five at-large Councilors. And I just think not exclusive to this issue, but in general, when we start talking about knowing for certain what the community as a whole feels and believes, the community feedback that we know that we have, the input that we know that we've gotten should always be considered and treated with all of the gravity and meaningfulness that it deserves and I think it does a disservice to the outcomes when we let ourselves believe that what we have heard from the people who are most tuned in and most easy to access and most plugged in to feedback channels in the city, when we let ourselves believe that that is the whole picture, I think we do a disservice to the greater outcomes. And the overall point to me of reinvestigating representation in the city council is to focus the consequences of those outcomes of the people who are least engaged in these processes already, the people that we are least likely to have heard from in this process and in others, people who are least likely to be represented or that we're hearing from in any form. And that's why I think it's so important to way what we know some people feel, many people feel, and to not diminish that feedback whatsoever, to not diminish it as an ingredient in this process whatsoever, but to balance it with what else we know about the consequences of these various strategies. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So I know everybody knows how I feel about City Council composition at this point. I've been pretty clear. I've been pretty clear for several meetings. I'm not really interested in repeating myself. I'm sure everybody else is even less interested in me repeating myself. But I did hear a Councilor say that nobody has articulated concerns with the three system and that is just not true. And I do want to correct the record on that point. I won't speak for other Councilors, I know other Councilors have brought up other concerns, some of which will overlap with mine as one Councilor. I have brought up concerns with having one ward Councilor for each of eight small wards. Something I said back in January when we first talked about city council composition, my research has indicated to me that in small ward systems like ours would be, the pool of candidates would be very small. I also went on to say, wards do not deserve simple representation full stop. Wards deserve compelling and competitive elections each and every time. That's what they deserve. This is still my main concern with an 8-3 system. And just to reiterate my other concern is parochialism, I think I've never been shy that one of my two main issues on the council is housing and housing production. that by having the bulk of the council being small work Councilors, there would be some very real potential harms for strategies that by necessity have to be citywide, in which the city council would have to work across district boundaries and get ahead of the tendency to be protective of one's own home base. We've talked about that before. I've raised these concerns before. I don't bring that up because I want to relitigate that before. I know that people disagree with me about those concerns, but it's not accurate to say that we are It's not accurate to say that I have one Councilor. I'm forwarding a strategy, having cited no concerns with another approach. That is just not true. I've never been shy about saying what my concerns with H3 are. I will accept that my fellow Councilors will disagree with me when they disagree. I can accept that community members will disagree with me when they disagree. I can fully accept that community members may not want to support me in the future if I do things that they disagree with. That is your right, and I accept that. And I would not want to go forward. I would not think that I would earn this seat if I was supporting an approach that I did not think was best for the community just because I think it would make me more popular. But what I do not accept is being prescribed a reasoning for my vote that is not my own, and I don't think it is productive to this conversation. I don't think it's fair to the residents for us to, I don't think it is in any way additive for us to have this conversation. And we can disagree, and that's great, and I think that's really important, and I'm glad we're disagreeing out in the open, but I don't think it adds anything for anybody for us to be putting words in each other's mouths about why the way we feel the way that we do. I do not want to cut off discussion if there are any other members of the public who would like to speak, but if there are not, I would move the question.
[Kit Collins]: All right, why don't we get started? There will be a meeting with the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, February 26th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, he'll be here shortly.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, she is on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Leming, that was to you. I can't hear.
[Kit Collins]: Beginning to speak into the mic for the folks on Zoom. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Four present, one running late. The meeting is called to order. Thank you all for joining tonight in person and on Zoom. The action and discussion item for this committee meeting is 24-033, Zoning Ordinance Updates with the Innes Associates team. This is our fourth meeting of this committee of the year, and it's also our fourth meeting on the neighborhood and urban residential topic. So I know that Innes Associates will be walking through kind of the progression of this topic that we've seen over the past couple months in their presentation just shortly. But in a nutshell, this is the part of our citywide... Sorry, I'm going to turn my volume up. Now that I hear the fans coming on, this is the has my volume better. Okay, thank you. This is the part of the city wide review of our community zoning in which we are looking at zoning and specifically residential districts. We're looking at everything from the lowest density districts in the city up to the highest density districts where we currently see the highest density for residential uses and also those areas where it makes sense to prioritize denser residential housing because of new T stations in the community. The goal of the neighborhood and urban residential zoning proposal is to look at the areas of the city that are already residential and craft a updated and thoughtful proposal that responds to what is already there, what the geography and topography and characteristics dictate for what can go into each section of the city, and to create a more thoughtful gradient of housing options from the lowest density residential up to the highest density residential. So we have been workshopping and iterating on this for the past, the three prior committee meetings. And I know that Paola in just a minute is going to run us through kind of how this proposal has evolved over those past three meetings. What is new tonight, in my understanding, which we talked about last or two weeks ago, is that now that we have revised the district map, that bird's eye view of what residential subdistrict could go where throughout the city, we're now going to take a closer look at dimensional standards. And we are also going to look at different options for how to protect non-conforming structures in the potential updated residential subdistricts. And then we're also going to talk a little bit about what comes after this phase of the project. So with that, I will check and see if there are any Councilors who have initial questions or comments up top. And then I will hand it over to Ines Associates for a presentation and we can take things from there. And as usual, we will take all public comment at the end of the meeting. So bear with us. All right, seeing none, happy to pass it over to Emily or Paola to walk us through our presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. Paola, thank you for that, for the introduction to how the proposal maps have changed over the past three meetings. And just to highlight two things that I don't want to get lost in the discussion, or things that I want to clarify, you're saying that the only change for the Proposal 4 map from Proposal 3, which we looked at two weeks ago, is that the UR1, Urban Residential 1 subdistrict, now extends closer to Ball Square. And the colors have changed. That was in response to feedback that the different shades of yellow were just really hard to parse, hard for people to tell what was different. So if people are seeing a new teal or green on the map, that's not a new sub-district. It's just a new, more contrasting color for the same sub-district as we were looking at before. Did I capture the part about Ball Square sub-district correctly? Yes, that's perfect. Great. Thank you. And I also just want to I forgot to say this up top. Um, but it's my understanding that this also has not changed from the original version of the proposal that when we're talking about these residential sub districts, the maximum by right height for all residential sub districts is three stories.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'm going to recognize
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and I see Attorney Silverstein, who's working on this project on Zoom, I'll recognize you as well.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for that guidance, Attorney Silverstein. You're welcome. Councilor Leming, do you have more on that topic? Does that satisfy your question?
[Kit Collins]: I understand we are going to get deeper into the ADU's discussion in two weeks, as Paula mentioned. So I think that's very helpful. And thank you for the legal guidance, Attorney Silverstein. I think for the purposes of this proposal, we could probably put a pin in that discussion for now, but really appreciate the clarity on how it relates to the districts in this proposal where single family homes are allowed by rightness. I don't see any by special permit in this table currently. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for that overview. It's exciting to see the two months of discussions distilled into a couple of organized tables. Thank you for that clarity. I know we have another section to the presentation that we're talking about tonight. Before we move on to that, are there any further questions from councillors? on the dimensional requirements or any of the new, we'd say new definitions. These are topics that we were talking about throughout this process and are also present. You know, have been present for a long time, but any questions on the definitions and dimensionals presented tonight? I'll recognize President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Perfectly teed up the next section of the presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for looking at the current ordinance to see if the protections that we'd want to make sure are present under the new zoning, if those still apply to the current zoning. It's great to hear that. It sounds like we won't have to make many, if any, further tweaks to make sure that if, should the noose of districts be approved, and this goes into effect, that people who live in existing single family homes in districts where maybe single family homes, new ones will not be allowed by right, will not suffer, you know, a burdensome and onerous and inconvenient permitting process when they want to make the kind of improvements to their homes that anybody should be able to do. Great to hear. Thank you. Any additional questions on that point, President Bears or other councilors? All right. Seeing none. Thank you. So we have before us the updated draft zoning proposal for the neighborhood and urban residential. We ran through the zoning map that the text describes, the updated zoning map, the dimensional requirements, had a discussion about how that affects ADUs, and we know that at our next meeting in two weeks, we're gonna dive in a little bit deeper on the ADU issue, kind of a citywide approach, not specific to this proposal. And we'll also hear a little bit more about development standards for multifamily buildings in that one highest density residential subdistrict, UR2. So we have that to look forward to. And I believe that next phase of our process will also dovetail with us starting to get a little bit deeper into a kind of shifting out of residential sub districts for the moment, talking more about a commercial framework. which will guide our discussions later in the spring about the more commercial areas of the city, some additional corridors, squares. I know a lot of people are eager for us to talk about Medford Square. We're working hard to make sure that that conversation dovetails with the other work, RFP, other consultant work that's been in the works around Medford Square. So we have a lot coming up on the pipeline as folks, so on the timeline earlier in the process. I'll recognize President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: I will run through that timeline one more time before we adjourn tonight. But before we kind of give that overview and move to public comment, I wanted to ask if there are any motions on the proposal before us, any additional questions or comments from councilors. As we all know, but just to reiterate it, this is kind of the long first or second step in the zoning amendment process, depending on how you want to look at it. This is our fourth meeting on this proposal. After a new zoning or zoning amendment is referred out of this committee, it is then referred by the City Council to the Community Development Board for public hearings, one or more, where there may be more public comment. We are working with the zoning consultant and city staff to make sure that we host another public Q&A session for this proposal before the CBP public hearing or hearings on it. like we did for the Salem Street corridor. After review by the CDB and it puts forward its recommendations, it will then come back to the city council for another public meeting where we will take a vote on it. And that's again, just to like to say it at least once every meeting is the process that all zoning has to go through. I know there's a lot of moving parts, but we really do hope that everybody participates in as many pieces of that process as they can and want to.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
[Kit Collins]: Absolutely.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Seeing no further comments or questions from councilors, we'll go now to public participation on this proposal. I will alternate between the podium and Zoom. Everybody will have three minutes to state comments or ask questions. If there are questions, you can then bundle them and have the zoning consultants or city staff or councilors respond to them at the end of all public comment as appropriate. All right, I'll start on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. They're available on Civiclerk right now. I'll put the link in the chat. All right. You have the floor if you have any other questions for us tonight, Zachary.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. All right. Oh, thanks for moving that, Paolo. All right, Gaston, please go ahead. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry. Yeah, we do.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your questions. Right, we'll go back to Zachary. I think that's a new hand and not an old hand.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, we had the public q&a. Well, just to state up top the we've been updating the timelines as we've been going along. So if you're referring to a timeline from a past meeting packet, it's probably not.
[Kit Collins]: Got it. Great. Our intent with the public Q and A's is for that to kind of be slotted in between the city council committee creation of the proposal before the CDB holds public hearings on it to create an additional chance for public comment before it's referred out of the CDB and back to the city council for a vote. So an opportunity for comment for Q and A is before the zoning proposal is referred back to the city council for a vote to ordain.
[Kit Collins]: It's the public Q&A is not, it is not a function of the CD board. I'm gonna go to President Bears to respond to this.
[Kit Collins]: I recognize Director Hunt at the microphone as well, then we'll go back to you, Zachary.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the clarifying question. I see no further hands raised on Zoom. Please go ahead. And then we'll go back to Zoom. Just your name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your questions.
[Kit Collins]: Please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. Thank you for your questions, Judith. We really appreciate it. I think that is clarifying for a lot of people. And of course, if you have further questions, anybody in the chambers or online, please do feel free to forward them to the planning staff or myself, and we will make sure that they get to the right person. I'm going to recognize Councilor Scarpelli, and then we have some folks who haven't spoken yet on Zoom. Go ahead, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, we can hear you now. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpellile.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bearson. Thank you, Judith, for kicking off a thoughtful discussion and to Councilor Scarpelli for weighing in. We have a number of people on Zoom that have been waiting, so if you don't mind, I'm going to hop to that queue and then we'll come right back to the podium. I saw Janie's hand first. Janie, I'm going to unmute you. Please name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, appreciate you bringing that up. We are going to begin talking about that's going to be a part of the next phase, the next chapter of the zoning overhaul. We're going to begin talking about the commercial framework broadly in March, and we're not going to be diving straight into a new proposal for. Boston have the Boston have district we are very much going to be looking at an institutional zone for Tufts University made making sure to prioritize discussions with the residents to form the basis of that we don't have a I don't want to advertise a specific committee day we're going to be talking about Boston have yet just because we're still putting together that timeline. and we're going to be just making sure that we're scheduling meetings for the community really thoughtfully. So we will be putting out a more specific calendar when those dates become available. I think between March and April, those will be coming up, but if you're not seeing the dates right now, it's just because they aren't on the website. I'm gonna go to President Bears, I see you have a comment.
[Kit Collins]: I think that's also likely but not confirmed just now and we'll be sure to, I'm sure that at our first meeting about the commercial framework on March 12th, if I'm remembering that correctly, we will be able to present a more specific timeline for meetings under that category, which will include Austin Ave as well as other corridors such as Main Street. So thank you for that question.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, of course. Thank you for the more specific answer than I was offering. Thank you so much for your comments, Janie. And I just do want to acknowledge the point that you're making about affordable housing. I really appreciate you bringing that into this discussion. We had a long discussion about that two weeks ago in this committee. It's certainly on the forefront of all of our minds. It's a value that we share. We are trying to make sure that this zoning, our updated zoning, encourages and incentivizes affordable housing wherever possible and where that is not possible within the confines of what zoning can do. The City Council, in collaboration with many City Hall departments, is working very hard on other parts, on other affordable housing strategies, such as supporting our affordable housing trust fund, a brand new community land trust, and other, for example, we were able to put online affordable housing incentives for veteran renters this year. It takes a lot to deal with this very, very gargantuan regional issue of housing unaffordability. We're trying to do that in zoning where we can, where we can't. There's a lot of other strategies that we're collaborating on, and thank you for making sure that We're keeping this up for this discussion and others. I'll go back to podium, and then we'll go to folks who have hands raised on Zoom, prioritizing folks who haven't spoken yet. Name and address for the record, please. Three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, William. I'll go next to Cheryl on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Go ahead, Cheryl. I'm asking you to unmute.
[Kit Collins]: Am I unmuted? Now you're good. Go ahead. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comment, Cheryl. All right. We are going to continue on Zoom. Then we'll go back to folks who have spoken already. Maryann, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. Three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: There you go. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments, Mary Ann. All right, we will return to the podium. And for folks who have spoken already, we'll just request. There's only folks who have already spoke left, so we'll alternate back. And for folks who have already spoke, if you could try to limit your comments to just a minute or two, that'd be appreciated. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: All right, I see one more hand raised on Zoom. Zachary, I'll unmute you. If you could keep your follow-up comments to just a moment or two, that'd be appreciated. Please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Zachary. Appreciate that comment. If I'm apprehending your question correctly and I see Emily approaching the podium, I think for folks looking to get that kind of source material for where is the vision for this coming from, the land use map that Paola referenced up top at the start of the presentation from the comprehensive plan I look to is kind of the source image for Why are we looking to do what we're looking to do where? And that's drawn on, as we know, looking at current features of the community, social, demographic, natural, architectural, et cetera. Looking at existing trends, looking at what can occur where. I'm sure that you've looked at it already. I think that's the best single source for how all of this comes together. And I think that that does shed light on both why the current density is where it is and why what we're trending towards is what it is as well.
[Kit Collins]: It might also be that there are different opinions about where density should occur. I know that on our approach, there are many factors guiding where we think lower density is appropriate and where we think higher density is appropriate, but concentrating around major institutions, our best sources of transit and existing density is kind of the North Star for that. And I do wanna recognize Emily from Menace Associates who's approached the podium.
[Kit Collins]: And I are there seconds. I'll recognize you. Thank you, Emily, for that presentation. Really appreciate you bringing us back to the context. Zachary, please go ahead for another minute.
[Kit Collins]: Those are publicly available. I'm seeing.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go next to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. We'll go to Eric on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for your comments, Eric. All right, I see no further hands on Zoom for the moment. Any additional public comment in the chambers? Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: I'm not aware of this.
[Kit Collins]: I want to keep our conversation to the topics that were noticed for this community meeting at the City Council meeting last night. We were talking about an MWA bond for replacing lead servicemen.
[Kit Collins]: We're veering into a separate issue here.
[Kit Collins]: Now it exists. It's in the capital stabilization fund.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Paris. one of the many issues on which localities, municipalities are left fighting for scraps to try to feed a vast array of critical needs and constituent services. I'll recognize Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So we currently have on the table a motion from prior to public comment from President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: That's a motion to refer this draft of the neighborhood and urban residential zoning proposal to a regular meeting and to adjourn. And just to reiterate one more time, this draft is being referred to the City Council for regular meeting where procedurally will be immediately referred to the Community Development Board to begin the public hearings process. And those will be noticed. We are also working to schedule a public Q and A, which is separate from the public hearing process, just an addition onto it and an opportunity for additional public comment that we will work to schedule for some time before the CD board starts its public hearing on this topic. And then the public hearing will continue in the city council when it's referred back from the CD board. On the motion by President Bears to refer to City Council and adjourn, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: It looks like she dropped off. Councilor Scarpelli did as well. Okay.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Three in favor, two absent, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all so much for being here and for your participation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for putting this forward. I want to send deepest sympathies to Ruth's family. I feel very lucky to have gotten to meet her several times over the years. Absolutely. Always a constant fixture at West Bedford Open Studios and other art events around the city. always nice as you know, somebody who always goes to that events always able to count on seeing Ruth and saying hello and checking with her and seeing a smile and saying what she had made recently. I know she meant a lot to the artist community in Medford. I know she just meant a lot to everybody who knew her. She was a really sweet person. I feel very lucky to have gotten to meet her. And again, you know, our deepest consolances to the family.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This was our third meeting with the zoning consultant on the topic of the neighborhood and urban residential zoning proposal specifically. The fourth one is tomorrow at 6pm. We hope that residents will continue to join in this process. Motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, for the overview. I would motion to refer to the Community Development Board.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Really appreciate the big picture, the granular information. Thank you for all this. Just want to go back to one clarifying question that I had from your presentation. And sorry, I'm sure that you made this very clear. I'm just trying to keep track of the numbers you mentioned. For example, there's a certain thousand number of lines that are classified as copper, for example, and you said of that number of lines, there's a percentage that we know to be, that gave me the impression that even the lines that already have a classification, we're going back and double checking. Is that the case?
[Kit Collins]: OK, so it sounds like the trends are things that we think to be copper, broadly are copper. Things we think to be lead, broadly are lead. And then it sounded like, and correct me if I misheard you, that most of the unknowns are turning out not to be lead. OK, thank you. I just wanted to make sure.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This is something that has come up in a lot of recent discussions in the community lately, including but not limited to city council meetings. Such a measure if communities like Medford were allowed to institute mandatory institutional master plans would give us the greater latitude and authority that I think we all know that we need and deserve over the very large institutions that take up a lot of real estate and take a lot of land and footprint within our communities. I think a lot of people can recognize by gut instinct that a community should be able to have some level of mandatory at least conversation and co-planning with institutions that have such a large footprint in their communities. Currently we are very disenfranchised and being able to enforce that. This legislation around institutional master plans which is something we're not currently enabled to do this home repetition would be asking for the permission to set up that. mandate that regulation would allow us to equalize the playing field with community partners such as Tufts University, other very large institutions, so that we can do a better job of collaborating or do the collaboration that we've been wanting to do all along on these issues that affect both the institutions and the communities like ours that host them. So I motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'm just so glad we're having this discussion. And I think a lot has already been said about the point that I was kind of the thread that I was going to pick up next, which is, you know, I feel like the parents and the advocates in this discussion have described very, very clearly what success looks like. And we are really far way away from that because what you're talking about is a fully accessible community. The fun stuff, the programming for youth, and the boring stuff and the stuff you have to do and the stuff that everybody has to do. You know, the events, the job pipeline, meetings like this, as well as the festivals. And we know how far we are from being able to We know how far we are in terms of capacity and people who are able to in the scope of their work in the city be laser focused on making sure that we start filling every one of those many, many, many gaps where we're not thinking about accessibility in all of these spaces. And I feel like our discussion is going in the right place and that we're thinking about what solutions can we On board for families and youth and all people quickly like what solutions, can we work on this year and this budget cycle to start things getting better and I think it's so important to make sure that we're. when we're talking about a staff person or in how we're just framing this conversation overall to make sure that we don't lose sight of what you all know that real success looks like, because that has to be the yardstick. And if the yardstick for that is there's somebody central to the city's organizational chart that is holding every department and every venue accountable, even private spaces accountable to feeling fully accessible, that needs to be protected position and we need to build to a place where we can have somebody who's going to ensure that that's the case in all departments and all spaces. There's liaison for public businesses. And so I agree with everything that's been said. I think that we're thinking about this in the right way. And I think that we makes a lot of sense to be thinking about this in terms of short term. What can we do this year and what has to happen this year to kind of start that larger snowball in motion? Like what position do we need to get into the organizational chart this year that in five years is going to be a team of three and five years after that is going to be a team of 10. I wish that we, you know, obviously we would all like that in three months, we'd be achieving these goals because this is stuff that people deserve already and have deserved already and we know that that would be naive to say that that is possible because we have such a long way to go. But I do think that part of this process needs to be some role or some type of project that is around kind of like an instant a, uh, a master plan for accessibility in the city, and I'd love to see that, um, not rolled into the boots on the ground implementation role that you're speaking about, because that's different. Um, but I think that that has to be a protected mission statement in one of these roles as well. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: I'll hold for now. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you chair saying I just wanted to note that pending the vote to remove the. Mayor as by necessity, the chair of the school committee, we might also want to and i'm happy to make this in a for promotion, we might also want to accept the suggested change to add chair to the list of positions to be selected by the school committee members, as that would then have to be the case.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. I really appreciate this discussion. I appreciate that this motion came out of a place of wanting to have us ever be improving avenues for participation in our city bodies, and I certainly appreciate the clarified conversation that we're having with the Collins Center about it. I am going to make a motion to strike this section, and I'll explain why. I think what's important whether it's in our council rules or in the charter or in the school committee rules, though I cannot speak to those, is... I think what's important is improving participation meaningfully and balancing that meaningful participation with guarding the council against opportunities to filibuster, because having a democratic process for the city council and other elected bodies has to mean also letting the council be a workplace so that councilors can do the work that they were democratically elected to do. I think the really critical context here is that this would not be the creation of a new sole opportunity for public participation, opportunity to be heard in front of the City Council. Opportunities for public participation do exist on our bodies. On the City Council, with a particularly low barrier to entry, we do have more lenient public participation policies than most councils in the state, is my understanding. And sometimes the council takes rapid and direct action on matters that are brought up during public participation, and sometimes it doesn't. But I think that as a representative democracy and not as a direct democracy, that is just how it is. And my litmus test for this section is, does this meaningfully expand public participation more than what we already have to offer residents? without having that adverse side effect of limiting the council's ability to do the work that we are elected to do, and I'm not sure that it would. I think that it would be more encumbering than it would meaningfully expand participation, especially given that Articles 8.3 and 8.4 are still on the table, and those are much more specific, much more constrained, and I think a more actionable way to do what this section is getting at. So that's my rationale, and I am making the motion to strike this section. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I can repeat if needed.
[Kit Collins]: Just in the meantime- They're saying, should I repeat myself?
[Kit Collins]: Sure. Thank you. I think what's important is improving participation meaningfully and balancing participation with guarding against the council against opportunities to filibuster. To me, having a democratic process for the city council has to mean also letting the council be a workplace so that the councillors can do the work that we were democratically elected to do. I think what's important context here is that opportunities for public participation already exist on this council with, or in our elected bodies, especially on the council with a very low barrier to entry. On the city council we have more lenient public participation policies than most councils in the state. Sometimes the council takes rapid and direct action on matters that are brought up during public participation and sometimes it doesn't. But as a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, that is just the case, that is how it is. My litmus test for this section is, will this be more expanding of avenues for public participation, meaningful participation? Then it will then it will limit our ability to do our jobs. And I believe that this will be more encumbering than it will meaningfully expand public participation, especially given that Articles 8-3 and 8-4 are still on the table, and I think that they are more specific and more actionable in a good way. So that is my rationale for the motion to strike Article 8-1.
[Kit Collins]: I will withdraw. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tsang. I appreciate these proposals put forward. I am generally supportive of the proposal put forward by President Bears. We have talked not a lot, but more than usual, about compensation for elected officials over the past, I'd say, term and a half than I think we usually do. I think that this is something that electeds do not like talking about. I think this is something that the public does not like us talking about. I think that we have more important work to do than talk about how elected officials should be compensated. I think it goes without saying that a lot of electeds find it distasteful to have to talk about how much people in our roles are to be compensated. I know that many members of the public find it distasteful. If this is not done consistently by ordinance or by charter, then it is something that we have to talk about. For myself as one Councilor, I would feel much more comfortable if this was dictated by charter, not up to me or anybody else to vote on the compensation of myself or any other elected official while we're in office. I think that this would be a huge asset and that it would take it out of our hands, it would not affect elected officials while they are currently in their current term. And I think that this sets a new fair standard. And most importantly, it regularizes it, it takes us out of something that sitting electeds have to vote on that would affect other sitting electeds. and I would also be supportive of the, if it were to go forward, I would be supportive of the proposed amendment or, you know, amendment to the proposal put forward by President Bears, inspired by Councilor Scarpelli's comments about, you know, how we are, we're always conscious of other outstanding compensation contracts in the city at the same time. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'm just getting oriented. All right, we have three, four, and six. OK, I can never remember who's who. OK. All right, thank you. All right, we'll get started now. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permanent Committee, February 12th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 Dorchby House Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Would you make sure that there's a co-host, please? No. Thank you. Sorry about that, George.
[Kit Collins]: The action discussion item for this committee meeting is, as usual, paper 24-033, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. This is our third committee meeting on the neighborhood and urban residential topic. We were introduced to this topic on January 15th. We got our first look at kind of a jumping off point proposal, um, around new categories for the residential areas of the city. We had some first impressions, questions, suggestions. Two weeks ago, we saw an updated draft from our zoning consultant and associates. Some of the boundaries had moved around. We were able to get a little bit more in depth On the differences between the various sub districts and Councilors also made a number of requests suggestions. On places where the boundaries between the various sub districts should move around to better accommodate the topography the geography, the types of residential types that are already existing in the various neighborhoods around Medford. So tonight being our third meeting on this topic, we have another amended proposal in front of us that I understand incorporates all of the questions and requests that were made over the past couple meetings. We're seeing for the first time kind of more specificity on the urban residential sub-districts under this topic. And just to quickly recap, the neighborhood residential sub districts and the urban residential sub districts. These propose five new ways of categorizing existing residential districts throughout the community, creating a more modernized and more thoughtful gradient from our lowest density areas, residential areas of the city, up to our highest density residential areas of the city. And this is informed by, you know, Topography, geography, what the land allows, what the streets allow, the types of houses and homes that are already built around the community, and proximity to things that encourage greater density, such as transit, places where there are many jobs concentrated together. So I understand that tonight we have a couple, a number of new diagrams to look at and respond to, new proposals for boundaries between the various neighborhood residential sub-districts and urban residential sub-districts, as well as a new map that superimposes the new sub-districts on top of existing residential types in Medford. And I think this is reflecting some of the requests that councilors made two weeks ago asking for some areas that were, for example, Neighborhood Residential 2 to become Neighborhood Residential 1 again to reflect existing neighborhood character suggestions of that nature. So unless there are any initial comments from city staff or Councilors, I'll first turn it over to NS Associates for a presentation as usual, and then we can discuss. All right, seeing none, I will turn it over to NS Associates whenever you are ready.
[Kit Collins]: great. Thank you so much for that overview. Um, we'll go first to questions and comments from Councilors. I see Councilor Scarpelli. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much, Councilor Scarpelli. And yes, I see that Councilor Leming shared meeting files through the City Council's public portal in the chat. Thank you for doing that, Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. We will double check. Okay, great. Thank you. We will double check that it's possible that the wrong files were updated to the public portal for today. My apologies. We'll make sure that they are updated ASAP after the meeting and they will match what's on the screen so that folks can, you know, zoom in. Thank you. Investigate them on their own time. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I'll go to NS Associates for a direct response related to the colors on the maps.
[Kit Collins]: great. Thank you, Scarpellian. Absolutely. We want to make sure that the maps are easy to read, so we'll work together to find a solution on that so that the colors are easily differentiatable. And on the other note about wanting these proposals to be easily legible for residents, whether they're tuning into these meetings or catching up after the fact, we had a great discussion about this last night. We are working really hard to overhaul, you know, or to onboard a couple new tools, including a pretty major overhaul to the city's zoning website, which will have kind of the very, very short elevator pitch version of all of these proposals, so that folks can get oriented to what we're talking about ahead of these meetings and just have an easier on ramp to discussing this work in progress. Go next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. We'll go next to Councilor Leung.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Leming for those suggestions and President Bears. Thank you again for updating this proposal with a lot of our questions and suggestions. From the past couple meetings really glad to see that a couple of the couple of the areas that really jumped out at a lot of Councilors like in West Medford has been, I think, I think we came to consensus so that'd be more appropriate at our lowest level of density great to see that reassigned and we had a very robust discussion around Lawrence Estates and the border of Forest Avenue last time, so thank you for making those adjustments as well. Now that the urban residential subdistricts have entered the frame, I had just another kind of one more relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. As far as the map goes, question that I was hoping to get your assessment on either now or something to peruse before our next meeting. Looking at the transit proximate zone around Magoon Square in South Medford, there's an urban residential one subdistrict right around the T stop. It's abutted by neighborhood residential three on a lot of sides, actually on all sides. It's abutted by neighborhood residential three. And I think the urban residential one sub district is appropriate. That's reflective of, you know, obviously, as is the case with the rest of the map, that's reflective of the type of housing that's already there. My question is for the kind of corridor of neighborhood residential three that travels down Main Street to where it intersects with Broadway. I would be curious for your assessment on recategorizing that as urban residential one. In my assessment, that is pretty similar to a lot of the existing residential types and topography that we see in the sub-district that is labeled residential, urban residential one. And I think equally as importantly, it's one of the areas in the city that is actually really well served by bus lines, a couple of bus lines that go straight down to Sullivan. I think there's a lot of transit users that live right around there. And I wonder if that could be upgraded to urban residential one to reflect that and then have it grade down into neighborhood residential three in keeping with the current proposal. I'm hard to hear over the fan. Oh, weird. Can you hear me better now? I can repeat myself.
[Kit Collins]: Absolutely, yes, sorry about that the air conditioning in this room is. Um, famously louder than I am. Um, the area that I'm talking about is the, uh, in South Medford, along the Main Street corridor. Um, you have the Urban Residential 1 subdistrict that's in the Magoon Square T-stop radius, and then southeast of that, on either side of Main Street, we have Neighborhood Residential 3. My observation is that I think an existing residential type that's really similar to what we see in Urban Residential 1 and it's very well served by a couple of bus lines that go straight down Broadway to Somerville, sorry, Sullivan Station. So I'd like to see that assessed for if it would make sense to upgrade it to UR1.
[Kit Collins]: We're happy to reassess that. Thank you so much for clarifying. Great. Thank you. Also just repeating myself for the benefit of those on Zoom. Thank you. Going next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, President Bears, I appreciate that point. Do I see any additional comments or questions? President Bears, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: One second while we find the right file.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for the discussion on that. Oh, hang on one second Councilor Kelly.
[Kit Collins]: I think the question just to paraphrase is, we want to make sure that a non conforming single family home could still build an ADU. Or I'm paraphrasing your question.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you all. I think this is a useful rabbit hole to be going on now as we're talking about, you know, other areas on the residential map, where we want to at least be looking at options for language for non conforming. striking that right balance in between zoning these districts, such as that we are not including any things that are greater gifts to developers than they are to the community and residents, especially close to transit, but are also not creating unnecessary hurdles for folks who are living in what may become non-conforming structures in some of these recategorized residential sub-districts. Go to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Anything additional on this, or were you just passing the mic back? Okay, great, just checking. All right, thank you. I think this has been a productive discussion on some of the some of the accessory topics that residential zoning gets into pretty quickly. So thank you for that. Lots of little threads to run down for next time, especially. I think this is good timing as we start to get into the dimensionals, which we're going to be talking about next time, which will be our fourth meeting on the topic. A good time to circle back to more of these topics. Pell and Emily, was there another piece of the presentation that we should get to before, or did I
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. I think this is really exciting. I'm really happy that this is being looked at. I know that there are, certainly for myself, there are a lot of areas in the city where, you know, I have a very beloved, probably nonconforming use in my neighborhood, Collette Bakery, and a lot of times that I've been talking about this with city staff or just been walking down the road and thought, wow, what if this was the jumping off point for more little uses like this to be, you know, useful to residents to bring people into the community. So I think this is a really great jumping off point for looking at ways to make little, little conforming sub districts within the fabric of our residential districts. I think that's the type of thing that residents have been asking us to look into. I'll go to President Bears and then Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: We'll have those recirculated after the meeting and uploaded to the file for this meeting as well. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, they're there as of this meeting on the 7th.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, I'm not surprised to see so much excitement around this agenda item of looking at the in-district commercial nodes specifically. I think this is something that a lot of residents have thought about or wondered about and asked for over the years, maybe using different language, but having walkable community hubs, places to get groceries, places to gather, places to get a bite to eat in a scale that's appropriate to residential neighborhoods. We see so many of those all around Medford, you know, from North Medford down to South Medford. and excited this process will reflect and give us some options for how to amplify that further. So we've had a quite a robust discussion tonight. I think talking about the sub districts that we've been workshopping for a couple of meetings now and getting a little bit more into the weeds on urban residential one and two Councilors throughout several ideas for areas where we'd like to continue to see those boundaries reassessed in either direction. And we've talked about some of the areas we've already changed the boundaries a little bit with neighborhood residential. and seeing how those are playing out on the map. Just to kind of briefly summarize here, we've also talked about how some of the corridors that are conspicuously absent from the neighborhood residential zoning map are because those will be considered later in the citywide process. But at the same time, as we continue to move topic by topic, if, for example, there's something that we're thinking of discussing during a corridor discussion, that it then becomes very clear it should be a part of the abutting neighborhood zoning. that change will happen. We can do that kind of back and forth to make sure that things end up in the right place. We talked about ADUs, which we have before. Those are kind of a topic that is inside of the subdistrict process and also outside of it. I know that there's a lot of work being done to make sure that those are as allowed as we want them to be in the various sub-districts with the various by right conditions. The next step in the neighborhood and urban residential process, I know we can expect from the zoning consultant a continually updated zoning map for our meeting in two weeks that reflects more of the requests for changes that we've made at this meeting. And we're also gonna start talking in more specificity about dimensional requirements for each of these five sub-districts Is it reasonable to expect that we can also talk a little bit more about one, the analysis of commercial nodes and residential districts? And also, sorry, I just lost my train of thought, scrolling my notes too quickly. Oh, and the proposed language for waivers to protect, for example. non-conforming single-family homes in new urban residential districts so that we can start looking at options to make sure that a recategorization there doesn't send projects to the ZBA unnecessarily and shields homeowners from that kind of administrative hassle. Is it reasonable that those could be touched on at our next meeting again? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great, excellent. We get to have an initial draft of those topics to look at and respond to in two weeks. Are there any additional comments or questions from councillors at this time on any of the topics that we've discussed tonight? All right, seeing none, we'll go next to public participation. Each participant will have three minutes. I just request that you state your name and address for the record. I'll ask to unmute you. Judith, go ahead, just name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We're just negotiating where the microphone is. Okay. Sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Go to President Pierce.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you very much, Judith. Give me a second here. Do you want to speak before the remainder of public comment? Is it a direct response? OK. We'll go to Councilor Callahan and then back to public participation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. President Pierce?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you president bears and I appreciate the commenter who brought this up. I think it's a really important comment. I think it's one that as president bear said, we're continuing to consider. This is not a final draft of this proposal yet. We're going to continue to receive public comment about this and continue to tweak as we go along. Just one point that I do want to underline as we're talking about like what, why are the changes? Why are we proposing changes and why are these the changes that we are proposing? First, that All of the sub-districts, the new sub-districts that are being proposed in this proposal reflect to some degree housing that is already on the ground in these areas. And that and that informs why they've been categorized the way that they have been. That doesn't preclude a conversation about you know what, what should the sub district, be what which type of existing residential housing should it most closely reflect that is a conversation we're going to keep having it. But the other thing I just want to underline from the conversation with my fellow Councilors is. In this sub district and others like it that are so incredible that are so proximate to the brand new these year and a half old T stations. These neighborhoods are going to see change. Whether we update the zoning or not. And this is a really important conversation that we get to have as a community to try to exert some control over what type of change we see and how to try to maximize community benefit from that change. There's a conversation about do we want to see change in developers kind of you know, I would make the argument that I'm very concerned about developers maxing out lot sizes and dimensionals to build very expensive single family homes that people in Medford cannot afford to buy and live in. And so we can, I think that this conversation is around not will change happen or not, but what level of control, what levers do we want to use to try and exert our influence over making sure that that change is beneficial to the community. Anyway, moving back to public participation. We'll go back to Zoom. I'll ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Janie, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you so much for the question, Janie, I think we all know exactly what you're talking about. The Boston Ave corridor that isn't included on these maps will not be included as part of this proposal Boston Ave is one of the special cases in the city it's a corridor, it has all those really important kind of neighborhood specific elements that you mentioned. the Proximity to Transit, Proximity to Hillsides, Proximity to Tufts. So that will be considered later in the citywide zoning process so that we can give it kind of the like unique focus that it deserves. And I'll go to President Bears and then Ennis for more on that topic.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears will go next to Emily.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you again. All right, we will continue with public participation. I will go to the person who's been patiently standing at the podium, and then we will go back to our speakers on Zoom. Name and address. Okay, just click the button. I'll turn the mic on. Great. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, William. Any directed responses on that or we can go on to the next speaker?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you very much. Oh, quickly to President Bears, then back to public participation.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. We will go next back to Zoom. Gaston, just your name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Director Hunt. Yeah, we'll be sure to collaborate closely with the building commissioner on that question. And as we discussed, I think for quite a long time earlier this meeting, as we're talking about recategorizing residential districts, I think that there's very shared consensus around not wanting to make your very normal, very regular renovations difficult for homeowners just because of the sub-district that they happen to be zoned in. And at the same time, we want to be using careful and nuanced language so that we're also closing loopholes through which developers would take advantage of our neighborhoods. So thank you so much for flagging that. All right. Proceeding along. Cheryl, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comment, Cheryl. Appreciate your participation. While I disagree with some of the characterization, I will just note that in the neighborhood and urban residential proposal, the maximum height in all the sub-districts is three stories. And in the current Salem Street corridor district proposal, the maximum by right height is also three stories. We will go next to Jimmy. I'll ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. All right, Jimmy, I've asked you to unmute. All right, I'll try one more time. All right, I see your hand is still raised, but you're still muted. So try to go off mute. If you can, we'll come back to you. Just in the next couple minutes if you can. Seeing no further public participation. Thank you all so much for a very substantive conversation. Councilors, consultants, city staff, and residents alike. We had a long and substantive conversation on the updated neighborhood and urban residential topics tonight. So just to again reiterate we're going to meet on this topic again in two weeks that will be our fourth meeting on this topic, which is great. There is a lot here we're continuing to finesse the boundaries between the various between the various sub districts. which we will continue to do after this meeting. We are continuing to discuss the kind of accessory ramifications such as ADUs that go along with the various sub-districts. We've had a long discussion about the wanting to see options for the waivers we can build in for housing types that might become non-conforming should the proposed zoning go forward so we can make sure that people can retain the advantages of their current housing, even if the zone is to change around them. And at our next meeting on the topic, among other things, among other updates to the map, we are also going to talk about dimensional requirements for the first time. So I think I see that the, I think I see that Jimmy is back. So we're going to try for that public participation one more time and then entertain motions. Jimmy, if you can unmute now, just name and the record. Hi, sorry about that. And you have three minutes. Go ahead. Yep.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for the question, Jimmy. Thank you for your years of investment in the city. And I think we're all sad to hear about another story of displacement from our community due to the regional horrible housing cost crisis. I'll go to my fellow councilors first. I'll go to Councilor Leming and then President Bears for responses.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll go next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears, is that a new hand or an old one?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Question was about housing affordability. I think it is, I'll just say, I think it is really important that when we're talking about affordability policy that we recognize that that exists in an ecosystem that also includes housing production. We're talking about housing production, that also that conversation also includes housing policy. And housing policy has to include what we can do by right at the local level as a community. And it also has to include things that we're advocating for on the state and federal level, whether that is affordability protections that we are currently not allowed to do by the state and the government that we're advocating for the right to do to better protect people in our community. or advocating for better funding so that we can make the changes that our residents and our displaced residents would have liked to us to have done years ago that we have no empowerment and no resources to do. We are years into a regional housing cost crisis that has been pushing people out of Medford for years. Every time this happens, it's a tragedy. I do not agree that increasing housing in a reasonable and neighborhood specific way in every single neighborhood is a part of that process. Is it the same as enacting rent stabilization so that rents cannot go up astronomically and push people out in just a year's time, which is currently legal? No, it's not the same of that. It's a more indirect tool, but it is a part of the ecosystem. And I don't think that we should gloss over the nuances such as the affordable incentives in Greenscore and our building requirements that are baked into the zoning process that allow us to thoughtfully increase affordability, use the levers that we do have in this system so that our zoning, which is the only tools that we have to control what private property owners do on their private property, can also hopefully as often as possible lead to maximum community benefit, which includes more affordable units on the market. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: I'll go to Councilor Leming, and then I will make a wrap-up point, and then I will entertain motions to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor, I'll go back to you and then I'll wrap up.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, I think we're all extremely glad and grateful that the Affordable Housing Trust is finally on the books and becoming empowered. President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: Sounds like you remember.
[Kit Collins]: Is there a motion to adjourn before I make a final comment. Okay, I hear a motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Leming, before we take the roll call vote. I just want to note. I think it is incumbent upon us who are elected to find solutions to problems and not just to talk about them. I think it'd be irresponsible for any of us to say that any one strategy is a silver bullet that will solve the rapidly escalating regional housing cost crisis, and that's why nobody says that. I think it'd be equally irresponsible to say that we should do nothing at all. Because no solution is perfect. The reason that we are working on so many that many Councilors are working on so many strategies targeted afforded housing affordability is because we know that no one strategy is sufficient. And I. look forward to continuing to collaborate with as many Councilors as possible on creative solutions that can fit together to create a more affordable environment in Medford between increasing our housing stock, which we know to be necessary, to pursuing greater access to policies that will help renters stay in Medford. You know, this has gone on too long. On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Five in favor, none opposed. Meeting is adjourned.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I just wanted to thank Councilor Lazzaro for putting this forward. And I know that Councilor Lazzaro and President Bears in particular, among other councilors, have been in very close contact with this neighborhood coalition that has been organizing in the wake of Professor Dill's untimely death. So thank you to you for that work. And thank you to the residents for organizing in the wake of this tragedy. It's hard to find words for something like this. I want the residents to know that we share in your grief, and it's just so hard to. As residents of the city, as residents of most cities, as representatives of any city, this is something that we have to fathom because it happens all of the time. I don't think it's at all an exaggeration to say that roads in America are paved in tragedy. It has incredibly normalized the level of road violence that we all have to live with and grieve from. And as a representative, it fills me with just disbelief and fury that municipalities like ours are so hamstrung when it comes to the level of discretion and capacity and resources that we are allowed to have because of how funding is allocated from our federal and state partners. and how hamstrung we are and things that we have to bottom line as a city, leaving us so disempowered to do the type of improvements that residents have been begging us to do for years. We need substantial, radical road redesign on most roads in Medford if they are going to be livable for the people that walk on them and bike on them and roll on them and drive on them. And if it was possible for us to do that amid our other statutory responsibilities, I think we would have done that. going to say, 50 years ago. And because we, for many reasons, could not, and for other reasons, would not, people continue to die. And so it's with this perspective that we have to go forward and use the levers that we have at our disposal. I'm really, really grateful to every resident who has been calling on us to meet with our delegation and with partners at DCR as often as possible to say, It is insane that this is normal. It is national gaslighting that people are supposed to just get over, people dying on roads. I think this is another incredibly sad example of how governments are not given the tools to kind of compete with the pace of technological advancement. Cars are getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and faster. Roads are not changing. Municipalities are not given more tools to address this problem. And people keep dying. I don't really know how to wrap it up. It just never should have happened. And we have to keep working together until it stops happening. So again, thank you to the residents and to Professor Dill's family. We're very deep in sympathy for your loss.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: I found it in order and I moved for approval. This was our second conversation on the neighborhood and urban residential zoning topic in planning and permitting, which we will meet on a couple more times this month.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I have a motion to continue to the March 11th meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Just wanted to thank my colleague for finding a date certain for a committee meeting on this topic and also to my fellow Councilors for working so much with this community in recent weeks. This is another issue that I know residents have been advocating for for a very long time. It's overdue for some attention and some funding. So I am really glad to see the urgency around this. Thank you. I look forward to working with you all on this.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I also want to yeah, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for bringing up this topic, we talked about this so often in the planning and permitting committee and I think it's really good to have the chance to talk about this to a wider audience in a regular meeting. Also want to thank President Bears for facilitating at the Salem Street quarter q amp a last night and to all the elected to attended and especially to city staff and associates for staying quite late to make sure that everybody's questions were answered. Truly, truly appreciate that. So we have, like I said, I'm really glad that we're talking about this. I appreciate President Bears' framing that this is, you know, by no means the first topic in the zoning, the citywide zoning process. And I think as we've been going along, we've been learning. I, well, just to speak for myself, I have been learning a lot, not only about the zoning, I have learned so much about zoning through getting, through being required to get really, really into the weeds on it. But it has also been really critical to note what questions people have about what we started with phase one, we moved on to Mystic Ave corridor district, we moved on to Green Score. Green Score is kind of now closest to finalization of the topics that haven't yet been ordained. And Salem Street, its next procedural step is the CDB. And with each of these proposals, we learn more about what is interesting to people, what is confusing to people, Do we hear from not very many residents about what do we hear from a lot of residents about. And that gives us what I think is incredibly crucial and valuable information about how we need to be responding to those questions in our public facing communications. And we have been trying to really, you know, just sprint as fast as we can being responsive to that, while we are continuing this process of reviewing the whole zoning citywide, I really do think it is important that we you know, stay true to our promise to review zoning comprehensively this term. That's not like kind of getting into any timeline specifics, but just I do think it's incredibly vital to do that as a package because with zoning, if we were to end up with kind of a incomplete overhaul, having touched some quarters, but not others, some neighborhoods, but not others, some topics, but not others, that would create a really chaotic legal landscape for developers for residents for city staff. That's just, I don't think that we run the risk of getting into that kind of situation but that is that is kind of an overarching goal guiding this process that we have to make sure that at the end of this project, the zoning, quote unquote, agrees with itself so that we avoid any legal chaos that could come from having tables of uses that don't line up or neighborhood uses that are not compatible with other neighborhoods. Right now, we have no intention of singling out any neighborhood and we have to make sure that we proceed at a pace that allows us to stay true to that. Anyway, back to the stuff that I honestly really love talking about.
[Kit Collins]: Right. Thank you. No, I appreciate you noting that of course we are associates is not an employee of the city, so we have to use them while they are available. I think on that point, it's also important to note that our zoning consultant has already, I would say, just speaking only for myself here, quite magnanimously gone beyond the scope of what we are paying them to do. I think that this work is necessary. I think it's really valuable. We're gonna work with them to make sure that we can continue layering more public feedback, public participation, additional opportunities for public participation beyond all of our existing public committee and public hearing. meetings that are baked into this process as a minimum. I'm really grateful to them for doing that. We want to make sure that they continue to have capacity to do public Q and A's for every zoning topic, not just Salem Street going forward. We've been working with them so that they can, for all zoning topics going forward, in addition to some other comm stuff that I'll talk about in just a minute, put out really short bite-sized, like two-minute explainer videos for each zoning topic, which I think will be really, really useful. Because reading about zoning is incredibly dry. So things like that I think will add a lot to the process for residents. But at the end of the day, we are still working with a consultant under the constraints of a contract. And that is a real constraint. So we've talked about this a little bit in the planning and permitting committee, but I thought it was just really salient what the Councilor said about residents noting, you know, that we need to, we need really, residents need help in simplifying what changes are proposed, what is proposed to change in the corridors and the neighborhoods that we're looking at. You mentioned bullet points, you know, my ears pricked up. When I heard that because so much of what I've been working on, you know, quite intensively for the past few weeks at this point is really at the same time as we're comprehensively reviewing the city zoning. I personally have been comprehensively overhauling the city zoning website. And the thing is, we really need we really need bullet points we really need diagrams. for myself as an individual reading a zoning proposal alone, I do not come away with it with a deep enough understanding of the zoning proposal that I can easily explain it to another person in a way that they can understand. and residents do not have the time and the responsibility that Councilors do to do that kind of deep dive. So I met with the mayor's communications director and communications associate actually just earlier this afternoon. We are getting really close on an overhauled version of the zoning webpage. And that is really built around having simplified summaries and bullet points for every single zoning proposal, the ones that are currently going on, the ones that have already been adopted so that it is completely unmissable for residents. What is this? What are you talking about? Explain it to me like I'm in fifth grade. When is the next meeting? What topic comes after this one? What does the zoning currently say? What can I do by right? What does by right mean? Under the proposed zoning, what would change, what would be doable by right under that new scenario, what would be different, answering frequently asked questions, including diagrams, because I think those are totally essential for understanding. There's a lot of things that really don't come across in text, even when the text is simplified. We will add those short explainer videos when they are available. I just think it's really important that we are trying to optimize every communication strategy that we have. I think that adding in a public Q and A for each topic is such a great idea. And I really want to extend my thanks to Councilor Scarpelli for beating that drum for a long time. And I'm really glad that that's going to be a part of every zoning topic going forward. In addition, the short form explainer videos, in addition, a city websites that people have a spot that they can go to, which I really don't think they had before, where they can just get oriented. What is this? When are they going to talk about it next? just give me a version of this that I can digest and I can understand it well enough that I can ask a question and let people know where they can go to ask a question who to email for reliable information and when the next public meeting is so that you and your neighbors can attend and get your get your questions answered and real time. So I am really excited for us to be onboarding all of that. And, you know, that's our responsibility to make sure that residents, it's our responsibility to pass here. First and foremost, I believe that it is our responsibility to update Medford zoning because residents have been asking us to do that for a very, very, very long time. And I know that there are a lot of Metro residents and business owners and local developers who have been very, very frustrated for a very, very long time, seeing neighborhoods not reflect the character that residents would like them to, seeing squares and areas with a lot of great commercial potential not reach their full potential, because we have not undertaken this project. We owe them thoughtful zoning, reasonable zoning, better zoning. And I feel really, really committed to delivering on that goal. And at the same time, we also owe residents good, reliable information that residents can understand without becoming zoning experts. And that has been my focus for the past month in collaboration with my fellow councilors and with city staff and with Innes Associates. I am really glad that last night's Q&A answered so many questions. We're going to continue doing that. All of our public meetings, the planning and permitting meetings, the CDB public hearings, the City Council regular meetings are always public and always forums where residents can ask questions and get their questions answered. We're going to continue to do that. We're going to continue to use all of the communications channels that are available to us as city councilors and in collaboration with the mayor's office to do our very best at making sure that people know about this topic that is interesting to and relevant to so many residents. And at the same time, you know, myself and all of the councilors also have a responsibility to understand the zoning as best as we can so that we can answer questions and dispel concerns and make sure that we are sources of reliable information to residents as well. I truly could talk about this for a long time. I've been spending a lot of working hours on it in the past few weeks. And I think the bottom line for me is this project is pretty unprecedented. So our communication strategy around it is going to be unprecedented as well. I am so glad that truly all of us here behind this rail have been insisting on the communications process getting better as we go along. And I'm committed to making sure that as we go topic by topic, we just continue to do the best job as we can and onboard as many new tools as we have to, so that people know what's going on, know who to ask, know when to ask, know when the meetings are, and that this can be as inclusive of a project as it can be. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate that perspective, Councilor Scarpelli. Totally agree. There's so many residents who have, who've had, I mean, I've been just over and over shocked by how insightful and thoughtful a lot of the questions that we've had on the zoning proposals have been. I understand from last night, there were several suggestions and questions that city staff indicated that they, just one suggestion to the, table of incentive zoning uses comes to mind that city staff is like, wow, great idea. Yeah, let's make sure to make a note of that so we can recommend an amendment around that. I hear you, that going into the neighborhoods is an important part of this process. I just have to disagree with the characterization that folks are not being listened to. I really implore any resident who is interested in this process to come to all of our public meetings, the Planning and Permanent Committee meeting, they're always public, they're always hybrid. The Community Development Board public hearings are always public, there's always public comment. Some modes of involvement are accessible for some people, some are accessible for other types of people. We are working hard to make sure that the folks who are never going to go to a public meeting are still going to well, I should say, we don't even have to work hard to make sure that people who are have no interest in public meetings can be heard, because people email us all the time with their questions and their asks for clarification and their comments on the zoning and all of those are reviewed by Councilors and by city staff. The in-person meetings, we are always collecting, notating, taking down resident feedback. There's countless times that that has been incorporated, whether it was feedback that was received at a CDB public hearing or at a planning and permitting meeting or at the Q&As, which we're piloting as of last night. For folks who do not yet feel like they've had a chance to have their questions asked or their suggestions heard, on any zoning proposals that are currently in the pipeline. I would urge you to get in touch with any Councilor to get in touch with me. We will make sure that the relevant committee hears your comments. That has always been a part of this process that will continue to be a part of this process. And I just want to clarify on our collaboration with our zoning consultant. I don't want there to be any confusion. The city council runs no risk of some sort of legal ramification from straying outside the bounds of its contract within associates. It is just that we run the risk of running out of their time. They are not a city employee. We put out an RFP. I work as a consultant. That is my day job. I respond to RFPs. A consultant responds to an RFP with a proposal, and then a contract is signed. We run the risk of running out of their time. And it is really important. I don't want anybody to come away with the impression that it is not really important that we fulfill our task of reviewing all of our zoning citywide. because to fail to follow through on that would cause problems. It would cause problems for city staff. It would cause problems for local developers. It would cause problems for businesses. This process has always been involving of resident input. We are going to continue to do a better job each and every week of making sure that people know about these processes so that they can ask their questions and give their suggestions. And like President Beer said, if we don't have CDB recommendations on the Salem Street proposal on March 5, absolutely I don't think we should vote on it on March 11, I will, I will, I will support a motion to continue that public hearing if that's the case. But I think it's really clear in keeping with all of this, that we make it. very clear and consistent for people what their next opportunity is. We told a lot of people last night the next opportunity is CDB on March 5th. Let's stick with that. If CDB needs more time, they need more time. That's fine with me. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to receive and place on file.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion, unless there's any objection, I would motion to take 23-412 and 24-352 from the table and receive and place on file.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I had what may just be a clarifying question on section 3-2. In subsection C, it says the mayor shall be by virtue of the office a member of every multiple member body of the city. I was hoping to get a definition of what that would mean in practice from the Collins Center or representatives from the Charter Study Committee. Does that mean any board or commission? The mayor may have an informal say on or vote in if he or she chooses, or does it mean truly any multi-member body, including the City Council? I'm just, I'm not, I don't really know what to glean from that term.
[Kit Collins]: And the Mayor has a voice but no vote. A voice but no vote on any board or commission. Yeah, great, thank you, that's very helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Sung. This again might be a comment or it might just be a clarifying question. In section 3-6, let me check the subsection number, subsection B. It reads, the mayor may call a special meeting of the city council for any purpose. I was just hoping to understand better like how this what this maybe tracked with most from our current charter right now, there's a provision for special meetings to be called for the city council when it's necessary. It can be done by a quorum of city Councilors or by the president of the city council, but I don't believe that we currently have it in practice for the mayor to be able to call a special meeting of the city council. So I'd like to understand a little bit more about the rationale behind that. So I can understand if I the reasoning for it being written into the city charter that that's a new power of mayor.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you. It makes sense is the rationale it's I think that there's going through this project, obviously, some stipulations are more major more consequential than others. I think some of my deliberations around the charter around which of those things are consequential that we should change and which of those things. are strategies that we want available to the mayor, the city council, other bodies, but don't necessarily need to be written into the charter. So this just strikes me as kind of a shift in the dynamic, potentially a symptom of a shifting dynamic. In the past, I think that the mayor has always been able to collaborate with city leadership when there's an emergency meeting that needs to be called. Again, I don't think that this is the most important thing before us. But it did strike me as a change and a new power of the mayor over the city council. So it's just something that I want to give due consideration to and think a bit more about.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you chair saying I appreciate you bringing that up it was something that I had highlighted in my initial read, and the last sentence as you noted and just, again, you know, doing us as, as we have to do reading this with a fine tooth comb kind of looking for areas where there could potentially be confusion, totally heard that I think with a lot of with many of the issues that we're bringing know, it's unlikely that these things would ever be issues, but you know, it is, in a way, our responsibility to look for things that could be so we can make this document as airtight as it can be. So I just I flagged that as well. I'm glad you brought it up. And I think that if there's a way to kind of maintain the purpose of this article and make sure that you know, we're not leaving a stone unturned with if there's a more straightforward way of organizing this paragraph that it doesn't there is no arbitrariness in how it could be, or there's no flexibility in how it could be read, I would be happy to consider that language at a future meeting. Maybe it won't end up changing, but in my initial read of it, I did read this paragraph, and at the end, I was like, in what condition may the mayor declare themselves able, and how does that interplay with the city council's unanimous vote mentioned earlier. So if there's no further clarification that's needed, that's great. But I would be interested in having this further clarified if possible.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry about that. It took me a second to find my notes. Again, sorry, another clarifying question for me. We're in Section 5-1 yes great. I was just hoping. If any examples could be given of the section that describes. This procedure where the mayor prepares and submits to the city council plan in the city that council then holds a hearing on it and it seems like there's a vote and this is obviously I'm trying to compare this to what we're familiar with. We're familiar with ordinances being promulgated by the city council and petitions and papers coming from the community via the mayor's office and city administration to the council. I'm trying to figure out if this describes something different. Is this like, is this a mechanism by which the mayor is proposing an ordinance, a new department, like a change to administration? Like when we say that the mayor is proposing a plan to the city council and then the city council may take a vote to disapprove of that plan. Could you give an example of what that might be about?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just, before we close out, I just want to thank the representatives from the Collins Center for being here. And again, thank you to the representatives from the Charter Study Committee for being with us through this process.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just want to extend my gratitude to Councilor Tseng for taking leadership on this project I've reviewed it. It's even more thorough than it was last time we reviewed it in committee. I'm just I'm really glad that the city council is taking it upon itself to make sure that we are. making these protections just as airtight and as clear for our population as we possibly could. It's unfortunate that we're having to workshop this ordinance in a moment when federal actors are taking a regressive, frankly, ahistorical, oppressive politicizing approach to matters of reproductive health and gender expression. That baffles me on lots of levels, but what's important is that people in Medford, people who visit Medford, people who receive medical care in Medford, or people who give medical care at Medford should have every protection to get what they need and do what they do and receive care and provide care, and I think it's very important that the city council affirm that reproductive health care and all its forms and gender affirming health care and all of their forms are the farthest leg from legal, they are utterly banal. very pleased to see that this ordinance is so thorough and describing all of the forms of health care, to which people are entitled, and making it really clear that all city agents across all departments shall not deploy their resources or their time and service of agendas from other states or other jurisdictions that might want to waste time and energy. politicizing healthcare. So thank you so much. I've reviewed this. I think it's very thorough. I'm happy to wait to pass it out of committee until we have a legal review. I don't know that it's necessary if we do want to pass this along to the committee of the whole and just make further adjustments or tweaks there if it's necessary. I think that that would also be fine, but I'll leave that to the discretion of the ordinance sponsor. I think this is in a really good place. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Test one, two. Test one, two.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, January 29th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hess Drive, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Four present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this meeting is, as usual, paper 24-033, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. So this is going to be kind of a multi-topic meeting. First, we're going to go over some updates to the overall zoning project timeline, and Emily from Innes Associates is going to walk us through those, as we know, as we discussed quite a bit in our last Planning and permitting committee meeting, there's been calls from Councilors on this committee as well as requests from the public to enhance our messaging strategy around this entire zoning project in order to, you know, essentially to recalibrate at this point of year to take stock of how we're getting information out to the public about what's currently at what stage of the process, where current proposals are, when their next public meeting will be, in what body. We've been working on this zoning project since around this time last year, and in that time we've learned a lot about what people need in order to feel properly informed and updated on what we're talking about. community. Um so we're doing some things on the City Council side that associates is helping us out with and we're also trying to collaborate with the mayor's office as much as we can to enhance our online information and add in more public meetings so that people have more opportunities for. Um for learning, you know, in a way that works for more community members and for Q and A as well. So Emily will speak more to that. Um and after we run through those updates, zoning proposal. and then I think we will get a little just just a short briefing on the other part of the residential proposal that we will discuss a future meeting that goes along with the neighborhood residential proposal, but that we won't be going into in depth tonight, so we'll talk more about neighborhood residential. We get to that part of the process, but first I'll turn it over to Emily to talk about Schedule and communications updates unless there are any initial comments or questions from my fellow Councilors or members of city staff that I see on Zoom. And seeing none, I'll turn it over to Emily. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that overview, Emily, and I do want to thank you and your whole team for your nimbleness in kind of adding in these additional enhanced communication aspects. Mid-year, while we're still going through the work of zoning, I think that these are really important, and I hope that as many residents as possible will take advantage of these added public meetings. Before I recognize my fellow councilors, I'll just note, I did get confirmation just earlier today that that public Q&A on the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District will be at the Roberts on Monday, February 10th, starting at 6 30, and we will be working with the city to make sure that that information gets put out on as many communication channels as possible developed in person at the Roberts. 6 30 on February 10th. I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli and then go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments, Councilor Scarpelli, I agree with a lot of what you said I think absolutely when there's not information that's legible and comprehensible and easy to find those are the conditions when confusing or misinformation can flourish and you've pointed that out so I'm glad that we are At a point in the year, we're working better together to make sure that we are trying to make progress on some of those goals that we share. And I'm really heartened to see that INNIS has already been working to schedule the public Q&A for the next zoning topics after this one so that we can keep building the ship ever better with this topic and then use these improved communication methods for all of the proposals going forward. And I thank everybody who has been helping us think through what that has to look like, councillors and residents, both included. I'll recognize President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Certainly, thank you for your comments and I'm happy to go over that in brief. And I know that at our last meeting, there was specifically a motion for myself as chair to be working with the city, with the mayor's office and her communications office to make sure that we're doing all we can in collaboration to make sure that more and better information is reaching people more effectively. So specifically, what's that looking like? We're working on a lot behind the scenes now, and I'm excited for some of this to go live, hopefully within a couple of weeks. One part of this that I think is really important is overhauling the zoning page on the city website. As a quick reminder, the city council doesn't really have direct control over any part of the city website. So this is a collaborative project. Currently, I think, and this is by no means a pejorative or a criticism, but I think it is just a fact that the zoning page on the city website is very hard to navigate if you're a layperson, if you're an average resident who heard, who has a zoning question, heard about a proposal. and you Google Medford MA zoning, it's quite hard to find what you're looking for. And that's not the fault of the planning department or the communications team. Zoning is inherently wonky and technical and detailed and confusing. And to President Bears' point about us being a fairly under-resourced city, it would take more than a two-person communications department to sort and present that and design that in a way. that makes it be what people need it to be. So we're now working collaboratively to completely overhaul that webpage, which I am quite excited about as a visual person myself, with the goal being that this becomes more of a site where when people have a question, maybe they've heard about Salem Street, maybe they've heard about the residential neighborhood proposal, they can navigate to that site, and it is impossible to miss up-to-date and current information, summaries, bullet points, FAQs, and diagrams, but let them know what's being worked on who is currently talking about it, what body, and what the next public meetings are on that topic, when they can attend to ask questions and learn more. I hope that we'll also have, as Emily mentioned, there's also going to be very short-form digestible videos coming from Innes Associates. Those will be linked. And kind of the broader picture that we have for the website is not just to be very, very easily findable, digestible information about the current zoning proposals, but also to do a better job of reinforcing for residents that these are not individual proposals that we're just taking up Salem Street and that's the end of the story or we're not just taking up Mystic Avenue corridor district and that's the end of the story but this is a coordinated really more than a year-long effort this is a a citywide zoning review. So as people are finding out, okay, March 5, next meeting about Salem Street, good to know I can save that date, I can put it in my calendar. They're also seeing a timeline that reminds them that after Salem Street comes the neighborhood residential proposal. And after that, we'll be talking about squares and corridors, and letting people know that this is a citywide process that they can plug into any time between now and June, or they can kind of mark a month on their calendar and make sure to tune back in if there's a particular area that they're interested in. So I am looking forward to those updates to the zoning page on the website. I think that's a major one. We have the series of explainer videos from Innes Associates. We're working to, kind of in concert with all of this, be putting out more frequent updates in the form of fresh releases, collaboration between the city council and the mayor's office. Essentially, we're trying to make sure that our announcements about these are touching all of our existing communications channels. We know that some people go on the website. We know that some people are signed up for the e-alerts. We know that some people do reverse 911. We know that some people have social media. So we're trying to make sure that we are consistently creating information that's short form. What do you need to know? When is this going to be talked about? Information for each of the zoning proposals that can be shared on all of these communication channels. so that anybody who's interested at the very least can know where they can go to learn more and they can go to that place and actually learn more instead of getting confused and overwhelmed and then clicking away, or they can know where to watch a video or where to attend a meeting. That's the short form. I feel like there's probably something that I forgot. but the overall structure being that vastly improved web page on the city website, more frequent press release and social media updates paired with more frequent use of reverse 911 to let people know about upcoming meetings. With that, are there, oh, thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Councilor Hilliam. And I agree. I think that it's really important that in all of these updated materials going forward, especially through the use of diagrams and visuals, we should be saying that stuff verbally and linking people to the full documents and making sure that there are really simple, really effective diagram showing, comparing the current zoning to what the current built environment actually is and showing what we love that's currently non-conforming that couldn't be built today with the current zoning, those heights and those densities, because of course that's a lot of what we talk about and a lot of what residents want us to be focusing on when we're talking about zoning. Thank you. Any additional questions before we go forward to the neighborhood residential topic? Seeing none. So we discussed the, we initiated the topic of the neighborhood residential two weeks ago. We saw a kind of a jumping off point draft proposal from Innes Associates. We discussed it, we made some suggested changes already, which we'll be reviewing tonight. Kind of a slight downshifting and all of the sub districts was recommended by this council and I believe that the proposal will be seeing tonight reflects this, just because it was mentioned as as a concern that's been going around I do want to know just off the top for in case people jump off the meeting early. In my understanding, it's currently not, triple-deckers are not proposed for Lawrence Estates, and that'll be shown in the, that'll be shown in the diagrams that we'll look at in just a little bit, but I just wanted to make sure that that was cleared up right at the beginning of the presentation. So without further exposition, Paola, I'll pass it off to you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Emily.
[Kit Collins]: And yes, it's on the City Council's public portal already as an attachment for this meeting. So folks can download that and zoom all the way in like I've been doing the past couple of days. Thank you so much for the overview. And I appreciate that note. As with any other zoning proposal, this is about balance. I think that there are a lot of goals of reevaluating our zoning. Obviously, one of those goals is to say, where is incremental more density or more height or more this or more that appropriate? Another way of looking at it is to say, where are there a lot of non-conforming lots already that we should not make further out of compliance, that we should update the zoning so that it reflects what's already there? And I think that some of the neighborhood residential proposal kind of centers those two questions at the same time. I was saying, where does it make sense that we should, where in the city is the transit proximity and the existing density and the roadways and the topography make it so it makes a lot of sense to incrementally up-zone here? And what are those areas where we actually, as we're trying to unify and make consistent, One thing I heard is that I think that one of the, in a way, one of the amendments from two weeks ago might actually make a lot of what's existing on the ground in some single family two districts out of conforming with the proposed zoning. So we wanna make sure that we're making things more coherent as opposed to less as this advances. So I know I have some questions. I have some comments from reviewing these, but I want to first recognize other councilors. I'll go first to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Any other questions or comments from councilors at this point? We will take public participation at the end of this section. I'll note for myself, I think that As one councillor, I think that this map that we're focusing on is probably the most important one of the presentation, kind of overlaying current land uses, current building types, and superimposing on top of that the proposed new sub-districts. And I really encourage everybody, councillors and the public, to focus on this one specifically as we continue to workshop this proposal. For me, it's very useful to be able to say okay what are the corresponding number of units between the proposed new sub districts and current building uses. letters and numbers for the proposed new sub districts. And we have color coded residential types for what's existentially on the ground. So for me, as I was looking at this map, I was saying, okay, anywhere that any section that is predominantly magenta means that the nine or more units that should probably be our urban residential number two sub district because it should be reflective of the density that's already there. And I feel strongly as we already said that we should be down zoning nowhere in the city because that's counter to I think all of our goals. And I think that this is very instructive for those, most areas of the city, well, maybe not most, a lot of areas of the cities are mixed, which makes sense. That's why our neighborhoods are cozy and feel human scaled is because they're not just the same type of building over and over. And I think a lot of what we're talking about in this discussion is those neighborhoods where there's a mix of, you know, on this map, turquoise and orange and purple. you have some single family, you have some two family, maybe you have some condo conversion, you have a couple three families here and there. And I think that is really the frontier where we're thinking, we're thinking of zoning, I think it's, it's accurate to think of it as a 30 year map, not a next year map. I think when we look at economic trends and building trends, we're building out the map that we want to see on the ground and in 30 or 40 years. And I think that's the ground where we have to be making those decisions about for example, is that an NR3 or is it a UR1 or is it an NR2? I think for myself, there's a lot of areas in the city where you do see that mix of turquoise and purple, which is to say two family and three family. I would probably like those to be an NR3 or potentially even a UR1. in some of those zones that are especially proximate or bordering on the transit hubs. Because it's reflective of the density that we already enjoy and because we know that we need to add density and we should be putting it in the places where there's the greatest demand for it and the most supports for it. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for speaking to that. I see any further questions or comments from councillors at this time. I know this is a detailed map to parse, and that's how we're going to revisit it in future committee meetings. Not seeing any at this time. I do think that, you know, as we've discussed before, I think that the historic conversion And the ADU's discussion is also an important piece of context for all of these sub-districts that we're talking about. So if you feel it's appropriate, maybe we can proceed on to those parts of the presentation next.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. I appreciate that clarification. And as you say, yeah, I think for for any folks, including people in this room who zoning is not their day in and day out bread and butter, I think it's a helpful reminder that lot size is a really important piece of the puzzle, but it's not the only criteria in deciding what use of building, what height of building, how many units can go on that parcel, because other conditions also must be satisfied. While we're talking about the I know that this is a slide that you have already flagged for update. But if we can make sure that to just request for me for the diagram when it's updated to include the urban residential sub districts, if we can make sure that we're seeing models of the buildings that are 2 to 4 stories and above four stories, that'd be great. And if it is possible to also add diagrams for the neighborhood residential sub districts displaying the buildings that are currently showed, and also one building with an ADU. I think that will help to flesh out the range of possibilities under the proposed sub-districts.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. President Bears, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Could you specify, Councilor Galleon, what's the part in West Medford that you're noting as neighborhood residential 2 that you thought was neighborhood residential 1?
[Kit Collins]: I think it also makes sense at this point to kind of, as a segue off of that, to get specific on our next steps for this proposal overall. I know I think that there's a couple notions for places where we'd want to see the sub-district assignments changed a little bit, that northern leg of West Medford being one of them. I had another one that hasn't been mentioned so far. I think that in terms of How and where we go forward from here, I think we could certainly make additional amendments motions during this meeting asking for specific changes. If Councilors wanted to state ideas and preferences on the record and then follow up before our next meeting through the chair to his associates, I think that that's that that would be another path. we are going to be considering these sub-districts in the context of the map more fully fleshed out with the kind of broader conversation about urban residential one at our next meeting on this topic. And I think that that will also be just a helpful piece of the conversation as the map gets more fully fleshed out and filled in. I think it would be helpful for us to consider everything in the context of everything else. So Emily, I'll go to you before I continue. Sorry, wrong mic.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I think that that makes sense. And certainly this is a draft and will remain a draft for several meetings more. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think that we should use these sessions to, yeah, I think that the prevailing notion here is we're going to continue amending. this map based on the concerns and preferences and questions voiced in this room. And I suspect that this map will also will also continue to see an evolving version of this map based on the feedback that city staff has. Um, so it seems to me like there's consensus for going back to the original jumping off point and making sure that we're finessing the gradient between NR one and NR two and that location map specifically. Thank you for raising that. While we're talking about sub district boundaries, um, just so that you have it. One question that I did have looking at this, the South of Boston Ave, there's like a little dog leg of NR2 off of NR3, kind of straddling North Street. That might be the rightest subdistrict for that area, but it looks pretty similar in character to me to the NR3 that it borders. And I'm also curious about what Somerville zoning borders that area. Yeah, I wonder if it might just keep it consistent to upgrade that to NR3 if it's gonna be bounded on all sides by effectively NR3 zoning as well. Great, conscious of the time, there is another committee meeting to start. So are there any other, great, President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Again, I apologize. I missed your hand. And that's exactly right. We're not taking any votes tonight. We're not going to report this out of committee tonight. We're looking at a draft for the second time, not the last time. I think I expect we'll have two more meetings on the residential topic in this committee before it goes further along in the public process to the CBP and public Q&A session. So thank you for clarifying that. This will most definitely see some more adjustments and revisions before it moves to the next step in the process.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, thank you for the clarification. President Bears back to you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So we have that noted as well. I think that's well worth looking into as well. Great. So I think this has been a really productive discussion around some of the boundaries and assignments for the sub-districts on this map, which is very much a draft. And like we just said, we're gonna see a lot more opportunities for amendments and adjustments to this based on councilors' continuing feedback, concerns that we hear from the public that we digest and deliberate on, as well as input from city staff throughout this process. It is my understanding, and Emily and Paola, please correct me if you see this differently, that kind of our main step at this point is to be considering these sub-district boundaries. And at our next meeting on this residential topic, we'll be talking more about the urban residential one and two sub-districts. And after we start to feel more solid on an evolved version of this map, then we'll be talking about the permitting process, that by right, not by right. per use for each sub-district, talking about dimensionals and standards and maybe even some design guidelines towards the tail end of this process. Is there anything major that I'm missing from that workflow?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. Yeah, I think this is certainly a phase of the process where there are a lot of information sources informing the evolving draft.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you very much, Emily. I know that mapping workshop that we did over the summer, kind of before we got into the The heavy lifting of the geography proposals was really helpful, and I think it'd be great to have another version of that as we're mid-process. So thank you for working on that. Great. So we can expect to see an updated version of this proposal in two weeks, along with more discussion on the urban residential subdistricts one and two, and we will take things from there. And in the intervening time, hopefully we will see some more new communication strategies rolled out. And we, of course, have the public meeting on the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District proposal to look forward to as well. And green score will be discussed in CBB on February 5th, but Salem Street will not. That will be continued until March 5th to allow more time for public comment and Q&A. Are there any further questions or comments from Councilors before I go to public participation? Seeing none, I'll go first to Zoom, because there are some folks who have had their hands up for a very long time, and then I will go to the podium. Gaston, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: More or less than if I believe if you scroll up in the PowerPoint from the slide that was last screen shared, there is a earlier version of the map.
[Kit Collins]: We'll make sure to note that as this goes forward in the process. Thank you so much for your comments.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bearsia. Certainly, that's an area that we want to pay special attention to as we continue to finesse these boundaries. I'll go next to the podium and then back to Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Sorry, I forgot that the microphone was all the way over there.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Try it again, William.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for your comments, William. Back to Zoom. I recognize you, Michael. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments, Michael appreciate this awful commentary, and we'll be sure to. I'm sure a lot of that will come up in our future discussions of dimensionals and making sure that this zoning is what we want it to be which is implementable and creating a more streamlined process for people to build the type of properties that we know that we in the community want to see here in Medford. meeting materials are almost always posted on the City Council public portal ahead of the meeting times. And we are working to populate that updated zoning website so that that'll be a more useful information source as well. Go next to Wren on Zoom. I'm gonna ask you to unmute, please. Oh, and their hand just went down. So please raise your hand again if you do have, okay. Name and address for the record, please. And you're gonna have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for that commentary run I really hear you on those specific diagrams that you mentioned and we're working to see how we can operationalize that for all of our proposals going forward as I agree, I think that's really helpful visual tool for people. go back to Enos Associates.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much for those clarifications, Emily. I see no further public participation. So just again to recap, at our next committee meeting, which I don't know the date for that off the top of our head, but it'll be in two weeks, we are going to talk more about the residential proposal, the more, February 12th. Great day to talk about neighborhood residential. Before that, we will have the public Q&A on the Salem Street Neighborhood Court District, February 5th, 6.30 p.m. at the Roberts. And we are continuing to work on shipping more of these updated, what'd you say? Oh, February 10th, not February 5th. February 5th is when the CDB will not be talking about be talking about other exciting concepts. Every attempt is the public you and I. Well, since I'm starting to misspeak, I think this would be a great time for a motion to adjourn. On the motion on the motion to adjourn by President Bears seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor. All this post. I'm sorry. There should be a voice vote because Great. Yes. Great. Thank you, George. That's Councilor Callahan. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you, NS Associates, for your thoughtful stewardship, as always.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears this was a meeting of the planning and permitting committee to have our first look at the neighborhood residential topic it will be continued at our next planning and permitting committee meeting which is tomorrow and for future meeting dates after that motion to approve on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I just wanted to thank Councilor Tseng for putting this forward and join with him in wishing all of our residents a very happy Lunar New Year. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, and I appreciate this conversation. I think that a lot of... I'm really glad to see the progress that we've made over the past couple of weeks in seeing the assessor's office do such good work in sharing information about potential abatement programs with any and all residents who need it. I know this is an incredibly busy time of year for the assessor's office, but this is a really critical function of their work as well to connect with residents. who need assistance. And when it comes to the questions that have been coming in from the community, you know, when a person says, hey, I don't understand this. I'm confused. I need more information. That's not a political question. That's just a really human question. And so I'm really grateful for the assessor's office for making so much time and freeing up so much energy to field those questions as they come in. I'm grateful to my fellow Councilors for helping direct people to the resources that they really need at this time. Of course, I think that, you know, this change in our property tax structure was needed, and the process to make sure that everybody understands what comes next is vitally important, and we can't afford to have that be any less robust than it absolutely can be. The same goes for you know, all of these parts that make up our ecosystem of how we deal with property tax bills in the city, whether that's our exemptions, our abatement programs, and then the communications that come, you know, before and after all of this, making sure that people know what their options are, and how to understand and take steps on their property tax bills, regardless of the year, because abatements and exemptions are something that people need year in and year out, whether there's an override or whether there isn't one. just due to the economy that we're in and the nature of rapidly escalating, you know, assessed home values in Medford before or after the override. So I really am glad for the opportunity to focus on that and thank the assessor's office and talk about what the city council can continue to do to make sure that we are supporting city staff in connecting residents with resources. and making sure that all of that information about what to do gets out to the people who it's intended to connect with. I also think that this is the right time to start talking about a residential exemption. This is really complicated. A residential exemption would not benefit all residents. It would not even benefit all homeowners. But I do think that we have a responsibility to discuss it and to discuss it seriously. I think that's something that we should start to do in committee at the whole or the administration and finance committee as well. So all that being said, I'm grateful to the councilor for bringing this forward. I think that there's a lot of really, really important and timely topics here. And I would like to put forward a lightly amended version of the paper that I'd be comfortable voting yes on tonight. So I put this forward as a friendly amendment or as a B paper, if the councilor is more amenable. That would be, whereas the city of Medford has expanded all tax exemptions for members of vulnerable communities, including our senior, disabled, and veteran neighbors to the maximum extent allowed under state law. And whereas in the past, state and federal grants have been utilized in the city of Medford to support our local businesses, such as the 2024 Massachusetts vacant storefront program and the 2022 small business facade improvement grant program. Whereas implementing a residential exemption would decrease the tax burden for some residential property owners, be it resolved that the City Council continue to work with the Assessor's Office and the Mayor's Communications Office in sharing information about debatement processes with any and all residents who could benefit. Be it resolved that the City Council craft a Home Rule petition to ask the state to allow us to further expand our tax exemption options for these rural-local groups so that we may offer even greater tax exemption programs than what we are currently allowed to offer. be it further resolved that the City Council meet in the Administration and Finance Committee to discuss a potential residential exemption, and be it further resolved that the City Administration continue to prioritize and pursue any and all state, federal, and private grant opportunities targeted at assisting our business opportunity.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for putting this forward. I think that this is a really important resolution. I think this is another issue where we can do a lot of good by doing a better job at getting to the community the information that is out there. I've also been communicating with residents about the GLX parking zone. I live in that zone. I know I'm not the only councilor who does. I have seen both the pros and the cons firsthand, most especially when I try to park my car after getting home from a city council meeting at 1 a.m. and then circling down the block three to five times and then parking on a cross street, which is now legal to do, which is great, but the circling is not the fun part. Anyway, I've been communicating with residents who have been noticing the types of changes that I have. And it's been helpful for me to the extent of my knowledge, explain the pros and the cons and the why of the new program. But obviously this is something that our parking department should be doing. This is something that our communications department should be doing. And there are a lot of residents who still have questions and still have a hard time finding what the policies are and where they are on the website. Recently, a resident came to me with a parking policy that was indeed on the city website that I had never heard of before. So I think this is a good thing. It would be great for the council to meet the new parking director. I'd be happy to host this in the planning and permitting committee. I'd also be happy for this to be a committee of the whole. But I think that this is a, you know, whichever the council prefers, I'll support. I think this will be a productive conversation. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to thank the Council President for his collaboration with City's legal support to make sure that we respond to this in the way that we're statutorily obligated to do. Now that this response is being formulated and will be sent in accordance with the rules and regulations, what would an appropriate vote at this meeting be? Would it be to receive and place on file, to authorize the Council President to continue promulgating a response?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, I would make a motion to accept the response as drafted by Council.
[Kit Collins]: Council President.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I probably should have, just for the purpose of clarity, prefaced my comments. In addition to our next steps, I also just want to purpose this discussion. I think this complaint is flagrantly frivolous. It's something that we have to attend to, we have to respond to in these ways. I'm glad that we're doing that. And I I find it curious that a non-resident of the city is taking it upon themselves to waste elected officials' times because of time spent lobbying for state-level policy that would make sure that fewer people have to sleep on the street in the winter. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, we had a really helpful informative committee of the whole about this a couple weeks ago, or maybe it was just last week. couple weeks ago, just last week. went through all of the projects in detail the funding recommendations, the specifics on the programs will be funded it's always great to see. you know, an unanimous vote by the committee, which I think is almost always the case. I know that there's so much thought and research put into vetting the many programs that compete for this funding, and they all do such incredible work in our community. And I appreciate Manager DuPont and Chair Cameron for making sure that we got a really thorough walk through all of the details at the meeting last week to prepare us for this vote. So I'm happy to make a motion for approval. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Again, last week, we got a quick briefing on why it made sense for these funding sources to be shuffled around, essentially that for a historic restoration project, which is kind of like the more limited that we should use funds that are very, very limited to historic preservation on historic preservation projects, rather than having that dip into the CPC fund, which could be used for other uses that we keep that funding available for other things such as tennis courts that need to be patched up so people can play on them and a lot of other things. So I appreciate the mayor's office for putting together a formal recommendation so that we can make that exchange and keep funding sources available for how they're gonna be most effective. And I would motion to approve pending other comments or questions from my fellow Councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Just give me a second to get on the Zoom. Thank you. Great. Thank you for your patience. That was onto 25019. offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, approval of funding for legal settlement in the amount of $7,500. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that, nope, that was the last one. Sorry. to present bears and honorable members of the city council from Brianna lungo current mayor January 22 2025. The claimants carrot and just that the. For Salati, seat compensation for property damage suffered allegedly as a result of a blocked sewer line on High Street resulting in sewage backflow entering the basement of a home located at 206 High Street. A global settlement has been reached pursuant to which the city will pay $7,500 and the owner slash operator of the nearby Medford Rehabilitation and Nursing Center will pay $7,500. A form settlement agreement and release has been agreed upon and will be executed upon city council approval of the funding of the settlement. Attorney Roger Smirage will be in attendance via Zoom to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Breakdown to amount requested, medical cost, $0, lost wages, $0, property damage, $7,500. Other $0, total settlement, $7,500. So I understand that we have legal counsel on the Zoom tonight. If any, we'll go to the attorney first and then we'll hear comments, questions, or motions from Councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much attorney for being with us. So I understand that the initial offer was that the city might've been on the hook for 25,000 and this was able to be negotiated down to 7,500 that the city will pay in addition to the 7,500 from the Medford Rehabilitation Center.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. On a motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. All in favor? Oh, sorry. We're going to do a roll call. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: 6 in favor, one absent. Motion passes. Thank you for being with us, attorney.
[Kit Collins]: Have a good evening. 2-5-0-2-0 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, transfer and conveyance of McCormick Avenue parcels. Dear President Bearss and members of the City Council, I respectively request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following transfer and conveyance of city property which will transfer to the mayor, the care, custody and control of two vacant parcels of vacant land on McCormick Avenue that have remained unused since the city acquired said parcels in 1950 pursuant to a tax title taking, and authorize the mayor to convey said parcels in compliance with General Laws Chapter 30B, the Uniform Procurement Act. The city will benefit by putting the unused parcels to productive and tax-producing uses, and further, the city may, subject to appropriation by the City Council, for the purpose of promoting affordable housing or for such other purposes as the City Council determines is in the best interest of the city. A resolution to transfer and authorize the sale of McCormick Avenue parcels. Whereas the city is the owner of two parcels of land located on McCormick Avenue, each containing 3,600 square feet, more or less, identified in the assessors as parcels F13-37 and F13-38, and described in certificate of title number 166463 filed with the Middlesex South Registry District of the Land Court together the city property. Whereas the city property has been vacant and unused since the city acquired the city property in 1950 pursuant to a tax taking and is surplus to the needs of the city. Whereas there is an urgent need to promote and develop affordable housing in the city of Medford and in the region. Whereas the sale of the city property will benefit the city by putting the city property to productive and tax generating uses. And whereas the sale of said sale, the proceeds of said sale may be used by the city for the purpose of promoting affordable housing. Now, therefore, be it that the city council hereby declares that the city property is surplus to the needs of the city and available for disposition. and that the city council hereby transfers the care, custody, and control of the city property from the tax custodian for tax settle purposes to the mayor for general municipal purposes and or for the purpose of disposition on such terms and conditions as is in the best interest of the city, and that the mayor may be authorized to convey the city's right title and interest in said city property provided that said sale is in compliance with the provisions of General Laws Chapter 30B, the Uniform Procurement Act, and to take any and all other action as may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish that disposition and that this resolution shall take effect upon passage. Attorney Everett will be in attendance via Zoom to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Brianna Lugar-Curran, Mayor. Maybe I'll first recognize Attorney Everett to give any comments.
[Kit Collins]: We're having a hard time hearing you. Is it possible to speak into your microphone on your end?
[Kit Collins]: I can't hear her. We're having a very hard time hearing you in the chambers.
[Kit Collins]: Can you hold on two seconds? I want to see if we can adjust some settings in our council booth. Thank you, please hang with us. Okay, if you could begin again, Attorney Everett, our audio person is going to try to make some adjustments as you're speaking.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, that's better. All right. Go ahead. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Attorney Everett. So the request for proposals is specifically looking for buyers for the properties. Is the intent here to look for purchases for the properties or to, that will then develop it or just to look for suitable purchases for these properties?
[Kit Collins]: Is that correct, Attorney Everett, that this vote is to convey the parcels from their current tax custodianship so that they can be disposed of by the mayor's office?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I think that's an important question that you raised. I didn't see who put their hand up. First, I apologize. I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I'll go next to Councilor Lazzaro. Did I get it right this time? What number microphone are you? Who's number three?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sorry. Well, we're going to we're going to go to Emily first. I apologize.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Is it, Attorney Everett, if I may piggyback on your question, is it true that if the lots are to be sold for some amount of money, is City Council approval required for any appropriation of that money or just for an appropriation, for example, into the Affordable Housing Trust? Like, will the City Council oversight on how the funds are used in any case or only in certain cases?
[Kit Collins]: We'll go next to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. If I may cut in here, I don't want to speculate on the intent of this strategy, nor do I want to put forward the impression that I'm contemplating all of the possible consequences that could come from this. But I think that one of the questions that this council is deliberating on is if two of our options are to explore ways when the properties as they currently are could be transferred in some way to the Affordable Housing Trust or Community Land Trust so that affordable housing may be developed there on those lots? Or should we use the sale of those lots to create funding that theoretically could be used to create more numerous affordable housing units elsewhere in the city? And I think that that is not a frivolous question because I think that a shared goal is to make sure that there's affordable housing available everywhere throughout the city. Of course, some areas of the city we need dense housing, we need a lot of affordable housing, but we need affordable housing in every area of the city. I can't make motions, but I would certainly feel more comfortable voting on this if we met in a community hall. And if we met in a committee of the whole with a representative from the mayor's team, perhaps with members of the Affordable Housing Trust and other city staff to remain to the issue to make sure that we're kind of aware of the whole flowchart of options. from the sale, perhaps with a memo from the mayor's office outlining their intent in pursuing the RFP route that they have been pursuing. Essentially, you know, this is coming to the city council after a lot of thought has already gone into it. I'm sure that that thought has been done in good faith. But this is a big deal. Transferring city property so it can be sold is a big deal. And as one councilor who can't make motions, I would feel more comfortable if we had time to deliberate on it.
[Kit Collins]: on the motion to table by Councilor Tseng pending a meeting in a committee of the whole with pertinent members of the Mayor's Administration and representatives from the Affordable Housing Trust, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes and the paper will be tabled and myself and President Bears will work to get that committee of the whole set up with supporting documents and research. Attorney Everett, thank you so much for being on the call with us this evening. We really appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: We move now to public participation. Any member who wishes to speak can approach the podium. You have to give your name and address for the record, and then you'll have three minutes to address the council. Oh, hang on one sec. There you go. Now your mic is live. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. Great. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes as well.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, I'm sorry. We don't usually do screen sharing from public presentation.
[Kit Collins]: But you have two more minutes if you'd like to continue your comments.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. Is there anybody else for public participation in the chambers or on Zoom?
[Kit Collins]: I recognize Councilor Lazzaro, if you want to respond.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. In my understanding, I'm not a member of the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, but my understanding is that with the listening sessions, the target audience is the folks who organically gather at the community center where the listening sessions are. So I'm sure that the promotion is focused on those folks who are already going to be there for various purposes so that the frequent attendees, rather than the broader general public, can be met by councilors at these places that they are already going.
[Kit Collins]: I see no other candidates for public participation on Zoom or in person. Seeing none, is there a second for the motion to adjourn? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Sine, I appreciate that. I really appreciate the discussion on this. So far, I know that this is, you know, we come to this discussion after months of work and outreach and diligence and research by the members of the Charter Study Committee and the Collins Center. And I just want to, again, state how much I appreciate all of that hard work and that collaboration so far. So my thoughts on this issue, again, going to restate some of what was already said by my fellow Councilors. Of course, we could see from the data that respondents who did respond to the survey favored ward-based representation when compared to all at large. I do think that it is significant that district based and other models were not given as options for comparison. That's not a criticism. It's just simply that I don't think that that means that this council should have this discussion as though those options are not also on the table because we have a responsibility to do our due diligence and make amendments or approve. or approve the proposal based on what we think will be best for the long-term future of this community. My bottom line is I think that the proposed amendment regarding composition still represents a very, very big improvement towards more localized representation, making representation much more localized than it has been in a very, very long time, perhaps ever. I know I think we all know, we all concur that running in a smaller pool in some ways reduces the barriers to running for office, especially financially. You have to fundraise less. Fundraising is very difficult. But I don't think that we should discuss this as if that is the whole story. to improving representation and making representation more proportional to demographics. I don't think that ward-based representation is a panacea. I certainly don't think that it's a panacea for making marginalized populations more equitably represented. I think that for us to pursue that as though it's a silver bullet, would be a misguided reason to pursue a ward-based representation. Running is inherently difficult for millions of reasons, and I do believe that it will take decades or more to truly equalize the playing field. And I think my bottom line on this is that wards do not deserve simple representation full stop. What wards deserve is compelling and competitive elections each and every time. And I have concerns that the proposal that we're currently looking at from the Charter Study Committee, I'm very concerned that those elections would not result in compelling and competitive elections each and every time. My research has indicated to me that in quite small wards like we have in Medford, the pool of candidates tends to be very small. It's very common for incumbents to go unchallenged. And for incumbents, when they do decide that they want to retire from those elected positions, to privately appoint a successor, put off their announcement until the last moment, which all but ensures that other challenges do not have the time to jump in the race and have a real shot at participating in that competitive election. And I don't think that that is democratic. I don't think that that is our shared goal for more competitive and more locally representative offices. Lastly, I'll just say, you know, I know that this is this is a big deal because this is the guiding document for the city. And hopefully I am really confident that we will arrive at a document that all of us can feel, you know, like any product of compromise that we can all feel a little bit good about and a little bit wistful about. But as city councilors, it is our responsibility to apply our perspective and our good faith opinions to this process, even in perhaps especially when it's unpopular. It's certainly It's certainly more politically expedient to do what is popular, but our job is to research and advance what we think would be best for the community in the long run, regardless of the impact on us as individual electeds and individual future candidates. And that's the reason for my opinion on this matter. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. I appreciate that. I have some comments that I wanna add, and then I'm going to also make a motion at the end. You know, I would love to get back to a place where this conversation is productive and civil, like it was at the beginning of the meeting. But first, I do have to say, I find it a little rich that one Councilor will start the meeting talking about maturing and being open minded. And then the instant that their colleagues start to disagree with them, the conversation turns to personal attacks and blaming colleagues for rending the city apart. I just wish that we could have civil and productive conversations about this. and I don't think that's productive. I'm really respectful to the conversation at all, not after all of the work that has been put into this topic. No one said that some wards do not need representation. What was said, not by me, is that some wards are so low turnout and some wards are so high turnout that it would create a huge disparity in some residents' votes among others, counting some very, very highly, and other votes would matter much less numerically, and that's not fair. I don't think that we should be trading one form of unrepresentativeness for another. And if we're going to, I at least think that we should be able to acknowledge it and acknowledge that it matters and talk about potential mitigating solutions. I hope that people will take it to heart that I am willing to potentially disagree with people with whom I share values because I have honest concerns about the current charter provisions as proposed, and I am willing to face criticism over that. I simply think that we should prioritize genuine representation and genuine efficacy over well-intentioned, but I think less effective, appearances of representation. And I don't think that we can accomplish that by simply adding numbers to the council. And for reasons that have already been stated by me and by others, I don't think that the simple ward-based system is the best way of doing that. I know that we have received a lot of feedback about the award-based versus all-at-large options. Again, I think that we need to consider that these were the only two options presented in the survey, and we should consider those data points in the context of that. There weren't other data points on the table or on the survey. Something that guides all of my decisions on the council is knowing that people, all people, myself included, it's human nature to overly weight feedback that is visible to us, like opinions that we happen to have heard, people that we happen to have heard from, and forget that other opinions that we happen to happen to have heard, that we didn't ask for, that are not as visible, that didn't hear about a survey, that don't have opportunities to come to city council meetings. It's human nature to overweight the information that we have heard. and kind of forget that other information exists. I bring this up not just because for me it is a really useful reminder when I'm making any decision on the City Council, but also because I think it's incredibly relevant to this project, because the work of the City Charter, especially talking about composition, is about better representation for those people in the community who are not as visible, who don't have access to our normal communication channels, who don't know how to get in contact with their city councilors, who do not vote. To me, that is the goal of this section of the city charter, is try to get better at that exact mechanism. I believe that a district model is our best option for lifting up and better representing people who are currently underrepresented, even in light of the feedback that we have seen, which was based on the two options presented in the survey. And I think it's very relevant that this is a project that has been worked on by people who are highly involved. And it's our job to approve a product that will work the best and the most fairly for people who are already highly involved and for people who have not been able to be highly involved, for people who are underrepresented. All that being said, I do think that this is a good moment for compromise. I think that a lot of good points have been made. I've been very clear that I think that the district-based model makes the most sense. I'm also not opposed to a larger council, not at all. It's not my preference, but I'm not opposed to it. Councilor Leming earlier entertained the idea of sticking with four district councilors, but expanding the number to five at-large councilors. I would be happy to offer that in the form of a motion to President Bierer's proposed amendments if he is willing to accept it as a friendly amendment. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. I appreciate that. I appreciate those comments from President Bears. I think that gets right to the heart of the issue as I see it. One last point on this through the chair. If my fellow councilors' opinions earlier were in good faith about outcomes and not about politicking and taking shots to make perceived opponents look bad, I think that then he would be sticking to the substance at hand and not derailing this conversation. With lies about us voting in lockstep and other false narratives, I also encourage people to run the tape or look at our duly promulgated council records. And people will find that the Councilors on this body who share an endorsement just disagree with each other all the time, which I believe is how it should be. I appreciate the discussion so far. I have made a motion that the five district Councilors and five at large Councilors be considered as part of President Bear's amendment. I would request that we move on to public comment and then take votes on motions. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, that is what I meant to say. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Kit Collins]: 15th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6pm in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: present, five present, zero absent. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this committee meeting is again, 24-033, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. This is the first planning and permitting committee meeting of the new year. We have seen a lot of work in this committee so far. A lot of that is still ongoing. the fall. We shepherded through the Mystic Avenue Corridor District proposal. The Salem Street Corridor District proposal is still being considered in public meetings by the Community Development Board. The Green Score proposal is still being considered in public meetings by the Community Development Board. There's a lot of things in the pipeline. Tonight, we are beginning our consideration, just the very beginning of the conversation on a new topic, which is the neighborhood residential topic. So before I turn it over to our zoning consultant, I just kind of want to orient us to the goal of this meeting, what we're gonna be looking at. This topic, which we're calling neighborhood residential, is just a jumping off place for adjusting the zoning rules for the areas of the city that are currently residential and zoned as single family one or single family two. There are districts like this throughout the city, as everybody knows, but they're especially concentrated in North Medford, West Medford, with some pockets in Glenwood, Wellington, and Hillsides. So why are we looking at SF1 and two districts now? You know, the same goals that carry us through the rest of the city for the rest of our zoning overhaul. We know that there are areas of the city where the zoning does not reflect what is currently built on the ground. We know that there are areas of the city where the zoning isn't allowing us to use our property or land the way that we know community members want us to, where it could better affirm our goals or where it could better affirm just what's already there. And we also know that we have a need to allow for more housing development in Medford to keep pace with high demand, high scarcity, and increasingly high property valuations. And zoning can offer tools to help us with all these problems. So with a lot of the current SF districts, we know we'll have to let geography and context guide the way. For example, in North Medford, narrow winding streets and steepness affect what is appropriate and possible. We also do have areas that are next to, for example, some brand new transit hubs, and it doesn't make sense to not take advantage of those areas of the city for greater density in a thoughtful way. So in just a minute, I'm going to turn it over to Paola from NS Associates for slides about what we're going to be considering tonight. This presentation will walk us through a jumping off point for considering some new neighborhood residential approaches and existing SF and GR. It also incorporates what new state law dictates around allowing ADUs by right in single family districts. So just to recenter on the goals for tonight before we get into the weeds, and I know that pal is also going to reorient us in kind of the where this falls in the overall trajectory of, you know, what topics have come before this and what topics will come after this. Tonight we're not looking at a proposal that we're going to be voting on or approving. This is to serve as a jumping-off point that's based on the current zoning of SF1 and 2 districts. We're very much not going to do this all in one fell swoop. My goals for tonight is for this to be councilors' chance to put their initial thoughts, concerns, questions, requests for changes on the record. Then we'll come back at our next meeting in two weeks, and as associates, we'll have taken all of that feedback and put together an amended proposal that we'll look at again before it is then referred for further review in more public meetings by the CDB. So at this point, I see President Bears has his hand up, and then I'll turn it over to Paula.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. All right, I will now recognize Paola. Thanks as always for being here.
[Kit Collins]: So I'm going to take your time. Is the screen frozen?
[Kit Collins]: Are you not able to share, Paola? Like, is it not reflecting what's on your screen?
[Kit Collins]: OK. I can share on my side if that is easier, but you'd have to tell me when to switch.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for the presentation, Paola. Really appreciate it. I think that this gives us a pretty substantive jumping off point for talking about, you know, kind of the why and what next of developing amended zoning rules for these types of neighborhoods. I'm gonna recognize Councilor Scarpelli first, but just to quickly bookend the presentation. I think some of the language that I find, like, really useful about this is thinking about creating a, new, more appropriate gradient from our most single-family, our most classic single-family lots, a lot of which will be kind of maintained exactly as they are. I think a lot of the zoning that currently exists makes sense. Maybe the terminology needs to be updated, but a lot of that will remain that way and has to remain that way, but we can affect the gradient from smallest, least dense up to the most dense parts of the city in a way that creates that range of housing that we know that we really need and kind of fill in some of those gaps where people need types of housing that aren't being built because they either can't be developed under our current zoning or we haven't encouraged it enough. So thank you for that language. I think that that's a really helpful way of thinking about this. Just one really quick clarification. I know you're going to come back to this on the ADU's piece when we're talking about that law being developed that is a state law that communities like Medford will be obligated to factor into their zoning. So I'll first recognize Councilor Scarpelli and then we'll go to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you Councilor I really do appreciate that feedback and, you know, I think that there is a lot in there that I think. you know, that I agree with. I think, well, since our last meeting wrapped up at midnight last night, a lot of what I've been working on today has been kind of revamping that communications strategy that we can use so that, you know, the next six months of this zoning project are better communicated. I think the highlight for me, and I think this speaks to some of what you're saying, is that the information is out there, the meetings are public, the answers are out there, but they need to be easier to find. And that's what we're working on. And follow through on the plan that me and President Bears are drafting as council leadership to make that successful. It'll take the collaboration of the city administration. But I think you're right that, you know, there's so much positive in these proposals and we really want to be able to broadcast and communicate well with the community to answer their questions easily and quickly so that people can know exactly what's going on, be informed, and ideally be as excited as we are about implementing the goals that the community put into the comprehensive plan. So thank you for that comment. It really- Appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: And we're working on it. Thank you. I'll recognize President Bears next.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Perez. Would you email that motion to myself as well as the clerk?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. I'll wait for that to come through. I might need part of that reread, but that was to remove neighborhood residential four, have that be considered instead as part of the urban residential that we'll be considering in February, those denser districts, and then to downshift neighborhood residential two and three to kind of step the gradient down by one level of density. Is that an accurate synopsis? I know I left out a lot of the detail that you mentioned.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Does that address your question, Councilor Callahan? I think you were talking about the difference between SF1 and SF2, NR1 and NR2.
[Kit Collins]: That's just not constantly on.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. I see a couple hands up. We will take all public participation at the end of the meeting. Thank you so much for being here. I'll go next to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. So I'll reread both motions. The one that was just made was motion by President Bears to request that the chair work with the administration to increase accessible materials, notices, and communications about upcoming meetings and distribute them to the community. And the, do I hear a motion? Sorry, a second? Seconded by Councilor Leming. And the first motion given towards the beginning of the meeting was the motion to adjust the proposed neighborhood residential districts by removing the NR4 district type and consider that as part of urban residential topic as a potential urban residential one district. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as just NR1. So that's a downshift from NR2. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR3 as NR2. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR4 as NR3. Adjust the NR3 district type to remove the one unit dwelling by right. And any parcel where the current district is general residential should be at least NR2. And any parcels, sorry, the last bit of this got cut off. Sorry. And any, sorry, that last clause is any parcel where the current district is general residential should be at least NR2, and any parcels where the district, current district is apartment one or apartment two should be at least NR3. Does anybody need that read back again, put on the screen, or do I hear a second on the motion? Councilor Leming? Oh, sorry.
[Kit Collins]: You want to finish your thought.
[Kit Collins]: You're six. Sorry, guys.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, so the current wording classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as NR1. So NR1 stay the same, NR2s become NR1. That's how I read that.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Thank you for the clarification.
[Kit Collins]: Great thank you that makes sense that the uh the boundaries between the proposed districts would have to change in any case and especially if we're contemplating this downshift for the proposal that we'll see in two weeks great. Councilor Luebbing, I'll recognize you.
[Kit Collins]: Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Yeah. As one councilor, I think that you put that well. I think that historic conversion and being able to implement the statewide ADU law will be meaningful. We could go further. We will go further in other areas of the city where I personally think that it makes more sense topographically, geographically. Is that a second to the motion by President Bears? Great, thank you. So the motion by President Bears is seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there a, sorry, was that a hand? No, okay, I was imagining things. Is there any further discussion on, President Bears's had his part, we can vote on these motions anytime. Any further comment by councilors on the presentation, questions, concerns, potential amendments we'd like to see in the updated draft that we'll consider for January 29th and just in my, mental note-taking. I know that in addition to the changes that we'll vote on, we can also expect to see more finessed boundaries between the various sub-districts. And I'm also looking forward to the diagrams, the residential requirements, including not just one type of what can be built in each district, but more varied buildings that folks can envision them in context of what these neighborhoods might actually look like with the possible buildings, or perhaps already look like. Seeing no further hands from councillors, we have a second on both those motions from President Bears. I'll take them in order. read this one more time just so we can hear it and to give people time to think of potentially more motions. This is a motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan to adjust the proposed neighborhood residential districts by removing the NR4 district type and consider that as part of urban residential topic as a potential urban residential one district, classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as NR1. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR3 as NR2. Classifying all areas currently listed on the proposal as NR4 as NR3. Adjust the NR3 district type to remove the one unit dwelling by right. Any parcel where the current district is GR should be at least NR2 and any parcels where the current district is apartment one or apartment two should be at least NR3. So on the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears both had to drop off so we can do a voice vote. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Two in favor, one opposed. The motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: On the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Leming, to request that the Chair work with the administration to increase accessible materials, notices, and communications about upcoming meetings and distribute them to the community. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Any further comments or questions from Councilors at this time? Okay. We will go to public participation. Seeing nobody at the podium, I will go first to Zoom. I'm going to request that you unmute. Please state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for attending tonight and for sharing that feedback. It really is duly noted and really appreciated. We want to make sure that we're improving at letting the residents know about what their opportunities are to get informed about these proposals, including Salem Street, especially for abutters and neighbors so that folks can be at the meetings and be in the spaces where they can ask questions, get their questions answered. So thank you for raising that. I know that the current proposal the proposal. Developed by Ennis has they were. I know that these folks were really careful about factoring in, you know, neighborhood compatibility and being thoughtful about if we're increasing height. By how much under what conditions we're not going to be going into that proposal in depth tonight. However, I hope you're already aware a week from today. January 22nd. The CD board will be discussing the Salem Street proposal for the first time. I'm sure it will be a really helpful overview with an opportunity for questions and answers as well. So thank you so much, and please continue to attend, even on the meetings that aren't specifically germane to your residence area. Thanks for being here. Next, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes. Oh, sorry. That's me.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the thoughtful comments, as always, Gaston. Just to quickly respond to a couple of those, and I know, sorry, we're not supposed to go back and forth, but just since you brought it up, on the linkage piece, I think that's a really reasonable question. I think that when we look at the zoning overhaul in totality, That issue becomes less because in some areas like the proposed NR1 districts, we're not encouraging developments that would be large enough to kick in the linkage fees. In other areas, for example, the places that are really close to the very, very high transit stations, we might be encouraging developments that would kick into the linkage fees. So I think it would have an equalizing effect, maybe not when we're just considering the neighborhood residential as a single project, but citywide, I know Councilor Leming, in particular, has been making sure that we're updating our linkage fees so that when we do create new zoning, especially along places like Mystic Ave, where we're encouraging big new developments, that they're gonna be paying their fair share and that their fair share is calculated correctly. So thank you for bringing up that point. And then the other thing I was going to say was not important. Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful commentary. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to let you finish your three minutes, and then I can respond after if you have more that you want to put on the record. I'm sorry? If you have further questions behind that, I'm happy to just give you your full time, and then I can respond afterwards.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. I'll just quickly note that all of the goals that are guiding the zoning overhaul come out of the Community Informed Housing Production Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and Medford Comprehensive Plan, and are guided by our knowledge that Medford is a beautiful place that a lot of people live and a lot of people want to move into. And people who live here are struggling to stay here. People who want to live here, people who grew up here and want to buy a home, people who want to stay here are struggling to find housing to do so. Those guide the goals around thoughtfully adding densification where it makes sense in each neighborhood.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. And I will just note that the goals of the housing production parts of the zoning overhaul, I believe, are motivated by the community's desire to build more housing, not as a revenue strategy. Seeing no further hands on Zoom, are there any further comments or motions from councilors? Councilor Leming? Gaston, do you have an additional comment? Yeah, I have a question.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, would you guys just speak into the microphone?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. Thank you for your questions and comments. All right. Seeing no further questions or motions from Councilors, I want to again thank Innocence Associates so much for being here with us. Time and time again, you've done so much hard work for us over the course of the past year. Emily's gesturing at Paola. Team effort, I know. really shaping the goals that the community has put into our guiding documents into zoning that we can consider, discuss, deliberate, amend, and talk about in public as much as we need to and vote on. So thank you so much. We will be meeting on this topic again in two weeks with an updated proposal for councilors to review. So I look forward to that. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? I have a motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes, meeting adjourned. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I, Kit Collins, do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties upon me, incumbent upon me, as vice president of the Medford City Council, as vice president of the Medford City Council, according to the best of my ability, according to the best of my ability, and understanding, and understanding, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, the laws of this Commonwealth, the laws of this Commonwealth, and the ordinances of the City of Medford, and the ordinances of the City of Medford.
[Kit Collins]: I would also like to thank my colleagues for their collaboration and working with me this past year and the one ahead. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This is a standard top of the year motion to make sure that the rules governing this body for the previous year are still in effect for the year ahead. I motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This is another standard resolution for the beginning of the calendar year to make sure that all papers that were in committee of the whole and any of the city council committees remaining committee for our discussion and perusal this calendar year motion to approve on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take from suspension the report of the Governance Committee on January 7th,
[Kit Collins]: President Bears, I would motion to suspend the rules and take the following papers out of order, 25006, 24510, 24502, and 23055.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to my fellow Councilors for putting this on the agenda. And thank you, mostly, to families who are here tonight. And I know this is really just the tip of the iceberg of the advocacy that you're doing on behalf of not just your own families, but of the entire disability community. Every time you advocate for your own families and your own youth's outcomes, you're advocating for the entire community. So I'm very grateful to you for that and to the years of effort that have gone into this. When it comes to what the city can do. It's like anything else, we fund what's important to us. This is a cut and dry equity issue, we need to do more to make sure that families that live in our community did not have to travel outside of our community to get the type of programming and supports and education that they or their children are entitled to. So I look forward to continuing to work with the administration to make sure that we are putting dollars where they need to be for that to be the case.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. As you just noted, we took our first vote on this loan order on December 17. We had a committee of the whole to talk about it more in depth with climate planner Brenda Pike as well as Assistant Superintendent Cushing immediately before the 7pm meeting tonight to really go over it in detail and hear more about their extensive plans for how this will facilitate the repair of the McGlynn School roof and HVAC improvements at the Andrews and McGlynn. So this loan order would enable the funding for those roof repairs at the McGlynn and extensive HVAC at Andrews and McGlynn on a timeline that would enable the work to be completed. over summer vacation so that when middle schoolers return in the fall, they're doing so to buildings with repaired roofs and functioning AC and then heat in the winter. Really, really basic stuff that unfortunately has not been guaranteed to our middle schoolers for a long time because the HVAC has been in such dire need of repair. So very grateful to the hard work by those in MPS and the school department to to be aligned so that this funding could come together and that the work could be done on a timeline that would allow it to be completed over the summer with minimal disruptions to education. So I'd motion to approve for third reading.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. So the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance. I'll give a super brief recap because this is the third reading. I don't wanna bore residents and Councilors who heard a very similar spiel on December 17th. The Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance or CCOPS for short, was workshopped extensively by the 2022 to 2023 City Council, the Mayor's Office and Chief Buckley over about a year and a half period that was following I think three years of advocacy. by civil liberties and privacy community advocates in the city of Medford, asking for such an ordinance. The point of this ordinance in a nutshell, is to protect privacy and civil liberties for Medford residents by creating a robust public process through which the community has a voice. in decisions about when and for what reasons surveillance technology will be used by the city and for what purpose. These are expensive and nascent technologies. It is no small thing for any city agency to use them. There are reasons to use them, but this is really important stuff. They're really expensive. They're really new. They're being aggressively marketed to communities such as ours. For that reason, I think it's incredibly important for the public to have a very structured, very defined, very transparent role in those discussions about if and when they should be used. And the CCOPS ordinance sets up that process. It sets up a reporting process so that the community and the city council can have an active role in those decisions. To that end, These tweaks are to fix some weaker areas or holes in the ordinance that were discovered in the first year or so of its implementation. It was passed in I think March of 2023. I guess that was two years ago now. And these are to fix those weaker points, which is, I think, a fairly normal thing to do for a new ordinance. We put it into practice. We see what's working really well. We see what we can shore up to make even stronger so that we can fulfill this ordinance's goal of maintaining really strong protections and public process for privacy and private data in Medford. And specifically, they resolve omissions dealing with how improperly collected data should be disposed of to maintain the same privacy protections and closes a loophole that would allow for surveillance data to be bought or sold from or to private or commercial entities. With that, I would motion to approve for three reading.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to again thank Councilor Tseng and Councilor Leming for their work on this really important and positive ordinance. And I want to also thank all of the community advocates for pushing the City Council to do this, for insisting that we do this, for insisting that we be a City Council that stands up at the right time and says, our community really is for everybody, and we're going to make sure that our ordinances and our policies reflect that. I'm also proud that we're a city that can pass a welcoming city ordinance and have a change policy. Not at all, because we know from the conversations that the lead sponsors have had with administration and the chief of police that this is merely codifying the MPD's existing And I'm really proud that to pass a welcoming city ordinance actually changes our MPD policies, not one bit. That makes me feel proud of the public safety program that we do have in Medford. I think I, personally, I feel really touched by that. And I also feel really touched as a city council that the community has rallied around this to say at this moment, let's make sure that we're doing all that we can to make sure that Medford is a place that people can feel comfortable identifying as an immigrant, identifying as not being born here and still seeking out every public service that they're entitled to, including knowing that they can go to first responders, knowing that they can go to public safety officials, knowing that they can go to the MPD and be safe because they're not going to be asked about their immigration status. They're not going to be asked for their paperwork. And to know because it's broadcast, because it's codified as an ordinance, that we care about public safety. We care about putting our public dollars towards public safety. not about complying with the agendas of other states or with federal actors. We want to put our dollars towards public safety in our community. We mean that for everybody. So I am really excited to ordain this tonight. And again, I want to thank my fellow Councilors for working closely with the administration, including working closely, I know, with the chief of police on this. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here, Teresa and Amanda on Zoom. just to echo what's already been said, shared sentiments, you know, obviously there's been so much work and effort and community input and staff effort poured into the car park renovation over many, many years at this point. So I'm really happy to see a unanimous recommendation come out of the CPC so that we can continue the good work of manifesting those goals and continuing the renovation project. So I'll be really happy to support this tonight and motion for approval after any other comments or questions from my fellow Councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to thank you so much for being here and for collaborating with Councilor Leming on this just really proactive, creative, common sense solution. Thank you for being so willing to do your job, not just by the letter, but also creatively and do this kind of problem solving to utilize your existing resources to create just a really simple incentive. I'm really glad that we have a voice in City Hall, not just for veterans in general and housing veterans, but also for calling out and not being willing to speak directly to the stigma that veterans face in their housing search along with other areas of life. So really grateful to be able to vote on this tonight. Thank you again so much for your work. And also thank you, Councilor Leming, for putting this forward. And I would second the motion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate the thorough discussion around this. We've heard a lot of concerns. We've also heard a lot of context from the mayor and members of the administration. I wanna thank the department heads for staying on the call quite late to be on hand to answer questions around this. Based on what I have learned so far and heard tonight, I'm not ready to endorse the wholesale return to the status quo. Some things I honestly find pretty shocking. I'm shocked to hear that a timesheet system wasn't in place for hourly employees. I'm really glad that's been fixed. It's probably about 30 years late. That's something that's for everybody's protection, employees included. Based on what I'm hearing, it's not clear to me that the new system is any less safe or more expensive, or that there's been cases where qualified decision makers haven't been available, or that it means less availability for qualified inspectors when they're needed. This sounds to me like a case of new best practices being promulgated by our new building commissioner. I am very grateful that there are contingencies for when Commissioner van der Waal isn't available to field calls, and I find it hard to get angry about former Commissioner 40 being paid $240 over the past year to be a knowledgeable backup. With that in mind, I'm gonna find it hard to vote yes on the paper as submitted this evening. I have a suggested amendment that I'd like to offer instead, or if the councilor is not amenable to it, I'll offer it as a B paper. I think that we've gotten some helpful info to serve as context for this issue tonight, and I think it'd be helpful to have it in writing. So that amendment or B paper. would be, whereas public safety is a priority for the City Council, be it resolved that the administration submit a report detailing new overtime policies within the building department, as well as a report on current policies relating to building department and fire department hierarchy of oversight and decision making on incidents involving building structures after business hours, along with written answers to Councilor Scarpelli's questions. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Sure. Yeah, I'll read it again. Whereas public safety is a priority for the city council, be it resolved that the administration support, submit a report detailing new overtime policies within the building department, as well as a report on current policies relating to building department and fire department hierarchy of oversight and decision-making on incidents involving building structures after business hours, along with written answers to your questions.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, I'll submit it as a B paper instead. Thank you for considering.
[Kit Collins]: The paper is whereas public safety is a priority for the City Council, be it resolved that the administration submit a report detailing new overtime policies within the building department, as well as a report on current policies relating to building department and fire department hierarchy of oversight and decision making on incidents involving building structures after business hours.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being here with us. Thank you for sticking it out this long. We apologize for keeping you here so late. I know like many others in the community, it was really sad to hear when the porch vacated its current tenancy and really excited to hear that something new is moving in. I'm sure that many jokes will be made about the new establishment at the establishment. So thank you for providing a really easy conversation starter for your future patrons. No further questions, I'd happily motion to approve or second.
[Kit Collins]: I think it's a really beautiful question. I think it's a question on a lot of people's minds on both sides of the rail, I think that there's been a lot of strategies that have been tried by the city council and maybe also modeled by the school committee, not endorsing any one or the other, for example, I believe, maybe still are used to the school committee had a rule that they do the regular agenda until a certain time of the night and at that time maybe when the clock strikes nine or ten then they say are we going to table all remaining items or are we not i don't quote me on that it's just something that i think was present at their rules at some time again i'm not endorsing that but i think everybody kind of feels this tension in between we have to have these meetings after business hours so that people can participate and because we start at 7 p.m that kind of creates a funneling effect on the other side as well, because not everybody can stay here until 11 12 one in the morning. We've, we've tried mitigating you know how long people can speak for so that more people can speak to kind of keep things moving I know that's also been, you know, weighing of a cost and benefit. there. You know, if you can, uh, I know you're kind of a stem person. If you can develop an A I that can combine what's on the agenda. People's moods of Councilor Scarpelli has sent any mass emails recently and, you know, create a model of what we can expect. I'd love to see it.
[Kit Collins]: Present
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I know there's been a lot of people who have put a lot of work into this document so far, and it's exciting to be at this stage in the process where we can review kind of an interim result from those many months, I mean, more than months, years of work. I think we have to take into account the years of advocacy for an updated charter that resulted in the process that we're now a part of. So that's really exciting to see how this is progressing, exciting to have it before us. And it is quite a lot to go through. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been going through section by section and just noting notes and questions. And I think the way to break this down, I think the framing to me makes a lot of sense of thinking about what is closest to our work as a body. what do we really require meeting with other bodies, the school committee, other department heads on to get that context from how it affects their work and structuring how we'll go through this document, structuring a timeline around that. At the same time, I know that we have a pretty strict timeline if we want the legislature to be able to take up the final result of our action this term, which I know we very much do. we have to make sure that we're doing all of this work on a pretty timely pace. So I think that this is ambitious, but I think that it's doable. This is going to be a very major project for the City Council this spring. I think it will become apparent to us as we go through these first three meetings, if we need any additional input, if we need any additional time on, you know, for example, the more technical procedural things at the end if we run out of time for those because we're talking about the more substantive governance related topics with the call and sender. But I think this is doable. And I think that this is a, this is an area where, you know, we can say as a city council, we know that we have to allocate a lot of resources to this project over the next three or four months, because it has a really, you know, because it has a really defined timeline on it, but I like the way you've laid it out. I think it makes sense to talk about the sections that impact the City Council most directly first, certainly the ones that I flipped to first. I think that, you know, not to say that it's the only section that's germane to our work, Most of the highlighting that I did was in the executive section around financial procedures and the annual budgeting process, and that affects our work very intimately as well. I think it makes sense to give ourselves and city staff a little bit more time to get together our notes and our questions for that meeting in February. That'll be a very substantive one. So I think this is a great plan to start out with. And thank you for your work in structuring it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, and just another note on timeline I'm thinking as I'm looking over the list thinking about, you know, what are the topics that we're going to have the heaviest discussion about and what are the topics that the public is most likely to be have the most questions about. be most keenly interested in. Obviously, they're spread throughout this timeline, but I could see, especially with the proposed changes to board representation and at-large representation, I think it makes sense to have elections not be the very first thing that we take up to give people time to save the day, to know to turn out, because that is a change that I know a lot of people have been advocating for, that people will want to be able to have noticed before that discussion.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think this is, I'm just really grateful for the opportunity that the governing agenda and the biannual review presents us with to take a step back and look at the year in total. I know that for myself, it's really easy to get caught up in the day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month work and lose track of kind of a big picture of which big projects have advanced incrementally, which things have come together over the course of a lot of months of work. I also find that it's really easy to forget about things that we did, substantive as they may be, because this Council has been extraordinarily productive, busy, and prolific. And I thank all of my colleagues for collaborating to make that The reality. This is just my second term on the city council, but our committees have been much more active than they ever have been in the past. I think that every Councilor has been really diligent about Using the committee structure to make sure that We articulated big goals in the governing agenda at the beginning of this year, and we've been very thorough about meeting on those and pushing forward our priorities in our various public meetings systemically. And I think that a lot of that progress, at least for me as an individual, would actually be pretty hard to just get a bird's eye view on if not for this document so that we can compare Kind of our goals and hopes and dreams and plans January version to where we are 11 months later. So I'm just, I'm really grateful for this format, which allows us to kind of compare how we started and what we've made progress on and even the projects that we've completed. And really grateful to my colleagues for their work on our shared larger projects and our individual projects that different people have taken point on. You know, all of the projects in the governing agenda come from things that we heard from the community, things from our constituents, things that people in the community wanted to see, want us to see us working on. That's why we're here. That's why we do this. And I'm really glad that we have a document that we could point to and say This is why this was a goal. This is why this is a goal. And this is what this is what we're working on. And this is why this is why we're working for you. And I think that's really important. You know, in our. And then the word gets used a lot, but I think it really is a valuable goal to try to make the work of the council more transparent. And to me, that just means using more and better tools and language to describe to people what it is that we do in meetings. This is a way to break it down and show people how long it takes to get from A to B on a variety of things. So looking forward to just a quick review tonight, and then we'll do that again in six months. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and I'll just take that opportunity to note that it was President Bears' idea.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, you saw me raise and lower my hand because I wasn't sure if this was worth putting out there. But just for the benefit of residents who may be watching this update meeting, just to be clear, we're not going to change the disposition of any of these papers in this meeting. We're not going to take anything. We're not going to remove anything from committee. We're not going to fully dispel with any papers, even though we might discuss what is likely to happen with them in the future. This is to just give a general overview. So for folks wondering, you know, when will the next step take place? When will official action take place? Not in this meeting. Any papers even that we're going to take off the docket, they would have to be reviewed and placed on file from the committee that they're currently in. So just wanted to note that for clarity.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, totally just echoing what was said. And just to reinforce the point, I know that the mayor's team has been doing a pretty good job of cataloging exactly what our ARPA expenditures have been and breaking those down by category. I also do know and I don't think it's at all true that we're going to be leaving ARPA money on the table. I know that this was a fairly, you know, it's close to the end of the year. that the reallocation back to ARPA was made because of the revenue replacement from the Prop 2.5 override. However, there were also some pretty late-breaking major expenditures that we did use ARPA funding for. So I just don't think it's, I don't, people shouldn't worry that we're leaving our ARPA monies on the table.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Well, zoning wasn't literally the only thing that we did in this committee, but it was overwhelmingly the work of this committee so far this year and will remain the case next year. We had, I honestly, I gave up on counting the number of zoning meetings that we had. I think President Bears might have the number. 16 so far.
[Kit Collins]: I would have guessed even higher. We began meeting with Innes Associates very, very close to the top of the year, initially kind of mapping out our work plan for the comprehensive review of the city's zoning ordinances. And that was kind of a project in and of itself, because we knew that we wanted to talk about some citywide zoning approaches, some tweaks that would affect the whole community, and that we also wanted to go neighborhood by neighborhood or geography by geography, as the zoning consultants often refer to it in their language of planning consultants, so that we could consider both, you know, on really a street-by-street, neighborhood-by-neighborhood level, what do we know that the community wants for this neighborhood based on all of the research and community feedback that we have gathered? in the past, and especially through projects like the comprehensive planning process? How do we make these more localized changes to manifest what we know people want? And then what are the changes that it makes sense to consider as a unit citywide, things around housing incentives, parking, et cetera. So breaking down how those pieces might work together so that we could get through all of our goals. We got our feet wet with some technical changes at the beginning of the year, updating our definitions, making some changes around site plan review that were really important on the city side. And one of my personal favorites, taking the vote so that the official zoning map of Medford is no longer paper and colored pencil, but an actual GIS digital file, which I think is pretty cool for 2024. Since then, in July, we really dove into kind of the meat of the project. We had a really cool mapping workshop in July, which I think set us up for our kind of geography by geography work that will carry us through June of 2025 or later. The zoning consultant prepared a lot of different kind of aerial views that showcase different characteristics around Medford. We looked at topography, we looked at flood zones, we looked at density, we looked at demography, we looked at traffic, so many different ways to think about what our places feel like and got a lot of interesting feedback there. We've been applying all of this to our geographies work. We started with the Mystic Ave Corridor District, which we just ordained last night. We had many, many meetings on that in committee. I went to City Council, I went to the Community Development Board, came back to the City Council last night, and it's been ordained. The Salem Street Corridor District was the next geography in the queue, and that one is about midway through. Well, a little bit more than midway. We've had a couple meetings about it in committee. It was just referred to the Community Development Board last night. They'll be holding public hearings on that as well. Abutters, I think, should be getting notices in mid-January. I know the planning staff is planning to send out those notices after Christmas so that doesn't get lost in Christmas mail. So there'll be more public hearings about the Salem Street Corrector District, and then I'll come back to the City Council. And towards the end of this year we've also been mapping out our plan for for what's next for what geographies, what neighborhoods will be turned to next, I don't have this memorized off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that at the beginning of the year, we will be looking at, I think we'll be turning to South Medford and hillsides. And then later in the year, we'll be turning our focus towards North Medford, West Medford, Wellington, Medford Square, not in that order. But we are going to make sure that we keep a pace so that we can do a really thorough review and update of the zoning in all of Medford's neighborhoods, and then kind of widen the scope again and consider those broader topics that we really want to not consider piece by piece, but think about the whole community in one discussion. So that's zoning where that's, you know, that's a three minute version of zoning. President Bears, would you mind scrolling down? I think there were a couple other ordinance projects that I wanted to, oh, right, sorry. Green score also subsumed within zoning. This was something that we reported out kind of in between Mystic Avenue Corridor District and Salem Street. This is one of those citywide strategies. Um, Greenscore is, in a nutshell, it's a rubric that, um, is comprised of our existing building development standards, you know, when you develop in Medford, you know, what, what you have to do, specifications that you need, um, to build by, to be acceptable, to be approved. Um, and it also encompasses some newer and more ambitious environmental standards. And it also includes, um, not just environmental standards, but also community amenities. So that we can be encouraging developers to be adding in more of the things that we want to see into their projects, things like sidewalk improvements, things like parks, things like shade, hydration stations, and rewarding them when they do add those amenities into their projects. And then I'll also mention transportation demand management is an ordinance that's been brought up by councillors Leming and saying so that we can kind of this is a policy where we're in we can take a holistic look at transportation options in the city and also in the region. and set up a community-wide policy to be making sure that as new development comes in, development options are streamlined and that we can be encouraging developers to help us further streamline and build our transportation system as they're adding to our built environment. If you'll scroll down just a bit, President Bears. Thank you. To round this out, some of the other things in this committee, the condo conversion ordinance. This is an ordinance that I proposed last year. It's kind of in stasis right now. It doesn't totally fit in within the zoning work, so it's kind of on the back burner. But I'm hopeful that we can advance this in 2025, because this is another strategy that would help us maintain Um. Maintain rental units as they are in Medford instead of seeing more of our housing stock being converted to unaffordable luxury housing. In this committee are also some of our housing home world petitions. Um in 2022 President Bears and I proposed. Um that the council look at a tenant first rate of refusal. Normal petition as well as a rent stabilization and no fault eviction The rent stabilization and no fault eviction protections. We had one initial meeting on this. I think just one initial meeting on this over the summer. We haven't returned to it yet. This has been a very busy committee. I am hopeful that we could pick up this project again. uh, early in 2025, especially when the new state legislative session resumes. Um, the real estate transfer fee Home Rule petition was also referred to the Planning and Permitting Committee. However, uh, before we met on it in committee, we did learn that the Affordable, uh, Homes Act at the state level did not include, um, the transfer fee, uh, as an op- as a, um, local option within it. So outlook is grim for this strategy at this time. Just finally, we will also review few schedules for a germane to the planning and permitting committee. We have the goal of reviewing a cycling safety ordinance to kind of adhere to and strengthen the city's existing complete streets policies and plans. We are hoping to, and then we have a number of other projects, including energy disclosure and other, I think there's, scroll down here on my own copy. We have several other permitting and building related projects that I think could all cohere pretty well with the zoning work that we're doing, such as energy disclosure, benchmarking ordinance, which kind of go along with us trying to better work hand in hand with especially large developers to make sure that they're doing their part to help us know how we are doing at progressing towards our energy efficiency goals and our climate mitigation and adaptation goals and give us the data that we need to hold these large developers in these large buildings accountable. There was also the rental licensing ordinance referred into this committee. I think that this is a really valuable proposal that would help city staff do a lot of the work that we're talking about when it comes to making sure that we're having good communication with property owners in the city so that we can be working together on everything from energy efficiency to retrofits to making sure that tenants are getting the information that they need from the city. So we haven't had a chance to work on this in committee yet, but I'm hopeful that we will. And then finally, these are two ordinances proposed by Councilor Tseng, pesticide regulations. I know this is important to many folks in the community, as well as blasting and earth removal regulations, which I think the goal of that would be to prohibit future Winthrop Street style disturbances where developers are able to do really loud, disruptive earth removal and blasting without a lot of controls on the city side. Um, and then just around this out quickly. Oversight and engagement wise if we ever get free time in this committee, which I doubt which will, which I doubt will happen. We will review other relevant city organises and regulations. Um, Councilors Garpelli as the chair of the License, Providing and Sign Application Subcommittee continues to, um, meet on these topics when needed. And then I think we're also hoping to fold in energy retrofits for existing buildings into our overall work around large building and potentially small building accountability and collaboration on our climate goals. Quite enough for one committee, I would say. I'll leave it there.
[Kit Collins]: I would just say, well, I would say in general, I think if this meeting is a great time to mention things and I can, as the co-editor of this document, I'm happy to make flags and we can make sure that things are, that this document is fully updated with the full scope of what we're working on. I'm sure that I missed some stuff. I did make sure to note in under public works and facilities committee, there is a project about street and sidewalk repair and accessibility. So I did make sure to at least note that advocacy that's been going on from the city council. Councilor Lazzaro, and thank you for your leadership on that.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Give me a second to get situated, colleagues. Great, we have three more committees to go. I would respectfully request that, and I'll first do a disclaimer about my own hypocrisy. I know I went long in my committee and my defense. We meet twice a month instead of once a month or less. But if we could try to speed run the updates on the remaining three committees, because I also have a appointment I have to get to soon. Let me just find where we were, and then I'll share my screen. The first can take public participation on the, I guess, most recent on the public and Well, doesn't matter. I forget what committee we just went over. Gaston, just for the record. Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, great. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. And I agree when it comes to something is important, but thorny to implement as bike lanes really important to get all stakeholders in the room early in the game. And I will make a note to add the cycling safety, sorry, the cycling master plan to the helpful links, a section of the document. Appreciate that. All right, let me share my screen and we'll go to Councilor Lazzaro for presentation on projects in the community.
[Kit Collins]: Community control over public surveillance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. And just to, if I might, just to add here, I know that your committee has been the home for a lot of my ordinances this year. So thank you for support on those. And I also want to, you know, a lot of those related to the Overgrowth Ordinance, the Rural Control Ordinance, the Wildlife Feeding Ordinance. So this is the committee in which we are doing work to try to respond to community concerns about our escalating population. We've been working closely with the health director. So thank you for always making space and time for this committee for us to advance those projects so we can do a better job for the human constituents of Medford and a harsher job for the world of constituents.
[Kit Collins]: I forgot how to phrase that.
[Kit Collins]: All right, on to the Public Works and Facilities Committee. Councilor Callahan, take it away.
[Kit Collins]: Sure. The update is that there is no update. This is something that I would like to do, but I think this is something that I would not take committee capacity for. over other projects necessarily next year. So if we do have one of those sessions to review papers and committee and see what might not occur in 2025, what maybe should be disposed of. Unless there is a groundswell of support from the community, this might be something that is not a priority item for next year.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Councilor Callahan. I'm also excited for the tree planting volunteer network. All right, on to our final committee to review resident services and public engagement. Another prolific one. Councilor Leming, your quick update, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Councilor Leming. And like I mentioned, this has been another really remarkably prolific committee, and I do want to commend you as chair for your leadership in all of the work to modernize City Council communications. I mean, just saying it like that, it doesn't sound like as much of an effort as it has been. But, you know, piloting a city council newsletter, getting the meetings accessible on YouTube, which for some people is easier than Medford Community Media, and they're available instead of a couple days later. Obviously, not a pejorative on MCM. We love that service as well. It's very vital. But the proliferation of ways that people can about what's happening on the City Council and read about it and go more into depth if they want or just get the bite-sized version is a really stark contrast to previous years when there were very, very, very few ways to know what the City Council was doing and ways to digest that information. So I think this committee is to be commended for their many meetings to work on those projects as well as the City Council Residence Guide. I know that these are things that have been really appreciated by a lot of people who have joined us in the chambers I think that takes us to the end of this document. And I did note the two things that you mentioned in this committee that were not included on the governing agenda. I will make sure to update those along with our other additions and updates to the documents so that we can get a clean as of end of December 2024 version to circulate and to have online on the city council portal. I believe we're also going to take a look in terms of other updates to this document before we promulgate the next clean version. I think we're also going to update those Spreadsheet calendars for each committee and make sure that those are still up to date and reflective of the current information. A final edit that I will do is going back and updating the table of contents, which I'm not sure has been accurate now that we have added a lot of projects and changed the status of a lot of projects. So we can, you can expect those edits in coming weeks. I just want to thank my colleagues for their work on this document and their help to me and updating it and for all of the work that's gone into the projects that it gives an overview on. I'm really grateful for your hard work and your diligence and your willingness to be in the city call chambers twice a week, almost all weeks. Appreciate your partnership. Any other comments to add?
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Councilor Callahan. And yes, I want to echo your words of gratitude to the clerk. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
[Kit Collins]: It's really grateful for the collaboration that we've shared this year and very genuinely looking forward to collaborating with you all in the new year and excited to see how the governing agenda looks in another six months. and as always, yes, thank you for mentioning. Always appreciate the residents that take the time out of their week to be engaged in this process. Please join us, continue to join us in the new year, share your feedback, join these meetings, bring your friends. That is the point, that is the goal. We appreciate you being here and paying attention. Do I hear any motions?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll when you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, we're gonna keep the paper in committee and adjourn. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: All right.
[Kit Collins]: Meeting adjourned.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you as well, Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on and making sure that we properly recognized Director Kerr for her 40 incredible years leading the Medford Public Library. You know, a lot great has been said about Barbara. We could go on all night just talking about Barbara, but what really strikes me about her from all the meetings we've had with her over the past three years is she brings Obviously, so much skill so much knowledge so much experience to run the library and she's been doing this for four decades and she's made sure that our library remains contemporary over the years and she really fought to make sure that we can now enjoy a public modern contemporary public library and. You know, some people know really well just how, just how much hard work and advocacy and how many risks it took to make it the incredible, you know, really model library that it is today. So we can't thank her enough, not just for the recent, you know, really, really visible accomplishments, but for all of the work that preceded that to bring us to the community space that we get to enjoy and that we'll get to enjoy for so many years to come. So thank you, Barbara. We could truly go on all night talking about her. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears, I would motion to adjoin reports of committees and approve the single motion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. At the December 3rd Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, we met once again with our zoning consultant. We discussed a draft plan for 2025, and we had the first introduction before this committee to the proposed zoning for the Salem Street Corridor District. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. This was another meeting with the zoning consultant. We had our second meeting on the proposed zoning for the Salem Street Corridor District, and it was referred out to City Council for the next procedural step, which is referral to the Community Development Board.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to suspend the rules to take from the table paper 24-494 for third reading, followed by communications from the mayor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being with us tonight and thank you for being with the school committee yesterday. I know it's a really busy time of year, but it's really exciting to see that this project is being pushed forward. We've been hearing about the HVAC issues in Medford Public Schools for a really long time. It feels like forever. And it's exciting to be at a point where we can be talking about pre-implementation and implementation of the projects that will allow the schools to remain the comfortable temperatures that students can learn and thrive in. Before any motions are made, I'd be eager to hear that kind of like brief synopsis about the bird's eye view, why now to kind of get our heads around the urgency around this. To me, we've been hearing from parents and educators for such a long time about the really severe heating and cooling issues in the Medford public schools that I feel pretty comfortable taking a vote on this ASAP. but I'd like to hear your presentation first. Thank you. Or the short form your presentation first, to be clear, not the hour long version. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the succinctness. Certainly, I don't think that any of us think that our students and educators and school staff should be put in the position of having to beg for classrooms that are a temperature at which you can focus and deliver good education and learn and be comfortable enough to get through the day and really get something out of the education that Medford Public Schools offers. And I would be really happy to work with President Bears to make sure that we can get a committee of the whole on the January schedule as quickly as possible so that we can advance this tonight, if it is the will of the council, do our due diligence, and then try to get this out the door. Because I do understand, you know, I think anybody who has any passing familiarity with projects of this scale, you know, I know that we have a really tight timeframe that you're trying to get this done in so that these improvements are up and running for the beginning. of the next school year. And if we miss that window, that manifests in unhappy students and unhappy educators and unhappy families. So with that, I would motion to approve for first reading and for city council leadership to work to schedule a committee of the whole for more in-depth conversation at our first opportunity in January.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Before we vote. I just wanted to appreciate my Councilor discussion of this item. I'm very much looking forward to the committee of the whole. I also just wanted to follow up and to make clear just because of the way that it's being talked about. This is a request for a loan order for $5 million. I don't want people to come away with the impression that the city is, after this vote, writing a check for $5 million. That's not the case. The loan order, you know, this is a process that we very, very, very commonly use for large capital expenses like this. This is normal to take out a loan order for this. It's like the way this is normally done. We're not just writing a check from some city checking account. That's not how this works. Um, and I just, you know, I've had so many conversations with constituents about heating and cooling in MPS buildings for so many years that I really would be remiss to not just affirm that this is not a new project. This is really a harm that people have been feeling for years, and I'm glad that we're acting on it now, but we're actually we're acting on it late. So thank you for getting us to this point where we can be acting on it. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Commissioner McGibbon for being with us this evening. I know that the lead line replacement rebate program is something that I've heard a lot about from a lot of constituents. I think there's a lot of enthusiasm for this program as homeowners are really happy to know that there are rebates available for replacing lead lines that really ought to be replaced. So thank you for your work on that program in general. I think that this is a really worthy program and it makes sense to use monies from the Water and Sewer Stabilization Fund, which, you know, is a way of making sure that our retained earnings can remain useful throughout the year to be put towards this. And it sounds to me like it's, you know, essentially just a stopgap, a kind of safety measure until hopefully some federal monies start to augment that program as well. So I would happy to make a motion to approve. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate the discussion being put forward. I do wish that these topics were separated into disparate resolutions so we could take them up individually and vote on them individually. A lot to get into here, but I do just feel that we need to be more clear with the language that we're using. And I didn't want people to use, I wouldn't want people to leave the meeting thinking that the city has offered the superintendent a buyout. That's not accurate. It's my understanding again, we are not the school committee. I don't think that we should be taking up matters that are germane to the school committee because that is not our body. Um, but it is my understanding that it is pretty common when a superintendent contract is not renewed that the superintendent does step back from the full extent of their responsibilities before their contract is officially over to allow for that transition. This isn't abnormal. It doesn't indicate that there's any sort of expensive illicit, fraudulent buyout going on, I think that this is normal. So I want to put that out there. I wouldn't, you know, I know that sometimes using these words makes for better TV, but I don't think that it's respectful to the residents to mischaracterize what's going on. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I would note that it wouldn't be my preference to rule 21 this resolution, but I do think that we should separate it out into at least four resolutions and then proceed from there. The first four lines as one resolution, and then the next four paragraphs as one resolution each, and we should, that would be my preference to go from there.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. My proposal would be to sever into four resolutions. The first one comprising the first four lines, the second one being the second paragraph, or sorry, the fifth line. The third one being the second to last paragraph and the fourth one being the last paragraph.
[Kit Collins]: Correct.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. And I do appreciate the discussion, the clarity around the noticing. I think especially with these zoning ordinances, I think the process is clear, but it's complicated. It's one of those things that is wonky and technical and it has to procedurally, legally, it must kind of go from body to body. So I think it's really understandable that, you know, there's for folks who aren't intimately familiar with the zoning referral process. It's not intuitive, and that makes a lot of sense. And due to, you know, continued collaboration, especially between members of the planning and permitting committee, We're kind of continually trying to make sure that we're messaging these meetings ever better and making it easier for folks to know where we are in the process and I think that this is an easy thing that we can add to kind of the increased levels of communication and flyering that we're doing around our ongoing zoning work just to try and do what we can to make this important, technical, complicated, you know, very interesting process a little more legible for just regular folks in the community. Having said that, just if you'll indulge me for just a little bit of retrospective before I make a motion, really excited that Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning proposal has come back to the City Council tonight. It's taken, you know, as with any zoning proposal, it's taken a thorough and storied road to get here. We had a mapping workshop back in July. We decided that Mystic Avenue Corridor District was going to be one of the first things that we took a deep dive into because, you know, between our housing production plan, between our comprehensive plan, from so many comments that me and my colleagues have received from constituents over the years talking about just, it's so visible, I think for so many people, the untapped potential on Mystic Ave. I think that the kind of, there was a very clear vision for how we could do more. even more with this really valuable property in Medford and Leverage. It's a transit corridor. There's some really big lots. It's good for a lot of things and we should be doing more with it. This council has been really focused on doing what we can to try and set the stage for more commercial development so that we are building our commercial tax base as much as possible and having that trickle into things like schools and roads and public services. So we began our discussions of the Mystic Avenue Corridor District in August. We workshopped it for a couple months with city staff, with our zoning consultant in committee, receiving feedback from the community. We looked at a lot of different options. We took in feedback. We made tweaks after committee. It was referred to the Community Development Board. It came back to us tonight with some recommendations to just further tweak it and make it more legible for developers, make more sense, be easier to understand, and just be easier to achieve some of the requirements, incentives that we're really hoping that developers will take us up on on Mystic App, so that we'll both get great development along Mystic App that's in the line of what the community really wants to see there, but is also, you know, simple and clear enough that People can look at it. Residents can look at it and developers can look at and say, OK, it's obvious to me what they want. It's obvious to me how to meet these requirements so that we can partner with the city to do more on this to have. Having said that, I think, you know, happy to have more of a discussion on the specific amendments that the CD board is recommending that we adopt tonight. They are in our packets. I think they're pretty straightforward and intuitive tweaks, but I would motion to approve for first reading the Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning proposal and adopt the recommended amendments. by the Community Development Board, as well as to change the special permit granting authority on cannabis uses to the ZBA and to change the special permit granting authority on adult uses to the City Council to maintain consistency with the rest of the zoning ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. I'll keep it brief. I have a lot to say about this proposal. I'm really proud of it, really grateful to all of the staff, the Planning, Development and Sustainability Office that worked on it with us and the zoning consultant and continues to work on it with us and really laid the groundwork for this and other zoning proposals with work in the community over the course of years to really gather the information and the desires from the community that inform what we're doing here, what we know that people want to see around Medford, and how to articulate that in the, yes, rather sterile, but incredibly impactful language of zoning, which when you look at the proposals, looks, you know, if you were like me, not a zoning lawyer, it looks like nothing at first. But if you're one of those people who wants to know more and wants to know how our community values, or just you know what you want to see in your community is showing up in the zoning proposals I really do implore you to join us at our planning and permitting committee meetings where this work will be will continue throughout the rest of the fiscal year and possibly beyond that. We usually meet twice a month. Please do join us. I also, and I'm sorry, but just a really minor point. It's not the case that you can never ever have a drive-through on Mystic Ave. In the commercial district, you could apply for a special permit through the CDB. So just a, I believe a very minor fact check to round out this agenda item. Thank you for indulging me. And with that, I would move the question.
[Kit Collins]: I'll second it.
[Kit Collins]: Really excited to see the sign go up. Can't wait to visit in January. And just to confirm, you will be keeping like extra late hours on Tuesday nights, right?
[Kit Collins]: Well, I was gonna make a motion that might supersede the poll that you're about to take.
[Kit Collins]: Great, I'll move to suspend the rules to take 23055 and 24502. On the motion to suspend to take 23055 and 24502 by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to first start by thanking the community members that have been advocating this for a very long time, and then Councilors Tseng and Leming for leading on this. To me, what this ordinance project says is the city's existing policy of non-cooperation with federal ICE agents is so good and makes so much sense and is so common sense that we should enshrine that as a city ordinance. And I just agree with that wholeheartedly. To me, what this says is we want to protect Medford resources for the purpose of taking care of Medford residents, not for carrying out orders or agendas that were promulgated somewhere far away from here, not in our community. Our resources, our personnel, the expertise and the time of our public safety officials, people doing that work in our community, that should be for us, not for a national agenda. and not for the agenda of any other state or entity. So for that reason, I think it's really the right time. I think any time would be a good time to enshrine that existing policy as an ordinance. I think this is, I think the moment is now. I'm really proud of my fellow Councilors for putting this together and making sure that you know, this policy that the current administration and city staff and public safety officers have been doing just because it's the right thing to do. And it was obviously the right policy to have that we can make sure that that is protected for the future, come what may. With that, I'd motion to approve for our first reading.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'm sorry. I lost track of the 5013C. Sorry, couldn't hear that. I'll just finish my sentence. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'd be happy to make the motion to approve Sorry, late. Take a vote for approved for first reading with the amendments presented tonight adopted with the exception of that one amendment that Councilor Leming knows the number of.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears genuinely appreciate all the discussion around this item I'm glad that we're putting in the work to get this done this month I think this really is urgent I'm really proud of us for doing the hard work to move this from policy to an ordinance. Um, I'd like to move the question. I also did just want to note just just again for the record that undocumented immigrants like do have tax ID numbers. So, um, you know, that's just wanted to correct the record on that. Thank you. I move the question.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'm going to try to keep this brief, but I do think that this project, like any other ordinance, benefits from just a teeny bit of exposition. So let me just orient these proposed amendments in the context of this ordinance and how long it's been on the books. These proposed amendments are tweaks to the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance, which was passed by the City Council in March of 2023, and the amendments are proposed to make sure that the ordinance does a better job of reflecting its original intent. So this ordinance was worked on in City Council from 2022 to 2023. It was collaborated on by city councilors, residents, city staff. The police chief was present with us at many, many subcommittee meetings throughout the process of crafting us. We had sit downs in subcommittee with the mayor, chief of staff, and the chief of police was really grateful to them for putting so much time and conversation into this ordinance. It's not in a way, it's really simple. In another way, there was a lot to talk about, and I'm really grateful for them for doing that work with us over the course of months, which was predated by literally years of advocacy for such an ordinance by residents in the community. So what is the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance? This is an ordinance that is in no way unique to Medford. They've been passed in many communities around Massachusetts and elsewhere throughout the country. They provide a way for local communities to have oversight over what surveillance technologies may be used by our municipal governments. They empower city councils and through the venue of the council, the public, to essentially ask the questions, why does the city want to use surveillance technology in our community? What problem is this supposed to solve? How will it solve it? How will it help? What are the potential risks? What are the costs? The City Council may then through the ordinance make a determination of whether the benefits outweigh the potential costs and whether to improve the technology or that use of surveillance data. Or not, or you know potentially condition it or put certain stipulations on it, etc. It creates a forum to have these discussions over this extremely new rapidly proliferating form of technology that has known, demonstrated, documented bad implications for civil liberties, for privacy, especially for marginalized populations, but not only for marginalized populations. creates a way for the community to have more of a listening ear and more of a voice in these conversations that often have to do with incredibly expensive things that cities are being lobbied to purchase from private corporations. A lot of these technologies are being very, very aggressively marketed to municipalities like ours by the corporations that develop them. And, you know, as one Councilor my goal with this ordinance is to make sure that in in one year and five year and 25 years, we're still spending public dollars on things that actually truly help Medford's public safety, more than they enrich the bottom lines of technology corporations. So that's, that's the briefest overview I can give, but if anybody wants to talk at length about surveillance technology and civil liberties with me hit me up. The amendments that we're putting forward tonight that we workshopped in community that came from suggestions, sorry, that we workshopped in committee. that came out of suggestions from the community. These are two amendments that just constitute two ways that we can further tighten up this ordinance. I also want to note just again for background, it's not at all unusual to return to a fairly recent ordinance or an old one and make amendments to it. We did this with our kind of technical zoning tweaks over the past couple years after we put forward some like technical amendments, we put them into use and that putting it into use alerted us to things that We're having unintended consequences. So we go back and you know now that we've like put it on the road a little bit we go back and fix it, tighten the screws. I see that as being part of this process, making amendments that help us to better embody the original intent of the ordinance. So there are two sections that I'm proposing changes to tonight that we worked on in public health and community safety committee that was circulated to Councilors. The proposed addition to section 5079, which covers enforcement, remedies, penalties, and whistleblower protections. That is to, that's additional language. That says, I read this all out of the committee meeting last week. To the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Massachusetts Public Records Law or the Municipal Records Retention Schedule, any video footage or other data recorded or obtained illegally or in violation of this ordinance shall be immediately destroyed and not introduced as evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding, except in those proceedings related to violations of this ordinance. What's the point of that?
[Kit Collins]: I think, yeah, I think that is comprised within it.
[Kit Collins]: I can go faster, but I can.
[Kit Collins]: So you can just say that. Section 59, there is an oversight in the original ordinance. It states how surveillance data can and cannot be used. It doesn't say what happens if we find ourselves having surveillance data that we oughtn't. This says it's got to be deleted. Similar to how if evidence is obtained without a warrant, it can't be used in a trial, the similar principle. In Section 5080, this covers uh, contracts that might result in surveillance data being generated elsewhere, being used by a municipality. Um, this is to remove an exception, um, that bulk commercially generated surveillance data may be used if it's in service of law enforcement. Um, it's, it's still being wrestled with by state and federal courts, um, if it's constitutional for this to happen at all. But by removing this exception, we're just making this section consistent with the intent of the rest of the ordinance. No carve-outs, just one process. If we're going to use surveillance tech or surveillance data, it's going to be subject to a public process. And I do have one really small tweak to make to the section in 5080 that is really just a semantic change. But I can, well, I'll just say it now. The change to 5080 would be to strike the word bulk. That appears bulk surveillance data. We don't need the word bulk. We're going to strike that. And I would also add the phrase or any information derived from such data after the words surveillance data.
[Kit Collins]: In the first sentence and then in the last sentence, which is an addition.
[Kit Collins]: Same change. It's just to clarify that we're talking about both surveillance data or any information that might be derived from such data. And I will email that to the clerk right now. I would motion to, after consideration by my fellow councillors, I would motion to approve for first reading.
[Kit Collins]: A couple points to clarify. One, I didn't state that the chief wasn't involved. I reached out to him. He didn't respond. I know he's a busy guy. We involved him every step of the way when the 99.9% of the ordinance that isn't changing was crafted between 2022 and 2023. And another thing that I do remember specifically from those months of meetings in the previous term was that the chief repeatedly emphasized that the city of Medford currently does not have a practice of purchasing surveillance data targeted or in bulk, and also has no plans to do so in the future. So this would have, unless that is no longer correct or wasn't correct at the time, this would have no impact on the work of public safety in our community.
[Kit Collins]: All right, paper 24513 offered by President Bears's resolution to request changes to propose Tufts Dormitory Project. Whereas Tufts University has proposed a new dormitory project at 401 Boston Ave, and whereas the City Council strongly supports legislative efforts to pass fairer state laws to encourage collaboration and partnership between large nonprofit institutions like Tufts and municipalities like Medford, and whereas the City Council also strongly supports the goal and intent of providing significant additional on-campus housing by Tufts, and whereas the City Council thanks area residents for voicing their concerns and attempting to have more robust and collaborative public input on the Tufts dormitory proposal, and whereas the City Council does not have a decision-making role regarding this project, Now therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that Tufts University use an alternative site plan or add another site to the project to reduce height and impact of shadows on the surrounding neighborhood while also increasing the tree canopy and adding additional streetscape improvements to their project. be it further resolved that we request that Tufts University drop opposition to and or state their support for state legislation to implement the Institutional Master Plan Home Rule petitions proposed for nearly a decade by the cities of Medford and Somerville and state legislation to create a mandatory pilot payment in lieu of taxes law for large educational and medical nonprofit institutions. Be it further resolved that we thank the Community Development Board and our city staff team for their work as this proposal moves through the public process. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'll go next to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Sheng. Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, wait, sorry. I did your mic wrong.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We're going to go next to seeing no further comment from City Councilors. We're going to go next to public participation. Seeing nobody at the podium, we'll go first to Zoom. Every speaker will have three minutes. We'll go in order that I see you in. Jeremy Martin, please state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Jeremy. We appreciate your comments today.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I would encourage you to vote yes. You can finish your sentence. It sounded like you were at the end.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go next to James on Zoom. Name and address for the record. I'm gonna also have three minutes. Go for it.
[Kit Collins]: You got 20 seconds, James.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments, James. We'll go next to Laurel name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. We're going to go next to Lori on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. Go next to Lisa on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go next to, one second. We'll go next to Janie. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. I see, Elizabeth, your hand up again. Is this a hand from before, or do you want to speak for an additional minute?
[Kit Collins]: OK, great. I'll give you one additional minute. Go for it. I'm sorry, did you say that you did mean to put your hand down or you'd like to speak again on this topic?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, I'm sorry. It's really late.
[Kit Collins]: My mistake. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three whole minutes.
[Kit Collins]: I'm going to give you just another moment to finish your thought. Apologies.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. Seeing no additional public comment on zoom or in the chambers. Is there any additional comment by city councilors? I would just say for myself as one Councilor, I am a staunch proponent of Tufts working to take more responsibility for housing the students that it enrolls. And I very much resent this process, which has led so many neighbors and abutters feeling so left out and unconsidered in this process. I think we're all aware that Tufts is a very large, very wealthy institution, and there are many ways to solve this problem of needing to house more students on campus. On the motion of President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution passes. Thank you so much to all the constituents who wait on us.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to restate the timeline that you just laid out. Very grateful to city staff, residents, and our zoning consultant that joined us for our two recent meetings on the draft zoning proposal for the Salem Street Corridor District in the Planning and Permitting Committee. And this is really just a midway point in the process. We'll go to the Community Development Board for public hearings. They will promulgate recommendations. We will hear those before the City Council again before we take a vote. So I have a motion to refer this to the Community Development Board. Sorry, motion to refer this to the Community Development Board.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sorry, my mic was on before. But just want to note, I support the intent of the B paper. I'm not sure if logistically it'll be possible to have a CDB meeting or a city council regular meeting at the Roberts School, but I think it's in the spirit of making sure that we're continuing to improve our efforts of involving local abutters and neighbors in the process. So if that results in a meeting at the Roberts, we're just continuing to try to do a better and better job each time and inviting the neighbors. I'm more than happy to do that.
[Kit Collins]: Present
[Kit Collins]: Are there any nominations for the role of president of the city council for the year 2025? Councilor Seheult.
[Kit Collins]: Do I have a second? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. On the nomination of Councilor Zach Bares for the role of President of the City Council for the 2025 term. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. Oh, are there any additional nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready, you can call the roll. Sorry, this is why you're the president. Do you accept the nomination? He says begrudgingly.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Six in favor, one present. Councilor Bears will be the president of the council for the year 2025.
[Kit Collins]: All right. Okay. Am I on? Okay, cool. All right. Everybody ready? All right. Thank you for bearing with me. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, December 11th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Present five present. None absent. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this meeting is once again 24-033 zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, City staff for being here. Thank you to members of the public for joining us. This is, I believe, the 16th, the agenda says, the 16th Zoning Updates Project Meeting with Innes Associates. This week we are again talking about the Salem Street Corridor Zoning Proposal discussion. We touched on this topic last week, last Tuesday as well. Really glad to be talking about this with you all again. I'm just going to briefly reintroduce this specific topic and then I'll hand it over to and we'll have a presentation by Innes Associates and commentary by city staff, and then we'll proceed with our discussion. But just to quickly reintroduce what we're talking about today, this is our second time having a full meeting devoted to the Salem Street Corridor District. This is just one part of the City Council's systemic review and update of citywide zoning over the course of this term. We've been working with Innes Associates, thank you for being here, which also assisted the city on the years-long comprehensive plan process. So this corridor proposal, like other aspects of the zoning project, have been crafted by Ennis in consultation with, oh, thank you for letting me know. So these zoning proposals crafted by the zoning consultant in consultation with this committee and city staff, all of these are guided by citywide goals and community feedback as articulated in the comprehensive plan, the housing production plan, the climate action and adaptation plan. and the community input and feedback that we're very fortunate to have throughout this process. And just because I take every opportunity to say this, after these proposals leave this committee, they go back to the city council, they then are procedurally must be referred to the community development board for their review and recommendations, and then come back to the city council once again, before those votes to ordain are taken. It's a complicated process, so I like to repeat it as often as possible, because I know it took me a while to internalize it. So like I said, the initial draft of the Salem Street corridor zoning proposal was presented to this committee on December 3rd for some initial feedback, questions and comments. The project proposes new zoning for the corridor along Salem Street, which includes the roughly two to four parcels extending north and south of Salem Street, beginning at the Route 60 roundabout and extending up to Haines Square. So this proposal does not include the greater Salem Street neighborhood outside of those boundaries, though of course it does touch them and is adjacent to them. for getting further into the weeds than that. I will pass it off to Innes Associates for a presentation, which I understand we saw a really similar presentation to this last week, but I think you're going to highlight some of the tweaks and changes that have been incorporated since last week based on feedback that we got from the community as well as feedback from councilors and city staff. Before I turn it over, any initial comments or questions from councilors? Okay, great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for the presentation, Paola and Emily really appreciate it. I'll echo what you said this is a lot to take in zoning always is. I think that's one of our challenges here is this is a zoning is never not going to be technical complicated veering into wonky and confusing so I appreciate you doing your very best to break it down for Councilors members of the public, whether we're seeing it for the third time. like councillors are for the first time as some members of the public, maybe. Thank you very much. Lots to delve into here. I'll go first to any comments or questions from my fellow councillors. And Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Want to speak to the citywide parking strategy we're thinking about?
[Kit Collins]: Did you have a follow-up to that, Councilor Lohmann?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Or President Bears, I'll go to you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I appreciate that. And before I turn it over to Ines to respond, it looks like there is a response percolating. Just before this meeting, began, we were talking about more ways that we can continue to expand the use of diagrams. And I know this isn't exactly what you're proposing, but kind of that ongoing theme of what else can we include apart from just the text to convey what we're talking about? Because even as one councillor who talks about this as much as anybody else behind the rail, it still takes a lot of effort to understand what we're talking about and break it down and paraphrase it in ways that people can understand. I certainly sympathize with that. Thank you for bringing it up.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you. I think that that's something that I want us to continue to explore, and that if that's something that council leadership can help support NS Associates on, because I know you're doing the lion's share of the work in putting together the complicated proposal, which is legally required, maybe that's something that we can work on to have a more layman-friendly version to accompany these documents when they do come before the council. That's something we'll certainly continue to talk about. I know Councilor Leming had a comment, unless there's a direct response from NS or city staff on that. No pressure, I just... Councilor Lohmann, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And yeah, I think that's a Breaking it down, making it simpler is something that we'll continue to try to improve out over the course of this project. If you had something to add there.
[Kit Collins]: great. Thank you so much. I think that that could be a thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Councilors Scarpelli. Are there any other questions or comments from Councilors on the Salem Street corridor proposal at this time? Myself. I was really happy to see, um. Some of the themes that were brought up last week and another conversations what's the term, the context standards for when we do have those transitions from a mixed use or commercial building to a residential right next to it. I think that's a really smart way of making sure that we don't see those really sharp height differences, even if it's only, in a lot of cases, gonna be the difference of a story or two. I think that makes a lot of sense to airspace protection from shade. And I know that there are, I was happy to see also some of the additions to the incentive zoning. I think the theme here is we want to make sure that we are strongly incentivizing developers to add these things to our communities that we know we want there, while at the same time making sure that we're getting a lot out of it when they are taking advantage of those opportunities for extra heights. And I know that there are more potential things that we're looking to add into incentive zoning that aren't a part of this draft that we're going to continue to consider and maybe add into incentive zoning, either for specific districts or citywide, but that need more discussion and meetings to think about. So thanks for your diligence on that as well. Seeing no further comments or questions from councilors, we can, any comments or questions from city staff at this time? Okay. Go ahead, Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, got it. Thank you for flagging that. And we'll go to President Bears and then we'll go to Do you have a follow-up question on that point?
[Kit Collins]: Go back to President Bears. Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: And if it is, it's a type of... My apologies, President Bears, I thought that was direct response. Yeah, in my understanding, it's only in the C sub-districts of which there's just that tiny parcel. That's the current gas station remaining.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for reiterating. Great. All right. We'll go down to public participation. I'm going to alternate between the podium and participants on zoom. I'm going to set a timer. Every person who'd like to speak, we'll have three minutes. And then at the end Councilors or at the end of all public participation, Councilors and associates, city staff may speak again if they wish. Name and address, sorry. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: All right. Thank you for your comments. We'll switch next to Zoom and then back to the podium. All right. I'm going to unmute you, Martha. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments, Martha. All right, we'll go back To the podium now. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments, and as one quick note, we will be visiting West Medford in our citywide review of the zoning ordinance that'll be coming in the spring of 2025. We're looking at West Medford so residents can look forward to that. We will switch back to Zoom now. Jayme, I'm going to ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. Yeah Jamie. Thank you. If you have other questions, feel free to will bucket these and we'll address them all.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. We have a question about am I and then the calculation used for lot extension onto the side streets. Any other questions that you wanted to pose to, uh, last question.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Jamie. So we have questions around approximate dollar value for AMI, for the incentive zoning, which is, you know, a citywide thought process or calculation behind the lot extension onto the side streets. And then to, again, revisit the thinking behind the Parks and Salem Street intersection designation at MX2. Thank you so much for those questions. I'm going to let, I see one more person for public participation. So I think we're going to round that out and then we'll respond to all questions in a batch. Thank you. All right. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: You have 20 seconds left. All right.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. I just want to note that this proposal doesn't change any existing parking ratios, ratios per unit. That's true of all the zoning proposals that this council has reviewed so far. I also want to note that a lot of the ground floor commercial businesses along Salem Street are nonconformant with the current zoning. This proposal would allow them. just a point of clarification. We'll go next to Zoom. I saw Ellery's hand. First, I'll ask to unmute you. I need your name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Ellery. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. We'll go back to Zoom. We're going to hear from folks who haven't spoken before, and then we can take an additional minute of comment from folks who have already spoken. Dave, please go ahead. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Dave.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, you're at time. I'll give you 30 more seconds.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Dave. All right, we'll go next to Ren on Zoom. Please name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: You're off mute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments, Ran. All right, I don't see any more hands raised on Zoom or in person. I do want to make sure we double back to a couple specific questions that were raised earlier in public participation. I have some numbers up relating to some quick numbers for area median income, but I suspect there's somebody on that side of the rail who can state it more quickly and eloquently than me. Alicia, Danielle, Emily, Paula, would you like to speak to that question? Or I can read off my spreadsheet. And this was just to put some kind of, you know, comprehensible dollar figures to that concept of we talked about 80% AMI, 65% AMI. If you like, yeah, I don't think we
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that. I think it's helpful to put, you know, kind of understandable numbers that people can think in terms of rent checks or mortgage payments when we talk about these percentages. Thank you. And then the other two specific questions were around, I know you mentioned in the presentation on that question of where should be MX1, where should be MX2 and the intersection of Salem and Park Street specifically. I recall you saying, you know, paraphrasing, where will we have those more active intersections where there's, more ground floor businesses where it's a busier intersection where there's already more, those are in the proposal characterized as MX2 to reflect that. Can you talk a little bit about Park and Salem specifically? Oh, gosh, this mic system.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, really appreciate that. And I think the way it was phrased in the suggestion, the way you phrased it just now, that we're doing this in a geography by geography basis, knowing that all of these geographies are really close together and the changes we make in one neighborhood will affect, they all affect the context. So I think it can make a lot of sense when we do visit Medford Square in a couple of months. When we're looking at that proposal when we've come to, you know, close to consensus on that proposal to then look to the, you know, areas of the abutting geographies and say, now that we've made these decisions, what, how does that imply, how does that implicate the decisions that we've made in this neighboring area and, you know, kind of be continuing to think about these questions of where we know we need density, where does it make the most sense where should we do that, where should we prioritize for densification or any of the other goals that we have. I also want to note because you talked about it. If folks are interested in the those kind of like aerial maps. that Emily mentioned that kind of informed some of these decisions about like what to prioritize where on the city zoning page and MedfordMA.org slash zoning. Scroll down this time beyond phase two meeting documents under resources, click down from citywide maps, click on land use maps. There's a world of details you can get lost in, but I know for folks who are really interested in this stuff, that's your window into the maps that the council and the consultant and city staff looked at several times earlier in this process to inform some of what we're putting where. Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. And I'll just flag the last, the final question that was specifically asked, which goes back to the previous question was, um, the areas where the zoning proposal, it sometimes extends to parcels north and south. It sometimes extends for, I think that dovetails is what you were saying about looking at the geographies, looking at the overlapping characteristics, but just in case there was anything you wanted to add on that, um, those decisions and specifically.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. I appreciate the very granular approach that you took to deciding where the corridor starts and ends.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Quick follow-up. I know President Bears has been waiting.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Pierce. Paula, something to add?
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, can you speak up a little bit with the fan? It's very hard to hear.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for that, Director Hunt. Appreciate that. and good to know what the window of opportunity is for continuing to tweak individual parcels on the map before it gets, you know, to be a real case to be open to do that again. On that, so should this be reported out of committee tonight, then as we've said a lot of times before, we'll go to the city council and then be referred to the CDB for the recommendations and review and then back to the city council. Since we are speaking about, you know, this window of opportunity still being open for revisiting individual parcels, I wonder if it's something that the CDB might be able to specifically weigh in on, this one parcel that kind of sticks out more than all the others in this corridor, the target lot. As a result of Councilor and community feedback last meeting, that was changed from commercial to mixed use to to allow for ground floor commercial to allow for residential. This is kind of like the most unique lot on the corridor I think and I'm just wondering if we can while that window is open if we can continue if there's any other sub districts that we could carry in from the MACD so that we can capture all of those goals on this one very unique lot the ground floor commercial the residential and We have the benefit here of a lot of space, which isn't present elsewhere on the corridor. I wonder if we can consider more height there beyond just what's allowed for all of the other mixed use two parcels on this corridor, which the dimensions there are totally different than what we're looking for here. If that's something that the CDB and the consultants could weigh in on before the council sees this next, I think I'd be interested to see if there's any other creative sub-districts we could look at there. One day we'll get multiple microphones for this situation. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. All right, well, this two hours is simply flown by. Are there any remaining questions or comments from councilors? Seeing none, the next step in this process would be for this to be referred out of committee to a regular meeting of the city council, where then procedurally it would be referred to the CDB for their review. Do I hear a motion? On the motion by Councilor Leming to report out of committee, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Roll call votes, no longer necessary. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. All in favor? All opposed. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you, city staff. Thank you, Ennis, for this proposal and for continuing to workshop it with us and to continue to take in our feedback and the feedback for the community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Chair Lazzaro. So I'm the sponsor of these technical amendments to the CCOPS ordinance. I thought I would just start with a little bit of a background. Can folks hear me? Okay, great. Just thought I would start with a little bit of a background on the CCOPS ordinance because this was passed in the previous term. when some members of the Council were not yet part of the Council. So just as a super quick background, this is an ordinance that the City Council worked on between 2022 and 2023. I think it was being workshopped by constituents for a long time before that, but that's when it was on the Council's plate and being worked on in committee. We collaborated with residents, the public health and community safety committee at that time, city staff, the chief of police to create it. And it passed about a year and a half ago, maybe a little bit more now in 2023. So this ordinance stands for community control over public surveillance. In a nutshell, this is a way that provides for local communities to have oversight over what surveillance technologies and data may be used by different branches of their municipal government. It's a structure that is not unique to Medford. It's been passed in a lot of other communities and including other communities in Massachusetts that empower communities through the city council to ask to have an opportunity to ask the questions. Why do we want to use the surveillance technology in our city? To what ends? What are the proposed benefits? What problem is this supposed to solve? Will it cost us how much? What are the possible negative effects? And to be able to ask those questions and have those conversations and weigh those pros and cons. in public transparently. So I think this was a really big win for the community when we passed this last year, because that was the city being proactive and responding to residents who said, hey, we have a privacy and civil liberties concern around these surveillance technologies proliferating. Wow, proliferating. Damn, I gotta stop talking. Responding to this very real perceived danger, because we know the effects that surveillance technologies have, we know the dangers that they pose, we know the dangers that they really have posed in other communities around the U.S. and around the world, and to proactively say, before these take root in our community, let's set up a public, transparent process for us to have that conversation. in public. So that's the CCOPS ordinance. It's been on the books for about a year and a half. And at this point, some community advocates have come forward with ideas for how to strengthen the ordinance. And I also just want to say that it's not unusual for us to do this. It's not unusual for us to go back to an ordinance that either maybe was passed a long time ago or that was a recently added or updated and say now that this has been in play for a little bit, that implementation has shown us some cracks that we can go back and fill. We did this recently. The zoning recodification that was done before I was a part of the council two terms ago. when those zoning tweaks were put into effect, that gave the planning staff the opportunity to say, now that we've put this into practice, now that we're working with this, we've actually noticed a couple of things that we missed, that were misstated, that we should just go back and fix so that this works the way that we mean it to. So this is just part of our legislative process as I see it to say, now that we've got the wheels on this thing, we can see it in motion, we can see what we wanna tweak so that it actually operates the way that we always intended it to. So if I may go on, that brings us to the two suggestions from the community on how to tighten this up. And I am happy to just go through and walk us through those two technical amendments unless other councilors want to cut in first with questions or comments or anything else.
[Kit Collins]: Let me just get my windows in order. All right. Okay, that seems to be working. I also wanna note if folks are looking for the full ordinance, the ordinance that was passed in 2023, that is on Muny Code. It's in the municipal documents section, not in the code of ordinances. That's because we just have a bit of a backlog with getting past ordinances uploaded into Muny Code. So it's up there, it's under municipal documents.
[Kit Collins]: Yep. Thank you. Okay. So I'm just going to quickly walk us through the two proposed changes to the ordinance. So the first one, this would be in addition to section 5079, and that's the section that goes over enforcement, remedies, penalties, and whistleblower protections. Actually, let me just quickly scroll up to that section so that we can kind of ground ourselves in context, not going to read the whole thing. But this is the set, this is the ordinance that's currently on the books. So this essentially says who enforces this ordinance. The mayor's office or the mayor's designee edges the case with all of ordinances, essentially. If violations occur. What then, if violations are reported, what then protections for whistleblowers so that people are empowered to speak up if they think the ordinance is being violated? And nothing in this ordinance shall be conscrued to limit or affect any individual's rights under state or federal laws. That's the section currently. The proposed addition reads any video footage or other data recorded or obtained illegally or in violation of this ordinance shall be immediately destroyed and not introduced as evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding, except in those proceedings related to violations of this ordinance. So just to explain that, this proposed tweak is to essentially fix an oversight. The original ordinance in its many sections states how surveillance data may and may not be used, but the penalties are for not adhering to use of surveillance technology or data throughout the ordinance. But what it is silent on is what should happen to surveillance data that is obtained outside the bounds of the ordinance. So this tweak is to say, you know, any surveillance data that is gathered in a way that does not conform to the regulations put forth in the ordinance. If we didn't, for example, if we didn't approve a surveillance technology, that technology went into use anyway. It was used to protect, it was used to collect people's private data. And then we realized that we're like, oh, sorry, that should never have been in use. We never got permission to use that. What happens to that data? Well, it shouldn't be kept around because that could compromise people's privacy. It should be deleted. It should be destroyed. This is kind of, to me, I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds to me like a similar concept to how if an agency were ever to obtain evidence without a warrant, that evidence can't be used because it was obtained illegally. We did pass these proposed amendments to legal prior to this meeting. Legal counsel brought up that some municipal data must be maintained according to public records law. I believe the public records law would supersede this ordinance in any case, but I do have a little bit of extra language to propose just to make that point really clear. I'll pause there.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for, yeah, thank you for that point. This is something that I'm glad you brought that up. This is something that we that like understandably was raised when we were going over the ordinance the first time around, because of the you know there's there's ring and nest cameras you know everywhere everywhere everywhere you look people have that kind of technology now. I think we can certainly look at making that clear. I think elsewhere in the ordinance, we took pains to make it clear that we're talking just about surveillance technology that's used by the city, surveillance data collected by the city. And explicitly, this is not about surveillance technology that people might be using. to surveil their own private property on their own private property. So I think that's been made pretty clear. I don't wanna, my only hesitation is if we start adding clarifications in specific sections, I don't want people to then say, oh, so this doesn't affect my nest camera, but what about this other part? That would be my only concern with adding language somewhere in addition to what's kind of at the top of the ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think that's a good question. I feel pretty comfortable that the ordinance throughout is, in the language, very targeted at municipal use of surveillance technology and surveillance data. I'm doing a, as you can see, because I'm still screen sharing, I'm kind of scrolling through the sections, and I feel pretty comfortable with how the language, you know, it's talking about municipal use, Um, so for myself, I don't feel the need to add a disclaimers at this time, but I think it's, um, I'll pass it back to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. This proposed addition, yeah, all the stuff that we're going to talk about tonight has been reviewed, was reviewed by legal this past week. Yeah. And they had a couple of small amendments that I'll mention as well and can put on the screen.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So just while we're on this, while we're on this section, this proposed addition, the comment from legal counsel on this section specifically, which just came in earlier today, was, again, just to many of the comments that we received when we were working on the initial ordinance was to say, we want to make really sure that this comports with state and federal law, to which, to be totally candid, my response is usually, of course it does. State and federal law supersedes city ordinances by definition. But I also don't think that it changes the intent or impact of the city ordinance to add some of the language or version of the language that was proposed, which would be to add to the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to the requirements of the Massachusetts public records law, the municipal records retention schedule, et cetera, any video footage or other data recorded or obtained illegally or in violation of this ordinance shall be immediately destroyed and not introduced as evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding except in those proceedings related to violations of this ordinance. because that's essentially stating what should go without saying, but doesn't because we don't all have GDs. So that would be one addition that I would propose for this, in addition to the addition.
[Kit Collins]: Let me see if I can. Or maybe an email. I'll repeat it, and I'll also email it to the clerk. Great. Of course, I can't copy over from a Word document. I will email it to the clerk. The change would be proceeding the language that's on the screen, it would say to the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to the requirements of the Massachusetts public records law and the municipal records retention schedule. And then proceed with that paragraph.
[Kit Collins]: So this change again. Let me scroll up here just so we can Look at the original. Section 5080, well, I mean, it's what we're looking at. This is the entirety of Section 5080 currently. Current title is certain public-private contracts prohibited. Just one paragraph. So my proposed change would be to keep the first section. It shall be unlawful for the city to enter into any contract for monetary value or engage in any financial transaction with a commercial entity that provides the city with the mass acquisition of privately generated and owned bulk surveillance data. Any contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this ordinance that violate the section shall not be renewed after the completion of the term of said contracts or agreements. And then we would strike the following existing line from the ordinance, which reads section 5080 shall not apply to any contract or agreement executed for law enforcement operations or purposes, then we would add the language. Further, it shall be unlawful for the city to acquire or enter into an agreement to acquire or exchange bulk surveillance data that the city is banned from generating on its own with any other government entity or policing agency. It would be also to replace the word contracts in the section title with the word transactions, which is broader. Um, so the proposed change here is to remove that exception. You know, throughout the rest of the ordinance, we say if you're going to use surveillance tech, if you're going to use or procure or sell or do anything with surveillance data, it has to go through this public transparent process where we talk about it before the city council decides this is worth it or this is not worth the potential harms. With this one exception for a carve out for procuring bulk surveillance data where it's commercially available for the purposes of law enforcement. So this tweak is just to remove that one exception and make it coherent with the rest of the ordinance. This is something that I didn't say at the top of this meeting, but it's something that we talked about a lot when we were going through the initial stages of the ordinance, that this policy does not, this policy is about surveillance tech and surveillance data, but it doesn't outright ban or enable any one use or technology. It doesn't single anything out. It just puts forward this public process that should govern all of it. So removing this exemption would just bring that in line with the rest of the ordinance. I also think that kind of bringing this section into the fold and into consistency with the rest of the ordinance is especially topical right now. State and federal courts have not yet landed on the constitutionality for any government agency to purchase surveillance data that was gathered commercially or privately. So in lieu of a ruling on this, in lieu of a precedent on this, communities like Medford have the chance to be proactive and make sure that upper levels of government, any government agency can access their constituents' private personal data without a warrant. Um, and I think that this is especially topical right now, because there are a lot of changes at the federal level. I think it's always a good time to make sure in this, like increasingly increasingly surveilled and digital world that we're doing the best that we can to keep pace with regulations and protections with the incredibly fast pace of technology development. And this is a way for us to be proactive and say we're not going to wait. For these slow moving like upper bureaucracies and upper jurisdictions to weigh in on If our community members' public and private data should be able to be bought and sold and used, we're just going to say, you need a warrant. No exceptions, no carve-outs, you need a warrant. So in a nutshell, there's more to, you know, obviously all this stuff is very nuanced, but in a nutshell, that is the intent behind removing this exemption.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I also just wanted to note another, there were a couple minor points that came back from legal on this proposed change as well. One of them was, again, I think what I characterize as kind of like a, you know, it's dot RIs cross RTs kind of suggestion that noted that the limitations set forward in this section. should not apply to surveillance data that's already exempted from the ordinance. I see the intent behind that language. I do kind of think that goes without saying. I, you know, kind of personal preference, I sometimes think that stating things too many times in too many sections can actually reduce clarity instead of making things more clear. So I'm comfortable with where we have the exemption stated so far in the ordinance. I don't think that that language is necessary. Just to make that more clear, there was a suggestion to say this section does not need to apply to surveillance data that was exempted from the provisions of this ordinance as set forth in section 5071. Section 5071 says this ordinance does not apply to these technologies. I don't think, I feel like if I were to read this ordinance, I would assume that that was true in all sections. So I always appreciate a legal counsel's thoroughness. I'm not myself proposing that as an amendment just because I do think it's unnecessary, but I just wanted to state that for transparency. However, they did note that the term bulk surveillance data is not defined. I think that could be worthwhile. So after we hear from all questions and Councilors, I'm sorry, from all questions and comments, I'll make a couple of motions and included in that, I would ask KP Law to provide a suggestion for a definition of bulk surveillance data that we could add to the first section of the ordinance just to keep everything super clear.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I would motion to incorporate the discussed amendments. And I just emailed those to the clerk, that would be the addition to section 5079 with the new first sentence that we discussed in committee pertaining to Massachusetts public records law and municipal records and retention schedule. and in Section 5080 to change the title to say transactions instead of contracts, and to make those line item changes to Section 5080, as well as to request guidance on a definition for the term bulk surveillance data. And then I don't want to state Councilor Leming's motion for him, but pending that, I would also motion to incorporate those amendments and report this out of committee.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Test 1-2, test 1-2.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Chair Tseng. Thank you so much for being here today. And I know you've been very involved in guiding the committee's work over the past year or so. So thank you so much for being a resource to our community. So just to rephrase, I haven't been on the committee, so I'm, you know, just want to make sure I'm learning learning this process. So there's the draft that's been crafted. We're going to get a proposal from the mayor. The city council will review that. We may negotiate and make certain changes that the mayor can also sign off on. Once we have that joint agreement between the city council and the mayor on a proposal that both parties agree to, then it is sent to the state legislation. sorry to our state delegation. And at that point, this document that then has kind of the buy in of the City Council, the mayor sign off and review by the legislature, then that would go to the voters for the final vote before.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Just wanted to make sure I had all those parts of the process in the right order. Thank you. Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So I know that this probably looks different, like the timelines probably look a little bit different in every community. I know you've spoken a little bit to timelines already, like what's the latest that we would want to get the charter back from the legislature? What are those like hard stops that we need to get it on the ballot if we're going that route? When you've seen this process get done in other communities, are there any sort of like, very obvious common trends that you see like usually once it gets back to the city council it's a three month process it's easy to get it in before budget time or it's not unusual for it to be a bit of a scramble is there anything that you tend to notice from when this done other cities.
[Kit Collins]: Gotcha. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. I want to make sure that it gets to them and have it be kind of frictionless by the time it gets to the state house so that they'll be able to act on it expeditiously. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Good to know. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, it does seem to me that the, as with most things having to do with our partners in the State House, it seems like the steps there are pretty clear, pretty organized. They're just, you know, that's where the bureaucracy lives, so we have to make sure that we're- You're competing with their entire agenda.
[Kit Collins]: We just have to be as soon as we can. Right. We just have to be really clear about working with their timetables, getting on top of it and giving them as much time and notice as we possibly can. And I think for our process, that means trying to expedite the process of coming to consensus about what we are sending to them. And I appreciate also the clarity around which of those processes to click into if we're shooting for a November 2025 ballot, or if we're going to, again, try to put it on a state election ballot. So I think that these are all really good benchmarks to have as we head into 2025. And I think my takeaway is making sure that we're being diligent and efficient with our piece of the process, putting together the proposal that we'll actually be sending to the state house so that we can make sure that all the hard work that community members, mayor's team, city council, community members have put into this process reaches the state house in time for them to review it and do what we want on the timeline that works for Medford.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, we're in trouble then.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Is it on?
[Kit Collins]: Okay.
[Kit Collins]: Okay.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry. I haven't been chair before. It's on? Oh, it is on. Great. Okay. Can you turn your microphone on as a test?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. That I recall. Can folks is this picking up my voice at all? Not really. Okay, I think I'm on. Great. Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, December 3rd, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Leming let us know that he could not attend tonight.
[Kit Collins]: Present, that is... We got four for present one absent. The meeting is called to order. Um, the action discussion item for tonight is again. Paper 24-033 zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates. Team. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for being here. Planner Evans and Director Hunt as well. I'm going to briefly summarize the agenda for tonight and then turn it over to our guests as we just have about an hour for this meeting with a regular meeting starting at 7 p.m. So we've had a busy past couple months. We have referred the Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning proposal to the CDB. Same with Greenscore. So we are kind of in the middle of our discussions, kind of beginning middle of the beginning, beginning of the middle of our discussions about the zoning proposal for the Salem Street Corridor. We touched on that a little bit last time when Vice Chair Leming was presiding over the meeting. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to kind of recenter ourselves and where we are in the timeline of the zoning review project overall, where we are in the year. and place the Salem Street zoning proposal in the context of that, its next steps after the committee takes its time with it. And then we're going to have an introduction to the Salem Street Corridor zoning proposal by NS Associates. This is just the first time that the council and the committee is going to have a chance to kind of get a really solid comprehensive overview and start to get into the weeds on this zoning proposal. We've already started advertising for our next planning and permitting committee meeting where we'll be going over the Salem Street zoning proposal. That's going to be next week on Wednesday at our regular time. I understand that in collaboration with Director Hunt and the mayor's office, we put out some promotional materials about this meeting today on social media, as well as a robocall just to make sure that we're really getting the word out. So the purpose of tonight is to introduce this proposal to councilors. I know we've had it in our packets since last week so that we can start to make those comments and ask those questions so that we can be kind of having more informed context for residents in the week between now and next week when we talk about it again. And again, invite residents to hear about the proposal and ask questions before the committee takes any further action on it. So with that, I'll turn it over unless Danielle or Alicia, if you have any comments that you want to make up top, I'd happily turn it over to Paola to begin her presentation. Oh. Sorry, one second.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Please go ahead, Emily.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Emily and Paola for that overview really appreciate that appreciate you know the I was appreciate getting walked through the zoning proposals even reading them ahead of time. It's not the same as having a professional zoning planner. define what we're looking at for me. Appreciate that, and especially since we've gone through the Mystic Avenue corridor district zoning proposal already, I appreciate kind of the heads up about what we'll see in those sub-districts, where the sub-districts have the same name, but what they mean in Salem Street will be a little bit different, or maybe a lot different than what they mean for Mystic Ave, because Mystic Ave and Salem Street are so different, and what we want to do in those two districts is very different. responsive to, you know, what they are and what they represent in the community and what people do there and what the neighbors want there. So thank you so much for for calling that out kind of at the beginning of this conversation. I know we've had some time to look over this. I think, you know, for me, what stands out to me from the presentation so far is You know, when I was looking at this prior to the presentation, looking at, you know, where do we have mixed one? Where do we have mixed two? Where do we have commercial and why? It makes a lot of sense to me to cluster mixed use close to those intersections that are already, you see a lot of foot traffic, you see a lot of all kinds of traffic. There's already really thriving businesses there. We want to enhance that thriving business character at those places. And I really appreciated seeing that some blocks are left mixed use one, we can keep that concentration on residential. I really appreciated kind of the thoughtfulness with first defining, you know, Salem Street is a really big neighborhood. We're not talking about Reno re sorry we're not talking about rezoning the neighborhood here. We're talking about rezoning this quarter so I appreciate the thought that was given to. How many parcels, you know, north and south of Salem are we really talking about when it comes to those key intersections what should be at those intersections and when does it taper off back into residential. And then what I think is really key and I think something that's really bothered a lot of residents for a lot of time is, what do we need to do to make Haines Square, more we want it to be and start using those big parcels in a way that will be more, more of an advantage. for the folks who live around there and shop there and just want to see more for the community in that space. So with that being said, appreciate the thoughtfulness to the existing character, existing heights and trying to update the zoning to enhance the existing residential business character and make it more of what we want. I'll go now to comments and questions from the City Council. Thank you so much. We'll do public presentation at the end. Thank you. Comments from fellow city councilors. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. President Paris.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much, President Bears. I'll move up here so I can actually see my colleagues. We'll go now to Councilor Scarpelli. Did I do it right this time? No, I did not. You're number eight. My apologies.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Councilor Scarpelli. I'll go to you next, Councilor Callahan. Just want to echo Councilor Scarpelli's words, you know, really appreciate the collaboration to bring this out to the community and to kind of bring in all of the public engagement that's been done over the past several years into this process. I know it's tough, you know, I think with every project that we do, it's like, that does involve collaboration with the public. There's always part of me that's like, no, it's really, let's take five years to do, let's take 10 years. Let's talk to everyone, let's canvas the neighborhood, talk to every single person. Unfortunately, this contract does not cover that. And I was taking some time to re-read over the RFP as I was looking over the presentation this past weekend. We know what we do have your support for. It's not a new comprehensive plan for Salem Street, but we do have this bringing in what we know from the comprehensive plan of the three years that it took to put that together into this proposal. I know that in the RFP it mentioned as well, you know, a workshop in City Hall dealing with the neighborhood and we had kind of a One version of that a few months ago with the zoning workshop before we got into the corridors in the neighborhoods and supplementing that with, you know, online meetings for the public for the benefit of the public, bringing the public into these meetings. So I know for myself as one Councilor, I've been really glad that Steve from the mayor's office was able to help us out with shoring up our communication strategy to make sure that we're using the robocalls to get this out over more channels. I'm also going to hold myself accountable to do what I can on my own personal Councilor communication channels to make sure this tries to reach everybody that it can, and to keep doing that with every neighborhood and corridor that we do discuss over the next six months so really appreciate those comments and you know, let's do it we can behind the rail to supplement these coordinated public engagement strategies. Thank you for indulging me.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Emily. Thank you, Councilor Hillion. Alicia, did you have a direct response to that? Okay. And then I'll go to you, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Director Hunt. President Bears, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, President Bears. And yeah, I think it's, I think to the extent that we can, you know, as soon as there are questions and comments, whether it's from Councilors, as we continue to look through the draft, as we look through the updated amended draft that we'll see next week, and as soon as there are questions and comments from constituents, whether it's at this meeting next Wednesday, in between the two, you want to contact any of the Councilors or myself as chair, and I can certainly ferry questions along to NS associates or the planning team. It's, it's very okay and good to front loads those questions as much as possible so that they can be considered and incorporated earlier in the process. But the great thing about amending the zoning ordinance is that procedurally we have to have so many meetings on it, even after it gets referred out of committee where we'll have lots of like in the weeds conversations like this. So thank you for reminding us all about all the steps that come after this. So speaking of next steps in terms of potential changes that might be made on the zoning consultant side for next week, I heard that there's going to be some typos in the parking table that might be tweaked. Can we expect to see a more finalized version of the inclusion and the incentive zoning that might apply to next use one and two by next week as well? Or is that going to come later?
[Kit Collins]: Excellent. So next week we can expect more discussion on this proposal to stay more finessed and some typos removed version of this Salem Street zoning proposal and that's next Wednesday 6pm our regular meeting time for this planning and permitting committee. I'd like to go to public participation unless there are any more questions or comments from councillors at this time. Seeing none, we can start in person then I'll go on zoom so you can just walk up and form a line behind microphone and everybody has three minutes. Thank you. My first name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for your comments. I don't want to go point by point. I appreciate you putting this all on the record. I will say, if you want to have a really close look at where certain heights are enabled and where other heights are enabled, the proposal that the consultant showed on the screen, that's available on the city council.
[Kit Collins]: No, no, no. I mean, you can go on your own time. You can pull it up and you can take a really fine tooth comb and look at it. I will just say, I know that a lot of the potential heights, minimum heights, maximum heights are based on the heights that are already present.
[Kit Collins]: Gotcha. Well, I'd say this, feel free to send me an email. I will download them and send them right back to you so that you can take a look.
[Kit Collins]: I don't want to go back and forth with you with the people who are waiting, but I will just say I think Salem Street matches the characteristics of other parts of the city that have this mix of residential, thriving businesses. It's a main thoroughfare. I think a lot of care is being taken to make sure that it preserves its residential character while supporting businesses and businesses that want to take root on that corridor.
[Kit Collins]: Gotcha. Thank you so much for your comments. Appreciate it. You have to go to the next person now. Thank you. All right. We're going to switch between podium and Zoom. So thank you for waiting. We're going to go first to Dave on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Dave Peller Emily, could you quickly speak to the characteristics of the commercial if there's any. residential involved in commercial sub district in Salem.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paula. And Dave, to your first question, I think that the incentive zoning, I believe, is already drafted. That was part of the Mystic Avenue corridor proposal. So it looks like that's going to look pretty much the same. I think the characteristics-wise, it's just what that minimum and maximum height would be. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Well, thank you, Paolo. Yeah, in short, it's kind of that exchange between what we're willing to say, hey, ordinarily you can't do this, but if you provide this great community benefit that we've decided is highly valuable and residents really want, then you're able to do a little bit more than developers ordinarily can. That's incentive zoning in a nutshell, and page 15 and 16 of tonight's agenda, if you want to take a closer look. We'll go now to the podium.
[Kit Collins]: All right, we're going to toggle back to Zoom. Rebecca, name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for your comments, Rebecca. We'll now return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for your comments. We'll go down back to zoom. Is there any more? Oh, it's back up. Spoke too soon. Jennifer, name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for your comments. Director Hunt, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Alicia, and thank you so much, Councilor Callahan. I think that's a great reminder. I think it's something that I remind myself throughout this process, even though we've been talking in quite a lot of depth about zoning, you know, for more than a full calendar year now, is that zoning is counterintuitive because it seems like we're talking about what's going to happen when we're talking about what's going to be allowed. And I think Salem Street is a really great example, and there are examples all over Medford, but it's a great example of where what is currently there might be allowed under our current zoning, or maybe not, and we're having a conversation about what that's currently there, do we still want to be allowed, and we're done with this, but we'd not want to be allowed, like, I think there's broad consensus against the 12-story hotel, I think. I think everybody's in favor of that. And what do we want to be allowed that isn't allowed currently, so that the businesses are there, are even more thriving, that the residences are there, it's an even cozier neighborhood for the folks that live there. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for that clarification, Councilor Galleon. Seeing no further public participation on Zoom or in person and no further questions or comments from Councilors, we do have a regular meeting to get started. So just to once again restate our next steps, we're going to be talking about this exact zoning proposal again next Wednesday at 6 p.m. Please feel free to help us in spreading the word and we're glad to have the collaboration of the mayor's office and spreading the word on social media and through robo calls to residents. You know, this process has been informed by the past several years of public participation on what they like and what they want to see for Salem Street and other areas around the city. and these conversations, you know, in the here and now have to be informed by all of our voices as well. So thank you for being here. So we're going to see this 6 p.m. next Wednesday, whenever it gets referred out to the City Council, it will then be referred to the Community Development Board, and then it will be referred back to the City Council. And I just say that over and over again every meeting to remind you of all of the opportunities that we welcome you to be a part of this process. All right. 7-12, do we have a motion? Motion to adjourn by President Bearsar, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Please stick around for the regular meeting. Thank you so much, Innocent Associates, Danielle, and Alicia.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, President Bears. I'm excited to be able to say congratulations to you all in person, state champs. Wow. That is really amazing. Thank you so much for all of your hard work. I lived with a rower during college and they have to be the fittest athletes. I can't believe how early you guys must wake up. So just our heartiest congratulations on this really major achievement and for doing Medford proud. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take resolutions under suspension.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take resolutions under suspension.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. So I'm motioning. Motioning. Is that right? Moving. Moving. God, I knew that didn't sound right. Geez. Anyway, I am moving to send the existing Community Control of Public Surveillance Ordinance, which was passed last term, to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee. This ordinance was crafted and collaborated on in the previous term because the city, the council, and residents had a shared concern and a shared interest in the civil liberties of residents, transparency in our governmental decisions, and a shared interest in making sure that our very precious city dollars are spent on true public safety and not on expensive gadgets and softwares that enrich corporations more than they actually help communities and residents. So to that end, some residents have identified potential changes that we could make to this rather new ordinance that would make it even stronger and even more in line with those shared goals. So I look forward to reviewing those comments, perhaps making some tweaks and having this discussion in committee where we can really get into the details and make this even stronger than it already is. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Aye.
[Kit Collins]: To continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Councilor Lazzaro, thank you so much for putting this forward and to all of the collaborators from the community. I know that we have been hearing from safety advocates in the community for a long time about this, and I'm glad that we're doing this one small step towards a potential solution. I think this one is really simple. You know, we have a 25 mile per hour speed limit on city managed roads for a reason. We struggle to maintain and enforce that speed limit on city roads as it is. I heard a couple speeding complaints from residents twice in the past two days, and that was before the meeting started. And then we heard about more traffic issues on Salem, about the lack of safety on Salem Street as well. So we really need the state's help in creating a culture of safe road speeds here in Medford and around the region, because it's just intuitive, you know, people whip on the roads in Medford, they whip on the state roads, and they bring that speed to the neighborhoods, and it's incredibly dangerous, it's incredibly scary. So I hope that this will send a really clear message to DCR and DOT that Medford wants this. We do not want this fast traffic from these state roads bleeding into the neighborhoods anymore. So thank you so much for putting this together and thank you so much to everybody in the community who's been raising the alarm about this as well for a long time.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Can folks hear me okay? Yes. Great. Thank you. Thank you to the assessor and his team for this presentation. I will say I have a much easier time with this presentation now that it's my third time receiving it than the first couple. So thank you, as always, for walking us through these technical and really important concepts. I certainly appreciate the discussion around the residential exemption as I do every year. And this is something that we have a really, I think, nuanced and important conversation every year around this time. Because we want to consider, you know, this tool is a tool that exists, it's appropriate for some communities. And I think it's really important to consider, is it something that would be appropriate for Medford? Is it something that would be appropriate for Medford now or in the future? What's that point at which kind of similar to the break-even point that we have to consider that the residential exemption itself would create? And I think for me, you know, based on the data that's been presented, Where I come down is similar to in previous years when we hear about that breakeven point we know that a residential exemption would benefit a lot of people who really deserve it, and we know that it would disadvantage a lot of people that would also really deserve it. And I think that we should absolutely continue to gather more information about what exactly this would mean. for our community and as, you know, the character of our parcels evolves gradually each year. But it's so important to get this right. And, you know, as we know from other parts of this discussion, you know, those little changes make a really big difference. And so I don't have any specific questions on the presentation. But I would just say, you know, kind of on that point of where can we do where can we help legislate for the most benefit and the most help to our residents as we're contemplating the split in the tax limit? You know, for as long as I've been on the council, and I think for longer before that, we have adopted the maximum split rate, which shifts the burden onto commercial, industrial, and personal property, and maximally, as allowed by state law, away from residential properties. And after discussion, I'm a fellow councilors. I certainly don't want to rush this discussion along, but I would be happy to make a motion to adopt the split rate of 175% so that we can continue to shift the tax burden maximally away from residential taxpayers. Thanks again, Ted.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: I would move to table to the next regular meeting. On the motion. I didn't have a chance to review them.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears and I'd also like to thank Vice Chair of the committee Matt Leming for chairing this meeting on my behalf at this meeting. The draft proposal for the green score ordinance was reviewed by the committee and reported out to a regular session. Thank you. I move to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I just wanted to quickly thank Director Blake and his team for their work with Blue Bikes here to for in the city. And I understand that this requested contract extension is part of a kind of coordinated regional effort so that not just an effort, but that in more of our adjacent communities, people can have an easier time. the bike share network and using that not only to get in and around Medford, but to surrounding communities and back for play and for commuting and for other purposes. So I'm happy to be a part of the effort of streamlining that process in Medford and beyond, and I would motion to approve. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Test one two. Test one two.
[Kit Collins]: Let's see. Thank you. Thank you President Bears and I wanted to thank Councilor loving for researching the implementation of the new heroes act and for putting this forward. I'm really proud that over this term and the previous term the city council has worked to make sure that the city of Medford is maximized out on all of the tax exemption programs that are offered to us by the state. And so I thank the Councilor for his quick work on making sure that we adopted this one too, so that we could extend tax exemption benefits to veterans in our community.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears for putting this forward. I also corresponded with Mr. Bohannon a little bit after he emailed the council and just wanted to reiterate, he was truly so grateful to the two DPW employees who went out of their way to help them out of a, you know, a sticky situation. And it was so nice to get such a heartwarming letter about somebody saying, you know, this is what I know to expect from civil servants in Medford and just going out of his way to thank them. So I extend those thanks to our DPW and those two gentlemen in particular.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears at the planning and permitting meeting. Last week we met once again with the council's zoning consultant and associates we reviewed the latest draft of the zoning proposal for the mystic Avenue. Trying to get the new acronym, the mystic have Valley District, which is on the city council agenda tonight for us to report out to the Community Development Board which is procedurally the next step in any zoning amendment process so we had a discussion and then we voted it out of committee motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And I also want to appreciate the petitioner for bringing this forward. I think it's really important for us to use this forum for folks to have that additional opportunity to say, here are my concerns with the RFP in general, this zone in general, this project in general. I think there's absolutely, you know, we thank you for, you know, again, voicing how important it is for, you know, everybody who needs access to the senior center and any, however they get there, whether it's by bus or by shuttle, by carpool, or by driving themselves. The senior center is so important to Medford Square. I'm heartened to see, you know, in the mayor's, in the memo from the planning department that that has been reiterated to some of the development, sorry, some of the developers who went on that site walk, that that's been said to them. But I think it's important that we, you know, continue to reiterate this priority, which is a priority. We have to make sure that people who need access to the senior center can continue to access it how they need to. So we'll continue to help you emphasize that, and thank you for speaking to your concerns today.
[Kit Collins]: To revert to the regular order of meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Nothing major for me. I just want to thank the chief for spending some time with us tonight and for answering our questions.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, I won't go into this and, you know, granular detail because it's been discussed so much in committee and because the council will, because the community will have a couple additional public hearings to really dive into the details if they so choose at the Community Development Board meeting which I believe to scheduled November 20 is the date that's been penciled in to review this zoning proposal before it comes back to the city council. But just before I make the motion to refer to the Community Development Board which again is just procedurally the next step that we have to take before we consider taking a vote on any zoning change to our zoning ordinances. As president bear said we've had many meetings on this district in the planning and permitting committee. This is a really exciting juncture for me personally as one Councilor because over so many years. with people in Medford, you know, not just people in City Hall, but just folks out on the street. It comes up so often, how much potential Mystic Ave has and how people look around and say, you know, what's here is really great, but we know this can be so much more. We see a lot of flatland, we see some vacant buildings, we see some lots that seem underdeveloped, and people can see the potential there for things that it's interesting for residents to go to, lots that will be really interesting for developers to want to develop. And in, you know, a lot of potential new commercial growth for our city which I know is really important to all of us and a really shared value for all of us to grow our commercial tax base though so that we can grow without. having to levy all of that burden onto our residential tax base. So with a lot of the goals, those goals in mind, and with the comprehensive plan, you know, guiding our beginning of this process, we took a look at this district, our zoning consultant was able to propose kind of a slate of sub districts that would make sense for different parts of this corridor. Of course, this corridor is very heavily commercial, heavily commercial, heavily commercial industrial. ended about some residential areas. So we took a lot of care in discussing what parts of that corridor, the north side closer to Medford Square, what type of mixed use involving commercial but not explicitly commercial makes sense for that zone as you get down further south towards Somerville, towards some of the more residential areas, what makes sense there, what's going to be good for development, what will buffer those residential areas from the commercial development that we hope to see there. So we took a lot of time with those questions And I'm very proud of the collaboration and the updated proposed zoning map that's come out of that as well. Of course, all those nitty gritties, the dimensional standards that inform what we're proposing that developers can develop there in each sub-district, depending on the conditions of the sub-district and other incentives that they may or may not take advantage of. All that to say, There's a lot of weeds for people to dig into and I really do recommend that folks watch the meetings of the planning and permitting committee where this was discussed, or attend the Community Development Board meeting on what I believe is going to be November 20, if you want to have an even closer look at some of those details. But I do want to thank the committee for going through this process I think this is a really important part of the zoning overhaul that this council has been really working very hard to make progress on for this entire term and the previous two councils including the one that I wasn't on yet was working really hard to do this zoning work so that the, the things that residents of the community and business owners of the community have been asking the city to move on for such a long time that we're, you know, starting to make some real progress. So on that, I would motion to refer this to the Community Development Board.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for flagging those Councilor Callahan I know that for, for myself even having spent a lot of time with these documents, it is a lot of material, so thank you for the close read. I just wanted to note and again this doesn't pertain to the motion that we're making tonight which is just to send this along to the next body which is, you know, The, the board members who will again look through this for a fine tooth comb but just on the, on the community engagement piece. I just didn't want to speak to that again, quickly, just to note that I think, I think it's really important. And when I speak to what we're what we're doing and what we've done. And that's on any topic not just the zoning it's it's not because I'm trying to make the point that, you know, we're doing a B and C so you know we got a 100%. and we're perfect and we shouldn't do anything more. I think as public servants we always aspire to, you know, in our fantasy version of our jobs we would talk to every single person and of course we can't do that, but I think it's really important that we always aspire to be catching more people, to be going into these projects with the assumption that everybody might have an opinion and if they do then it should be heard. I think what is, you know, it is genuinely challenging and this project and many others is that we take that ideal that responsibility to incorporate as much public feedback as we possibly can. And we have to reconcile that with what we can do and what we can say to residents that we are doing so that we're consistent, and so that they have realistic expectations about where to find us and how we'll find them. So when I say you know I think after the last meeting we had some conversations with the zoning consultant to say, Okay, we've gone through, you know, kind of one and a half zoning packages now we have this proposal we have the proposal of kind of more technical tweaks that we put forward around the end of the fiscal year. Now we're kind of in our groove. You know it's really time to bolster this what what more can we do so that it is so that it is as it should be easier for folks to get involved easier for more people to know what's coming up further ahead of time because that's really important, that is really important. And to me, you know what it says, when it comes to, you know, the one proposal to what's ahead of time let's make a schedule for what we're talking about in which month, so that we know so that the city staff knows so that residents can know essentially kind of have this more save the date type format, so that folks can know and really prepare and say okay I have that date in my mind if I want to attend. I'll be sure to attend, which is not to say that that's the perfect forum for feedback or that it should be the only forum. Knowing that. We are a city council in a city that does not yet have the resources for robust public engagement that we want to model ourselves off of that other neighboring communities do. I think that gives us the opportunity to at least be expanding our reach by being able to say ahead of time, here's the meeting on this topic. If it's relevant to you, please save the date. If this format isn't doable for you, you have at least a month to let us know. If you can't get to this meeting, Let us know send us an email call us if you're a person who has to be engaged in your community. Let us know so that we can find a way to accommodate and come to you. What I'm trying to say is, I know that in the scope of this project with so much to cover it might not be, we might not be able to do what I think we all want to do, which is to have multiple community meetings in every neighborhood for every topic. We can aspire to that I hope that we can do that especially in some of our more residential neighborhoods, where a lot of care has to be taken. But especially to me as committee chair it is very important that we are able to tell people what to expect and that do that consistently because I think that is really important for access as well. So just to note that for going forward. I'm excited about the, you know, expanded messaging that we're going to be doing as we head into the new year. And just to reiterate that, you know, we're, I'm really grateful to be guided by so many plans that were created in collaboration with the community over the course of years that lay the foundation for everything that we're doing. And that, you know, it shouldn't go without saying that having the community involved in this process is really important. And I think as public servants, we're always trying to think about realistically how to do that better and better every year. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to defer to Director Crowley if she would like to present first.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being present, Director Crowley, and for answering our questions. I'm always happy to see a contract get resolved and always happy for the opportunity to approve and to waive the second and third readings.
[Kit Collins]: I'll motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Commissioner for being with us tonight, just to again paraphrase this to make sure that I haven't taken a look at that site as well in anticipation of the meeting. So just to make sure I have a correct. This transfer of the paper way would allow to Joseph Street to reconstruct the retaining wall, which fell down earlier this year and transferring Transferring one half the rates would allow them to do that and transferring the rights on the city side would remove us from liability so that they could go about and do their construction in a way that wouldn't implicate the city. And it's not like we're going to build a city road on that paper way anyway, due to the grade, it would be dangerous. So that wouldn't come about in the future anyway. Is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: I can't show you anything.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll just keep this pretty brief and high level because the City Council has had a lot of meetings about the issue of private roads. City Council has had quite a lot of meetings about the issue of private roads in particular over the past three years that I've been part of the Council. What I have learned is that for the city to adopt what is currently a private road is an incredibly expensive process. Obviously, the cost of private roads is expensive to residents, while it's still a private road. For it to become a city on a public road, it has to be fully bought up to par, which is incredibly expensive on the order of millions, so that it can be maintained according to the status quo. And I think that we all know that to improve the city's street canopy, to do that stuff removal that residents have been asking for, that city staff have been trying to do over so many years. The point I'm trying to make is that we know that these needs that they're not being filled. We've been trying to make headway on them for such a long time. The reason that we're not making the headway that residents are really dying to see is because they are so expensive. And to me, that underlines the need to use this as a pivot point to try and begin making the investments that will result in visible improvements in our community. Because we know that there are a lot of residents who would love to at least be on the path towards progress, who would love to see a new private road, be eligible for adoption, and would like to see a more actionable plan for bringing some of those tree stumps down to earth and actually see our tree county expanding in these things. And UC Central, they are incredibly expensive.
[Kit Collins]: All right, we're going to get started in just a second. Welcome, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks for bearing with us, everybody. I believe President Bears will be joining us in just a minute, so we can give it another couple of moments for folks to get situated. Mr. Clerk, please just let me know whenever you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. All right, there will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, October 23rd, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6.30 p.m. by Zoom only due to early voting in the council chambers. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this meeting is again 24-033 zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. This is an exciting moment in our journey through our zoning update. We have been meeting, of course, with our zoning consultant and associates since the beginning of this term. beginning in July with our mapping workshop, we started our targeted discussions of the Mystic Avenue corridor district, discussing that through July and August, and having more tweaks and changes to the draft proposal over the past couple months with a lot of input from city staff. We've been continuing those last changes in committee over the past couple meetings. and tonight I believe that we have a mostly finalized proposal that the zoning consultant has put together for us that councilors got a chance to look at over the weekend. And I think the intent for tonight is for us to have a final discussion of the Mystic Avenue Corridor District in this committee before it goes out to review by a procedural step at a regular meeting of the City Council. and then review by Community Development Board before it again comes back to the City Council for another hearing. So we have a short list of the specific pieces of the zoning proposal within the package that Councilors received in their agenda packets last week. That kind of break down the proposal into its constituent parts in terms of how it fits into our zoning bylaws. I'm happy to run through those, but I'm sure that our city staff from the planning department or Emily or Paola from Innes Associates could do a more elegant job. I also want to make sure that we touch on the timeline. You know, just again, we've been doing this at every meeting, but just to again, kind of recenter ourselves and how we got here at this step in the, at this stage of our timeline, going from several years ago with these kind of goals and visions being formed through our housing production plan and comprehensive plan. Um, so I would be happy to, um, recognize, um, Director Hunt or, um, Emily. Um if either of you would like to start us off an Yeah, I know. Yeah, I'm happy to pass it off to Director Hunt or Emily after a note from Councilor Scarpelli to orient us to what we're reviewing tonight. But first, go ahead, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: I think that a couple ways to answer that. I think that there isn't a plan to have community meetings in between this meeting and when it goes to the regular meeting of the City Council. I will say that everything that this proposal is based on was really forged through robust community engagement really over the course of years between city staff planning. Pardon me, I'm speaking. That was forged through the comprehensive plan formation, which was a year's long community engagement process. I also know that there were certain parts of the Mystic Avenue Corridor District proposal that we actually pulled back on because we decided that there hadn't been enough robust community engagement when it came to including certain residential streets in that corridor. We decided we're actually not ready to pull the trigger on that without engaging those specific residents. So we've been really conscious of the community buy-in aspect throughout this process. And of course, you know, we've been really doing our due diligence over these past few months of we are doing on the mystic Avenue quarter district proposal in this committee and giving the public every opportunity to add to the community feedback that was already given over the course of years. Um on the concert him to on the sorry on the comprehensive. Planning. Process Um, so I look forward to continuing to welcome the public into these this committee is working on and that residents are really, really welcome to part of this process. But at this point, um. I think that I'm excited to get excited to hear from our city staff and our zoning consultant on exactly if I can follow up. Excuse me, sir. You can wait until I'm finished speaking. Um. I think at this point, it would be important for us to first orient and what we're looking at today. I want us to get oriented on what we're looking at today from, um.
[Kit Collins]: I'm not sure what you're referring to.
[Kit Collins]: I'm just trying to chair a meeting, George. I'm going to say it up top. This is a working meeting. We've had a lot of working meetings over the past few months. We are not going to be interrupting each other. I am the chair of this meeting. I will recognize all participants, including Councilors. I will not be interrupted. We are going to go through the zoning memo. We are going to have a respectful conversation. This process was informed by community outreach. That is a fact. And if you had concerns about the specific way that we've been doing community outreach through this committee process, you could have brought that up at any time starting in July and not at the 11th hour. And I'm just going to say that at the top of the meeting. Now I'd like to recognize Director Hunt or Innes Associates to walk us through the memo.
[Kit Collins]: Madam Vice President, I'm going to give you one more time and then we're going to go.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. We'll go now to Director Hunt. For clarity, George, you got to wait for me to recognize you. We're going now to Director Hunt. Director Hunt, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Emily. I appreciate that. Thank you for the overview. I know that this was a pretty substantial package that Councilors received before the weekend. I know I've given it my review, clarified some things in the text. I'd like to ask my fellow Councilors if there's any questions on this section that they want clarification on before we move on. Go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the question, President Bears. Thank you for weighing in on that, Emily and Paola. Are there any other questions from councillors on this section of the zoning proposal at this time? Seeing none, Emily, anything else that you wanted to flag from other sections of the four main components of the zoning proposal?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Director Hunt or Planner Evans, is there any other, I know for myself, there's plenty that we can speak to that we've been speaking to in terms of the main headlines of what we're looking at tonight, how those fit into the overall zoning structure, where these elements come from, why they are important. We've spoken about that before. I'm happy to speak to that again, but I'd like to defer to city staff first, if there's any other pieces of context or especially important points that you'd like to raise before we discuss our next steps on this.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Director Hunt. I appreciate that. And I think that's a really important point that we have to do this work in sections because otherwise it just doesn't make sense. It's just not approachable. However, you know, we can take these books back off the shelf. All of these components of our zoning, like anything else in our code of ordinances, can be updated, can be amended, we can look at again, we can tweak, we can see what comes up later in this process that informs another change that we decide we actually want to make to the MACD, the Mystic Avenue Border District. we might. Find something later in the process that we decide something can be changed to bring more consistency to the citywide zoning map. Um there's I think it's I'm glad you are reminding us and reminding the public that even though we're kind of breaking this overall project into chunks. Um that's not a door that closes and locks and all of these can continue to be considered in tandem.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, I think those I think those points are really well taken, and I think that it. I think it's important. I think that this is a really big job this committee has been attempting. The comprehensive zoning update just on the technical stuff is a lot for one committee. And now that we've gone through a couple cycles of packages that this committee has looked at, I'm hoping that we can begin to shoulder a little bit more and pair our next package of updates with indeed improving and adding more to our how we're communicating about it and how we're communicating about that to the public, to the councillors that aren't on this committee, to city staff. I think it will help us keep on track and accomplish all that we hope to, to put out that more specific, well, we've put out specific calendars of what we hope to get to and when, and I think that what we need to do now, as you said, is to break that down to an even more granular level. this week and this month, we're looking at this. Two weeks later, we're looking at this. Here's the goal for that month, et cetera, to keep us on track and to make sure that residents, the public business owners, have the best possible chance of knowing, I think I might wanna weigh in on this. Okay, I'm gonna save that date on my calendar and make it really easy for folks. Go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Yeah, I think there's a lot of things that we could do that would strengthen our signaling overall. Go ahead, Emily.
[Kit Collins]: great. Thank you, Emily. Yeah, I think that that would be a great candidate for, uh, the steering committee to look at in advance of the next committee meeting so that we can. We already re center. Um, once the Mr. Court, Mr. Gavin Porter District is on its way, um, to the regular meeting and then the CBB and we can touch base on where we go from here and bring that back to the committee. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. President Bears. Thank you. Um, We have a great next step in front of us in terms of the zoning proposal before us. And I think we have some really great suggestions for how to go forward with our work plan and also pair that with kind of some renewed efforts around how to structure that, how to be telegraphing that structure and what's coming down the pipeline better to all participants, to all stakeholders as we go on in this process. Councilor Callahan?
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, Emily. And great question, Councilor Hillian.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Emily. Councilor Callahan, do you have anything else that you want to add to that? All right, sounds like a no. Councilor Leming, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Director Hunt, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: great. Thank you, Director.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Lohmann. I appreciate that suggestion. I think that's a good idea to bring another local expert in on that conversation. If there aren't any other specific questions or comments at this time, I think it might be valuable before we start talking about next steps, a vote on this package and where it goes after it leaves this committee, if that's how the vote goes. Emily or Paola, if you wouldn't mind pulling the zoning map up on the screen, and just quickly giving us a walk through that visual brief description. Again, I know this is materials we've all seen before, but just to have another look at the updated zoning map with the four sub districts and just to describe once again the characterization of each. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Paula. Appreciate that overview. And again, committee members know this, but just for any residents that didn't catch the past couple meetings when we were also reviewing this map. on a more, you know, kind of section by section basis. This has gone through a couple of minor changes from the original proposal about a month ago, including, you know, finessing, especially on the southern side of the map, where MX3 ends and commercial begins, making that carve out in the commercial zone on the southern side of Mystic. the Hicks area, creating, yes, as Paola is highlighting, inserting mixed-use one, which seems more appropriate for that area, around the residential, the park, and the school. So just to highlight some of the small changes that this map went through. I'll recognize Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the question, Councilor Callahan. And just on that, in case it wasn't touched on this meeting, I'm not sure. It's my understanding that we are legally required to have that use allowed somewhere in the city. It's not that we're going out of our way to make sure that adult use establishments are present on Mystic Ave. It's just that we are legally required to have them be allowed somewhere.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for that clarification. questions. Um if there aren't any other questions or comments on the updated. Oh, go ahead. Planner Evans.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Planner Evans. I think that's a really important point to make sure that, you know, environmentally unfriendly, highly pervious surface doesn't get inadvertently grandfathered in while we're waiting, you know, a short number of weeks, it sounds like for the green score to be able to be considered as a global strategy. Thank you. Any other questions or notes before I start discussing our next steps after this committee meeting? Okay. Great. Thank you. So, um. As is true of all updates to zoning amendments. Um. Now that this has been considered in committee if it were to pass into the next step would be to pass it into a regular meeting with the City Council there. Procedurally it must be immediately referred to the Community Development Board for their review and and then the two votes to codify it into our into our code of zoning ordinances. So that is another several slate of meetings that we will have to get the input of the planning board and to have it appear before the full assembly of the City Council. That's three more times before it is fully codified. So I always appreciate that in the Zoning updating process. It's really baked in. You know, there's really no way to avoid a lot of eyes on this highly technical, very important, very consequential changes, and I'm really glad that that is written into the procedure of how this gets done because, of course, we This step is important. It's very detailed. It's very technical. We have to get it right because what we're doing here is we're implementing the goals and visions of the community that was kind of enshrined in the comprehensive plan. And I'm grateful that we get to include a lot of hands onto this process. Any questions about our next steps in moving this package forward? seeing none. So I understand that we have, you know, this short list of tweaks that the zoning consultant will consider in between now and when this goes to the Community Development Board, the changes that we discussed on this meeting. And we'll be sure in our steering meetings to make sure that those are surfaced and make sure that all those boxes are ticked off before this comes back to the City Council for those final two votes. Do I hear, before I recognize public participation, is there a motion on the floor? I'll go to public participation first if Councilors want to think about it. I'll recognize Martha Andres. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: That's all right. Thanks, Martha. Really appreciate that. And just to flag what Director Hunt put in the comments, we have these maps up on the website. They are kind of buried, so I don't falter for not being able to find them. It's in the chat under phase two, October 23 meeting. It's also attached to the agenda for this meeting on the City Council's public portal, but I'm gonna, well, maybe we can chat about how to just reorder the items on the city's zoning website so that the most current materials are easier to find. But those are online for you to check out if you'd like. President Bears, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Planner Evans, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Planner Evans. Yeah, I appreciate the suggestion. I think it's important. And certainly we would want to give it a thorough look if that recommendation came back to make sure that it's appropriately cited. Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to refer out the draft zoning proposal to a regular meeting of the City Council.
[Kit Collins]: Is there a second on the motion?
[Kit Collins]: motion. Great seconded by President Bears. Would you like to make your amendment motion? We can.
[Kit Collins]: second. That was a motion to refer the Mystic Avenue corridor district zoning proposal. To the next City Council regular meeting and to keep the main paper committee.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: in favor, none opposed. Motion passes and the zoning proposal of the Mystic Avenue corridor. District zoning proposal is referred to the next regular meeting of the City Council, and we will continue our work of, um. Going through all of the zoning citywide in this committee in tandem with city stakeholders, the I want to thank NS Associates for being here as always. Thank you, Emily and Paola. Thank you to our city staff who have been very involved in this project from the beginning. Thank you to all the residents on this call for your attention to this project and for weighing in. Are there any further motions?
[Kit Collins]: the motion to adjourn, seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'd like to thank Councilor Tseng for moving this project forward. I know, as was stated, this is something that the Council has been talking about for a long time, at least since 2022, when I know then President Morell was one of the voices calling out strongly to make sure that Medford was doing all it could do to protect reproductive reproductive health care is wonder, as well as gender affirming health care. And of course this is a very new draft and we're going to continue to revise this in committee but just for my initial review. I think that. One of the parts of this that really stands out to me that I hope that residents kind of, that I think is very salient and I hope that residents, you know, hear about and understand in this proposed ordinance is the section and again, like draft section C that says no city resources, materials or funds shall be used to facilitate or aid any person seeking to prohibit criminalized sanction, et cetera, the person seeking this kind of care. And I think that's really the point to me here. is that we, I think we know implicitly that it's not appropriate for city resources to be used towards such, you know, essentially extra legal purposes. And that includes the time of our city employees as well. So I'm really proud that we're crafting a policy that enshrines that, and I look forward to continuing to revise this in committee.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and sorry, just a clarifying question. I think you already described this, but is the point of that new idea to ensure that pharmacies are complying with providing all of the reproductive health-related medication? Yes. Okay, cool, great. I mean, I think that seems part of the theme of these three papers, so I'd be happy to take it up as part of the package.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sure. Just to jump in with, again, preliminary reflections. I agree. I think this is, you know, obviously there's a lot of groundwork to lay in terms of Should we go forward where? That's kind of step number one in terms of visioning. Step number one in terms of implementation would be thinking through those questions of, how would we bring this about? How much would it cost? How much would it cost to build? How much would it cost to maintain, including putting another thing on DPWs? and using that people power. That's not at all to say that I think we shouldn't do it because it'll take extra resources. I think that it's a really good idea. I think it's a really nice thing to offer to our residents and visitors to this city and to a lot of residents and visitors, it's also a necessary thing that we should be offering. And if this is a difficult project to implement, if it could take five to seven years to put together, maybe it'll take shorter, but maybe it'll take five years to put together. the will and the buy-in and the plans and the money to make this sustainable, then it is good that we're starting now. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I support the motion, the amended motion. And just to further that point, I think that we're at early enough stages here that I'd be curious to hear perspectives from, Councilor Tseng mentioned Director Bailey. I also suspect that this is something that Director O'Connor, even if it's slightly more out of her purview, would have some perspective on as this is a health health issue and engages with. I'm sure that the prevention and outreach folks have some, you know, they deal with a constituency that would be one beneficiary of these facilities in addition to many, many more. All that to say, gosh, there's so many ways that like a CBA would go with this. I mean, I was thinking like this might be the type of thing that we'd want to get the Chamber of Commerce's feedback on because I know that it is kind of a pressure that Main Street businesses have to deal with it. We want your patronage. We don't necessarily want to be a restroom facility for people in public, though they need one. So I'd just be really curious to put this pardon me, um, to as many city staff as possible at this early stage because I wouldn't be surprised if we get a lot of support from a lot of different departments. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think that we can. I've certainly made many motions in the past at committee meetings that present a idea proposal or a draft ordinance and send it out to department heads and encourage them at their discretion to get feedback from staff in their department or to just give feedback as department heads.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I'll just notice for the edification of Councilors that haven't done a ordinance process precisely like this before that for me in the past, at least, um, that process is often paired with simply, you know, as as sponsor of the ordinance reaching out to department heads one on one to have conversations about them.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the words from Councilor Tseng. And I also just want to note, again, we're talking about something, a project that we're at the very, very preliminary stages of, especially with the restroom facilities and public spaces, which is, you know, more logistical than just us crafting an ordinance and working with city staff to implement it. But also, this is part of a story tradition of elected and city staff working together to bring online what are essentially logistical or capital expenses, which is a, you know, usually a multi year process, and we've approved some cap. capital expenditures from our stabilization funds recently that are kind of, you know, kind of tell the end of that story where these capital expenses have been requested and advocated for and discussed and budgeted for and plan for for years and then eventually we get the, you know that the planning and the funds come together and we're able to them together and make an expenditure and bring something online. And in both cases, it's something that we know that we need. It's something that pertains directly to the existing needs of residents, and it takes a few years sometimes to bring it into implementation. But I just see that as part of that same process. So again, I appreciate Councilor Tseng for bringing this forward, and I think that our discussions about this topic to make sure that. Um are well worth. It will be well worth it to residents and visitors to the city. Um and the same for the ordinances that we're working on in concert to make sure that, um, people in Medford have fallen unfettered access to the rights that they already have. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I would just motion to keep all papers in committee and adjourn pending further comment. Second.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being with us here tonight and for all the legwork that you've been doing to get the FY 25 estimated valuations online months earlier than you otherwise would. Really appreciate that. And I appreciate that it helps folks get a clearer picture of what precisely their bills might look like in the future based on various how the votes go in various directions. So just to make sure that I understand the information that's available, and it would be, is it on the Assessor's Department page or the Finance Department page on the city website?
[Kit Collins]: Great. So up until today, people can call your office or look on the assessor's department website webpage and find the webpage is going to be dependent on like, I'm going to try to get it up this week, but like, it's just however fast we can do it.
[Kit Collins]: But We have the FY 24 based calculations and now you're expediting getting the FY 25 based valuations so that people can have even more clarity. Great. Well, thank you so much for updating that ahead of schedule. Appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for the question. I want to add a disclaimer that I obviously sitting behind this rail on this date, I'm not a school committee member. I don't have that level of granular knowledge of the school department and the school department makes its own budget. The city council does not. That being said, I have discussed this matter extensively with people in the community, with people involved in the schools, with school committee members. I understand that you know, what we stand to lose if these questions do not pass includes, you know, some of the stuff that people involved in the schools may remember from when we had to cut the school's budget during the pandemic. And that includes eliminating positions, including teachers, nurses, behavioral specialists, literary coaches. We lose the opportunity to add programming within the schools that supplement the curriculum that is state mandated. So, some programming that is really beloved by students and their families, such as arts and musical curricula. We lose the opportunity to augment the student experience with those types of classes. We lose the opportunity to augment the student experience with more people in supportive roles. such as therapists, nurses, people outside of the classroom who are nevertheless there to make sure that students can thrive in our schools and achieve the best learning that they can? Thank you. These two questions combined also limit our ability to offer competitive and living wages to the many, many people who work in our schools and offer students the experience that they really deserve. We know that we need to be offering living wages to our teachers and paras and all school staff because it's the right thing to do. We also know that we need to be able to do that in order to keep these people in our school system so that our students are served in the way that they deserve. This will also have impacts on building maintenance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate the discussion from my fellow councilors on this topic. I won't go into the topic of new growth. My fellow councilors have covered that. We are very optimistic about how the council's current work on zoning and permitting, which we've been keeping up for two terms, will continue to accelerate new growth and augment the city's operating budget to the greatest extent possible. I do just want to note that on the issue of free cash, just to, I think, Different ways of framing the issue are helpful for me, maybe for other people. It's no secret that we accrued free cash over several years, and that was not dispersed into savings accounts where it could be used and spent on capital expenditures because our city, unlike almost every other city and town in Massachusetts, before this year did not have any stabilization accounts. Now we do. That means that that money can go to the purposes that I think City staff and many residents really wanted it to be going to expected it to be going to all along. Things like capital expenses and also repairing our infrastructure. Putting aside some of that money that's already been allocated to things that people can see out on the street, helping our DPW and other departments improve life and do basic maintenance in the city. Even if you say, okay, let's forget some of those capital expenditures. Let's pretend that we still have $25 million in free cash, just using an easy number. That's one-eighth of the city's annual operating budget, which means, you know, if it's one-eighth, you can understand how quickly we would run through that if we were using that as things to plug the hole in the budget. And I do want to emphasize that doesn't include any capital expenses whatsoever. Going back to the resident's question on why now, I think it comes down to we know that free cash is not sustainable. We know that we're already full steam on new growth, but we need more and better funding and services for our residents now. And I think the question is, do we want to punish residents and students for past shortcomings by failing to invest now, or do we want to take this opportunity to start making Medford better for all residents and students in the public schools?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. The financial task force was a group explicitly made up of elected to consider the question of what we would put before our elected bodies to deal with solutions around this problem. However, I feel really comfortable in saying that all of the. above types of people, city staff, members of the community, were consulted in various ways, formally and informally, throughout this process. Some that people talked to, some that members of the financial task force talked to while we were considering these matters that were discussed in our meetings. Some of that were explicitly consulted. And others that have just been part of this greater conversation around what should we do with about what should we do about chronic underfunding in Medford over the course of months and months and years and years of challenges that have led up to this year in which we are. Working together to try to solve these issues once and for all, instead of having budget season after budget season, where the school budget is essentially held hostage by our inability to raise enough money to add to provide the services that residents. students and teachers expect and deserve. And I also just want to underline, again, that these ballot questions, every single resident, every single voter in Medford, whether you're a parent, a teacher, a union member, somebody who works for the city, who also lives in the city, you get to use your voice. You get to cast your vote. You can vote yes on all three. You can vote no on all three. You can choose which ones you feel comfortable voting yes and voting no on. You are a part of this conversation because every single person who votes gets a vote. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the question. Again, speaking as a member of the financial task force, I want to try to put this a different way because maybe I wasn't, I want to try putting this differently. The financial task force, this group of electeds, tasked with- And the chief of staff.
[Kit Collins]: As the mayor's staff.
[Kit Collins]: If I had a staff person, I probably want them with me taking notes as well. Our assignment was to create a proposal for a political solution to a community-wide problem. And that is why this task force was made up of electeds. I think folks who are asking the question, rightfully so, of why did you come up with what you came up with should look to the hours and hours of tape that we have the public meetings that we've had in this chambers between the city council and the school committee where we discussed that question in terms of why seven and a half million dollars. Gosh, there's a lot of school committee meetings enumerating exactly what we cut in various different budget scenarios to back up why we think that this is the number that is at the nexus of what we know that we need and what we think that we can reasonably ask of the residents to strike that sweet spot between trying to maintain an equitable and deserved school experience for Medford Public School students with something that the community can be comfortable with and can say yes to. It is our job as people who run for offices, instead of going to planning school and trying to get a job in City Hall, to try to come up with, for lack of a better word, political solutions to real life community-wide problems. That is what the task force sought to do, and now everybody gets the chance to vote on it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think we've all acknowledged behind the rail that we have problems this year. And let's say hypothetically that our free cash was not already allocated to capital funds that our department heads have been advocating for in many cases for years and years and years and being pushed off because we didn't have the money to allocate towards those capital expenses. And now we're finally able to start chipping away at that very, very long list of projects on our capital improvement plan. Let's just put aside that point. and say, hypothetically, what if we still had unallocated free cash that we could use on an operating budget, which we don't because it's allocated to capital projects? I think that there's a shared acknowledgment behind this rail that that does put us back at square one, and we have to revisit this conversation again in May for fiscal 26 with no better solutions than we do now. So I've asked myself, What would I cut if we then approaching fiscal 26 with no better off because new growth takes five to 10 years to really flourish into that robustly improved commercial tax base. And we haven't taken advantage of accelerating our tax levy so that we can try to get in fighting distance of where inflation has put us as a community. And now we don't have the cash reserves that again are hypothetical at this point because we already know that we need them for capital expenses and we have to balance the budget for fiscal 26. What would I cut?
[Kit Collins]: There's nothing to cut. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'm sure that my fellow councilors will add to this list, but just to reference some of the data points that have been coming up multiple times in this meeting in particular, I'd guide you to the pavement management plan that was put out by the DPW some years ago, and that's a few years out of date now, but it details the- It was actually updated last year. Oh, nevermind. Updated last year. That details the $200 million in backlog of road repairs that are needed. For more detail on the needs in the schools, I would direct you to really any of the budget cycles, the recent budget cycles, school committee meetings, FY23 or FY24, which I think go into the level of detail that folks are really curious about when it comes to what is at stake, what actually does go on the chopping block each year, and that is brought back depending on ESSER funding, when that was available, or other one-time funds. And I think that the capital improvement plan is also a really interesting augment to those operating costs that show how much money really needs to be funded to on the infrastructural and maintenance side that we are really waiting to have the funding for.
[Kit Collins]: Mine is related to a different part of the question.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and just quickly to follow up on that, I'll note that, again, to echo what President Bears said, it's not within the purview of this council to have any input on the design of the fire headquarters, but I will note for folks who might be interested, on the city website under the fire department webpage, there are links to six of the concept plans that were published this year, which I think is interesting for folks, for residents who want a little bit more detail, because it actually enumerates what's different in each design from the one preceding it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the question. Um, again, as a city council member, not involved in the school's department budgeting process, but I would just say, considering these questions, thinking about the motives behind them in terms of the motives for community, the motives politically for putting these forward. It's hard for me to imagine, even putting on my cynical hat, what our gain could possibly be in putting forward a question that asks residents to pay more in taxes to then spend it on spurious things in the schools department when we know, because we hear from residents all the time, all year long in school department meetings, in school committee meetings and in city council meetings, the adverse effects on students and teachers and staff because of underfunding. And the ways that we want to see the school experience be better for students that we can't yet afford. It's it's hard. We have no motivation to raise this money and then spend it on things that are not the things that the community has already been in some cases really begging city leadership to spend it on. I'm not involved in the weeds of the school's department budgeting process the way that the school committee is in the way that the school's department is, but there is, it's just impossible for me to imagine a scenario where this money will be spent on 30 seconds. Thank you. The goal of doing this very difficult thing, which indeed is causing a lot of difficult conversations in the community, is to improve life for Medford public school students, life and conditions for Medford residents. It would be... 10 seconds. It would be bizarre for us to spend it away on various things that weren't directly related to improving quality of life for residents and students.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Obviously, there's been a lot said in this Q&A forum, and I just think that with everything else that we've been hearing, I also want to put on the record that we talked about the costs if the overrides should pass. The assessor gave a great presentation earlier about how costs will go up regardless, how costs will go up if seven passes, how costs will go up if both pass, et cetera. And that's significant. I think that is significant. I think that people should take it seriously and decide how they feel about it and if they think that they can afford it. And what if any exemptions apply to them and how those will work with them and call the assessor if they have questions. I also think that what also deserves a serious and honest discussion is how households and individuals end up paying out of pocket if we continue to not fund our public sector, if we continue to let our roads and sidewalks get worse and worse and worse, which is something to be taken seriously. It is a safety issue. It is an accessibility issue. If we continue to let our schools get worse and keep missing every opportunity to make them get better, I think it is frankly condescending to build this discussion as nothing more than trying to scare people into voting a certain way. For the people who think, wow, what if the schools are no longer an environment where my student can learn or thrive? I cannot pay for a tutor. I cannot pay for five-day school tuition. I am concerned. We should not be belittling that emotion. We should not be belittling people who are having to pay out of pocket every year for car repairs, because we can't take care of the most basic thing in our city in a way that makes it not quite so obvious when you drive from Winchester into Medford. The format of this discussion was supposed to be a Q&A session where residents can ask questions and Councilors could give answers to the best of their ability. I am pretty disappointed that it's turned into an event where certain Councilors are telling residents not how they should vote, but how they should feel.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll be quick. Just a quick point of information because I know it's been said a few times tonight that the $500,000 would quote, fix the roads. I think that as the published pavement management plan on the city website establishes that we have $200 million in a backlog of road repairs in the city, I think we're all very aware that half a million dollars is not going to fix the roads. As it says in the text of the question, what this would do is enable the DPW to establish, as it reads, additional staff for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair, which relates to the in-house hot top crew that Councilor Scarpelli has been advocating for for years. So Councilor, I'm sad to hear that you've reversed your position on that.
[Kit Collins]: No, I mean, if you have more detail to add on the Cambridge Fire Station example, I just think that we covered this question earlier.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Just in brief, obviously we know That's really tough. And we know that the student experience coming out of the pandemic when so much critical in classroom learning time was missed. That's really tough. It's really tough for a lot of students feel for you. I will just say that I know the topic of literacy coaches in classroom specifically came up a lot in school committee budget meetings and city council budget meetings. And as we were discussing, putting together these numbers for Proposition 7 and Proposition 8 specifically, because we know that that is such a need. One of my big concerns if the overrides don't pass is that we would not be able to bring online the literacy coaches that we know that students like your son really need more of in the schools. And if they do pass, we would be empowered to be able to have more of those coaches in the schools helping students make up for the time that they lost during the pandemic and just due to other factors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Appreciate the question.
[Kit Collins]: I am normally actually and every single penny every single nickel counts type of person in my household budget, certainly, you know, we take every penny very seriously and municipal budgeting because this is our collective wealth to do with. in all of the discussions in public meetings, city council meetings, school committee meetings, task force meetings around what is the number that we should put forward that we're asking people to vote for to invest in the schools. I spent a lot of those meetings advocating for a much, much, much higher number than just 7.5 to be spread around the DPW and the schools and other expenses, but mostly the schools, right? And I think when we're having those discussions that are essentially landing at this is the minimum amount that we can try to invest in our schools to have to at least hold the line and prime the pump for them then getting better in the future. Maybe not even get better this year, but at least keep them from backsliding so we can hope to have them improve in future fiscal years. When $7 million is the scope of the investment, that is essentially the minimum for not backsliding. You put that against a 2% COLA for certain electeds. and bringing up other electeds to not even parity with that position. I think if we're having an honest discussion, we can all look at that and say apples and oranges. And I'm not trying to be disrespectful. That's my honest opinion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you and guess on I realize I may have misunderstood your question um with what fiscal year you were talking about but I know that Part of our discussion has been around the salaries that this year are currently on one-time funds that will expire. And putting forward the override questions as an on-ramp for those positions is, again, once that one-time funding that they're currently being funded by has been depleted. But in your clarification, I think that my point might have been usurped by something else that you were saying.
[Kit Collins]: Only if you have one.
[Kit Collins]: No, I'm good.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Really fair question. I'm glad that you asked it. In terms of what's directly within our purview as city councilors, I know for as long as I've been on the council, I'm in my second term now, we have been, I think, extremely focused on parts of our jurisdiction that relate directly to expanding commercial tax base, which is the ways that we can increase city revenue without going to residents. We've been talking a lot about our zoning project, especially recently. It didn't begin recently. We've been fighting for, I think, three terms, since longer than I've been on the council, to be able to work with a zoning consultant to do really smart, tailored zoning that will allow us to grow the parts of the city that people have been wanting to see growth in for years, so that we'll see what we wanna see there, and also be adding to our commercial tax base. And we've been starting to do that, and we're already starting to see the seeds of results on Mystic Ave. Of course, that revenue isn't gonna come online until like a longer timescale than we really, that's not, we don't see the rewards from that in one year, we see that in five, 10, 20 years, but that is directly within our jurisdiction, and we've been extremely focused on this council, on laying the groundwork for commercial tax-based growth. City Hall departments, I think, are really, one of the things that they're remarkable for is in grant-seeking, especially our Planning Development Sustainability Office, and I do know that every department in this city works really hard to get grant funding for some of its essential projects or other projects that we don't have to take those monies out of the operating budget. The City Council, whenever we can, we support those grants. We approve when that's within our jurisdiction. We try to support resources, funding for projects coming from not from residents, wallets, essentially. In addition, then there's the advocacy side and people bringing up, what is the state doing about this? What is the state paying and how are other players paying in? We constantly advocate for an increase in trying to remember what this UGGA actually stands for. I think it's unrestricted, like general aggregation, constantly advocating for the state to pay into cities like Medford more so that we can do more for our residents the way that the state would like us to do, constantly advocating for changes in the payment in lieu of tax agreement laws so that we can turn to institutions like Tufts and say, hey, you don't pay a lot of property tax, all of our other residents do, let's make this more fair, trying to pull what levers we can.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just want to thank you for being here tonight. Thank you for your advocacy on this issue, and thank you for advocating for firefighters in general in Medford all the time. I understand that this is complicated. I also know that as a city council, we approach this at different levels of distance from just the dollars and cents of the proposal. And from the specifics of the fire headquarters proposal that is being worked out between the fire department, maybe fire department leadership is more accurate to say. And principally the mayor's office, we're not involved in that process. I can say for myself as one Councilor that after hearing for so many months and years, this is an improved headquarters is urgently needed, urgently deserved. the fire department. Um, that that is trying to bring that about as expeditiously as possible. It's my priority as a city Councilor. Um, I know from, you know, just following the publications of the, you know, kind of continually updated concept drafts that's put out by the mayor's office that, um, you know, at least from what I from what I'm able to see, it seems like feedback is continuing to be incorporated and updated. Again, I'm just sharing what's visible on my side. I know that there's another perspective that you represent. It is my sincere hope from hearing that this is so urgently needed for so long that we are able to see a truly collaborative process that results in the fire headquarters that the fire department needs, deserves, expects. that we can move on with this urgency. And, you know, I think that that's just what the community needs. Certainly that's what the fire department needs. And I hope that we can do that on a timeframe that we can move on it this year. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Appreciate the question. Obviously, I'm going to give a highly subjective answer because this isn't really a policy question. You know, obviously, I'm really saddened to see Well, let me start here. I really understand why people are so concerned about these questions from both sides. I see people saying, wow, my bills are going to go up. That's really serious. And I need to understand why that's being proposed. I can also see people saying, wow, these things that these questions would pay for are really dire. We really need to make sure that these pass. And I think people know which camp I'm firmly in. What does sadden me is seeing these two viewpoints, which I think are two positions that we can converse from. We can have discussions from those two poles and not experience division and not experience a crevasse in our community. To me, I think that we start seeing division in our community when certain people start saying, those people who disagree with you, they are against you, or they are against them, or this is pitting X against Y. and convince people of that. I don't think that that's helpful. I don't think that that is where we are to be totally honest with you. I know that there's a lot of people who are deeply concerned and have had conversations that haven't been productive or have been offensive, but I actually do not believe at all that this community is divided over these questions. And I also just think it's worth noting that at the end of the day, we can have conversations and sometimes those conversations are unpleasant and sometimes those conversations unfortunately are hostile. But I just fundamentally for ever since we put these on the ballot in June, I am really confused why we are fighting about this because at the end of the day, these questions will be decided in November when we count up the number of people that voted yes and the number of people that voted no. And I think the people that are saying this is dividing you, they want you to feel divided. And I'd say, look at the motivations there. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I just echo what President Bears said. I think that these are questions that, you know, and we'd be happy to liaise as council leadership to set this up with the chief assessor. I think that he'd be able to give you much better information than we can on the council.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I don't have a direct comment to that last question that was made, but I really appreciate it, appreciate the resources that were shared as well and the recommendations. I just wanted to note that it's quite a late hour and we actually have a second meeting to get to after this, so I would not motion, but request that we now proceed to public participation and then adjourn and take up the agenda items on our regular meeting agenda.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for putting this forward, and I motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, it's in the table.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to join all the records and reports of committees and then take paper 24483 from the hands of the clerk.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This is a hard one. It's been hard over these past few months not having Larry with us in the chambers like he always, always has been for years and years. It's hard to wrap my head around this, and it's hard to sum up so much of what Larry represented, but Larry was so kind. He was so generous with his insight and his experience from so many years of working in City Hall. When I joined the Council three years ago, you know, I felt a little out of place, a little, a little new kid on the block. And this is just one example of how unflaggingly kind a person Larry is. He never, ever treated me any different than any other Councilor. He was kind, he was welcoming, he was welcoming, he took me seriously. And I know that that's how he treated absolutely everybody in his orbit. So he will be so missed. And I joined my colleagues in sending our most sincere condolences to his family.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion for a moment of silence upon passage and also to dedicate this meeting in Larry's honor, though really he deserves a year's worth of council meetings.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24477. On the motion to take paper 24477 and 24478 under suspension.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to revert to regular order of business, and then to take paper 24457 from the table, to take both national grid papers.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to approve contingent on the Conditions recommended by the chief engineer.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Our first discussion was, I think, at least a month ago now, and it was a very late hour, so I apologize for any failure of perfect eloquence in my trying to summarize our previous discussion. My understanding is that the cable that needs to be repaired needs to be repaired, and the nature of the request for amendments largely deals with what area of street will be repaved as a condition of that cable repair, is that correct? I'm sorry, say that again. My understanding is that the cable that needs to be repaired, must be repaired, will be repaired, and the nature of the amendments that National Grid has put forward has to do with what area and how much will be repaved while that cable repair is going on, is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Okay. Thank you so much. Just wanted to clarify. Appreciate you being here again, especially at such a late hour. I'm so sorry to keep you and your team here. For myself, I think we had a really helpful discussion about a month ago. I reviewed the memos from the city's lawyers, from National Grid. I think at this point, I am feeling confident and standing by the amendments that the council in the previous term put forward. I really appreciate the discussions that you've had with us about this, but I think that those current, those existing amendments and the council's rationale behind them for me feels as resonant as it did a year ago. So I would motion to deny the request for amendments.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciated the discussion of this at our, I think it was our October 2nd committee of the whole, and I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take from the table, paper 23449 and 24458.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to ordain.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve for third reading.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Planning and Permanent Committee, October 9th, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. We are also joined by non-voting members of the committee, Councilor Tseng and Councilor Lazzaro. The action and discussion items for this committee are again paper 24-033, Zoning Ordinance Updates with the Innes Associates Team. The meeting notice writes that we are going to discuss the green score proposal, discussion of housing definitions, and general discussion of updates to the zoning ordinance. We're actually not going to be discussing green score proposal tonight. We've discussed that in previous meetings. The zoning consultant is doing more work on that side of things before we bring it forward to this committee for another public discussion. So that is one of many items that is in progress, but we won't be speaking about it this evening. For tonight, we are going to focus the conversation on two main discussion points. We're going to revisit the housing definitions that were first circulated during the week of September 11. I don't remember if that was the date of the meeting or the date that the meeting notice went out, but we have recirculated those housing definitions. And since we've discussed them before and Councilors have had several weeks to review, formulate comments and questions, I'm hoping that that is a piece that we can consolidate all of our remaining questions, comments, requested subtractions, additions on, and get that to a condition where it's able to report out as part of the incoming package of updates that we've been working on for the past four to six weeks. And just to finish summarizing the agenda for tonight, We are also going to discuss the zoning proposal for Mystic Ave. We've gone over this in great detail in a couple meetings of this committee recently, and we're going to hear some, I think at our most recent meeting was when we reported out, sorry, at our most recent meeting, we approved some recommendations from the zoning consultant on how to move forward with zoning for Mystic Ave. And I understand that there are some minor changes, suggestions, additions to what the council, what this committee approved. So we're going to review and discuss those this evening. And I think we're still planning to have those back in this committee on October 23rd so that we can hopefully report them out and get them on the pipeline where they will then be reviewed by the Community Development Board. So I am happy to turn it over to my fellow Councilors if they have any initial questions, and then to turn it over to our housing consultant to lead the discussion on the housing definitions. Any comments or questions from Councilors to lead us off today? Great. In that case, thank you so much to NS Associates for being here with us once again. And Paola, I assume that we're going to be hearing from you. These are, again, these are housing definitions that we have seen before and reviewed before. So if members of the public are interested in the presentation on the housing definitions, that can be found in recordings of our previous committee meetings. Paola, if you want to give us the kind of 30,000 foot overview of what we're looking at here and why these are so important to put into our updated zoning, that would be great. And then we'll move on to comment from councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. I'll recognize Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming?
[Kit Collins]: If I may, and to follow up on the point that Director Hunt was making about sort of what's important for this discussion on definitions in terms of why we're updating the definitions before we update more of our zoning. And thinking about essentially like what are the semantic tools that we're giving ourselves with which to say we want this here, we don't want this here, we'd prefer this not here. I think the point about the current Bedford dormitory definition is well taken. I mean, I would be amenable to perhaps If we want to make sure that we have a higher degree of control over where dormitories are being proposed and built, I think that we could strike the, we could have a just say building designed for residents, for students or staff if we want to have more control over where residences explicitly for student populations are within our city. I don't think that this is I think there's some definitions that we're going to consider right now and over the next few months that are like critical so that we can do other things on our kind of slate of zoning goals. I don't know that this is one of them, but I think that that kind of change is in line with essentially what we're hoping to do with the definition. So I would just offer that. I can't make motions as the chair, but that makes sense to me unless somebody points out what I'm missing. And then it sounded to me like there were some some good ideas for updating the proposed definitions for co-living and co-housing.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I find that persuasive. And reading over the Cambridge definition, I do think that that kind of captures the intent. Personally, I would be amenable to adopting the Cambridge definition. replace our current one along with the other updates.
[Kit Collins]: I think that, um, I think it's fine to either motion things individually or to have the motion at the end of this meeting be to incorporate the feedback promulgated in the meeting and keep the paper in committee. So I think we, if it's, it's, if it's helpful to have the clerk compile them line by line, um, just means that I don't have to take notes. So I think either way is okay. Or it doesn't mean I have to take as scrupulous notes.
[Kit Collins]: it. Thank you. Is there a second? Is there a second on the motion? Great, seconded by Councilor Callahan. If there are not any other glaring questions or comments on the housing definitions, or are there any other glaring comments or questions on the definitions, Councilor Callahan?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Halihan. It's my understanding that once we incorporate the feedback that we just talked about on co-living, co-housing and the dormitories definition, The rest of these I think are in pretty good shape. We've discussed this before, so I think the next time we see this, it'll be in the condition that we could take a vote to report it out of committee. Emily Pella, I see nodding heads on Zoom, excellent.
[Kit Collins]: And we will have, we will follow up with the exact language of the updates to co-living, co-housing and dormitories. Great, thank you all. Let's move on to our discussion of the zoning proposal for Mystic Ave. And just to recap, at our last committee meeting where we discussed the Mystic Ab Zoning Proposal, we looked at a lot of excellent visuals created by NS Associates. Councilors were shown kind of two versions of a zoning proposal that were based on the many meetings we've had to discuss Mystic Ab and also incorporated the many documents that kind of encapsulate we did receive some City constituent Councilor feedback. On what we want to see from Mr. Gaff. Um that kind of had a mildly different interplay between these two versions expressing different ways that mixed use zones and commercial areas could fit together. Um. We reported out. We're sorry. I keep saying reported out. We approved one of them to go in conversation since that meeting, which I think was in the last week of September. I think it was the September 25th meeting, but I should fact check that. Between then and now, I think that city staff and its associates have discussed that draft map, and there are some minor changes to the plan that the committee approved that they wanted to brief the committee on before it comes back on the 23rd in a position that we can take a vote to report it out. So I'm happy to turn it over to Director Cohn if you want to start out or just kick it over to Emily and Paola to give us that update on what's changed since we saw it last.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that update. And yeah, just to recenter on this. So what's changed? Let me get my cardinal directions right. That blue zigzag, that was the recommendation of this committee at our last meeting. The change that's being proposed newly as of this meeting is the section towards the south side that's split between pink and purple, which is mixed-use three and commercial. The new recommendation is to have commercial on that side at all as opposed to mixed-use three all the way down. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Sorry, President Bears. But yeah, thank you for entertaining this exception. I think this makes
[Kit Collins]: What about Planner Evans?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Do we want to entertain a change to this person as well?
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Halihan, go ahead. Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So interesting discussion. as chair all the way to motion if we're going to propose a further tweak to that zone or leave as is. But I do want to hasten us to what I believe is the last piece of our discussion for the Mystic Abzoning proposal tonight before it goes back to Innes Associates for, you know, to wrap up all of these final tweaks and comments so that we can take a vote to report it out on October 23rd. And that is to consider quickly the dimensional table, table of uses, because that informs when we're talking about these zones, what actually will be done and performed within them in all of these zones that we're just describing in abstract terms right now. Paola, remind me, was this one of the materials that we sent around to the committee on Friday, or is this a later breaking document?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, okay, excellent. Thank you. Sorry, I couldn't remember off the top of my head. It's been a long day, but that's great, as intended, circulated to councillors prior to the meeting. So I'd like to ask my fellow committee members, you know, to lead off the discussion if there are any aspects of the proposed dimensionals, aspects of the table of uses that we'd like to flag for question or comment.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Go ahead, Professor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, Director Hunt. Oh, sorry, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Emily. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: So the suggestion would be rather than instituting a rather than instituting no minimums for commercial to state a maximum ground floor height in commercial?
[Kit Collins]: I'm amenable to that. I think I'm also, I understand the need to keep some industry, the possibility of industrial open, certainly. I also, you know, see that in the context of trying to develop new zoning that will entice, you know, kind of making maximum use of this corridor. So I'm also amenable to the kind of suggestion of one story by special permit. But it sounds like I feel like I'm hearing comfort with the concept of a minimum height of one story in commercial with that max ground floor height set at 30 feet.
[Kit Collins]: I do see a hand on Zoom. We will take public participation soon when we finish up with this item. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. If I'm. One second, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Is there a second on that? Is there a second on the motion? And it's just being decided to end it. Cool. Yeah, we're just adding it to the list. Go ahead. I'll recognize you, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. Yeah, I think that there's been a lot of good kind of guiding questions floated by Councilors and city staff in this discussion that should guide us as city staff and the zoning consultant kind of more deeply consider the table of uses for MX3 and commercial so that we, you know, kind of the same questions that we have been talking about, but just getting to a more granular place as we finalize this, which is, you know, how do we make sure that our zoning makes it harder for people to do things here that we really don't want them to do, that we don't want Mystic App being used for anymore, while making it accessible for the types of uses that we really do want to be cultivating and attracting, while having a coherent enough, comfortable enough experience for people who do business along the stick out and the residents nearby.
[Kit Collins]: Paola or Emily, has there been a co-working definition added to the table of uses or can we do that for?
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, Councilor Calderon.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Cullohan. Are there any further comments or questions that we want to raise for NS Associates city staff on the table of uses and definitions before we close out discussion of this topic? Seeing none, to recap, I think that- If I may?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Sal. It's nice to be able to infuse these conversations about the nitty gritty and with the visioning that guides what we're trying to do here. Thank you both. To summarize, coming out of this meeting, we are incorporating some updates to the housing definitions around co-living, co-housing, and dormitory on the Mystic Ave zoning proposal, which is nearing completion. Um, we have some minor additional adjustments to, um, the land use map, as we discussed. Um, a couple specific motions were made detailing those requested changes. Um, and in addition, I think we have a directive to city staff and the zoning consultant to work together, um, to, on a very granular level, consider the table of uses and dimensionals specifically around next use three commercial and how they will affect the overall character and coherence of Mystic app. Unless there are any further questions or motions, I would entertain a motion to put this forward and keep the paper in committee.
[Kit Collins]: I see a hand raise on Zoom. Gaston, I'll unmute you. Please go ahead. Please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you for waiting.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, Gaston. Yeah, I think that point about where we want flexibility is really relevant here and very well taken. President Bears? Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: Great, on the motion by President Bears. And I understand this is no longer a hybrid meeting. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Great, thank you all. And thank you, city staff and associates for being with us and guiding us as usual. Meeting adjourned.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. Yeah, I think that this is another one of this council's big projects that it would behoove us and the community to try to set an ambitious timeline. There is so much to discuss here. And I know that there's a ton of energy around reviewing the charter in the community right now. So I think that we should try to do what we can on the city council side to have the option stay open, to be putting changes to voters sooner instead of missing that window that only comes around once every several years. So I think that we should approach that, yeah, ambitiously. And as for kind of how to get started on that, I do think that it'd be worthwhile for us to have a meeting to kind of internally review and discuss the report before we start meeting with other stakeholders. And I mean, I think there's a lot of reasons to do that, just because it's a lot to digest, there's a lot to discuss, it's all very consequential. But also, I know that in this process, we're inevitably going to try and reconcile and find consensus between perspectives that might be very different. And I'd prefer for us to kind of have some chances to get ideas from different sources out on the table before we then start having those discussions between different types of stakeholders. Because I think this is going to be a process where there are a lot of different ideas and different preferences. And I think it would serve us well if we approach it from a standpoint of, I'm not having a different idea from you, whoever that is, in reaction to your idea or in opposition to that idea, but rather there are different approaches to this. Let's get them all out on the table, and then let's consider all of our approaches and just try to choose the best path forward.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much Councilor Lazzaro, I apologize for holding up the start of this meeting I was running late and then my computer took 10 minutes to join the Wi-Fi, my apologies. I'm joining the Zoom now, so I'll be able to screen share. But just to recap, so the Overgrowth Ordinance was a proposal from, I believe, the previous term that was discussed with the Director of the Board of Health, as well as the Code Enforcement Officers from the Building Department, to deal with issues of accessibility on our public ways, such as sidewalk, and just to make sure that accessibility is maintained even when yards and vegetation originating on private property is perhaps a little less closely tended to. In a lot of cases that's totally fine, but in cases where it becomes a harborage for pests or insects or rodents or it grows so large that it affects people's ability to walk on the sidewalk, that's a problem and the city does need a mechanism to step in in that case. And similarly, in how it affects the pest issue specifically, we were also requested to take another look at the rodent control ordinance by the Director of the Board of Health and some of the collaborators in City Administration. As has been a topic of many many conversations in the city council over the past few years than a city staff are diligently working on every week of the year, you know the rodent population in Medford as a neighboring communities is a really big issue. And as we see more development both from private developers and from public projects such as the MBTA. displacing rodent populations. We're getting more and more complaints, and I know that the Board of Health and the Health Department has been actively seeking to, you know, not just continue what they're already doing, but to be able to do more by way of prevention and mitigation. And obviously, controlling the rodent pest population in Medford is something that, if we have something that's working over here and something that's not working over here, then the problem isn't really getting better, because Rats can change leases a lot more easily than people can. I've heard it said. So at our first meeting on this topic, we discussed these two issues broadly with the board of health director and reviewed some preliminary ideas from mainly the board of health director, as well as code enforcement officers. And we motioned out to see an initial draft of the overgrowth ordinance, which I had the clerk circulate yesterday and have shared with city staff. And we also motioned to have some first drafts updates made to the rodent control ordinance. So committee members have both of those documents before them this evening. I have some feedback from city staff on these documents, and I know that Director O'Connor is also on the line as well. So I thought that tonight we could, in not too much time, we could I know that councilors have reviewed these documents already, most likely. I thought that we could quickly go over these drafts, flag any initial comments or questions that councilors do have. Note any comments that Director O'Connor has for how to take these forward. I know that the building commissioner is also going to weigh in and then report out some planned updates or amendments to take these further into our third meeting onto this topic based on the feedback that we heard tonight. And then hopefully the next time we meet on this, we can have a pretty close to finalized document on both counts, having undergone a legal review as well that we can report out expeditiously, hopefully, if it is the will of this committee, and just put these new mechanisms on the books so that our city staff can implement them. So I would be happy to turn it over to Director O'Connor for preliminary comments, and then I can just quickly walk through both documents, unless I'd be happy to turn the floor over to any of my fellow councilors who had questions or comments that they wanted to start out with.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. If I may, yeah, it sounds like there's, I think there's a good argument for defining standing water as a term, much like we included a definition for bird feeder in the wildlife feeding ordinance. It's one of those things where if you know what it means, you don't need it. But if you don't, it's good to have it articulated.
[Kit Collins]: What I would recommend is that I'd like for in this meeting for us to end with a motion to send both the overgrowth ordinance and the updates to the rodent control ordinance, incorporating any amendments or planned amendments that we talk about in this meeting, for those amendments to be incorporated by myself and for them then to be sent to legal review before our next committee meeting on the topics. Then when we see it again, it includes any updates that this committee would like to see, Director O'Connor or Commissioner Vandewall would like to see, and has undergone legal review with those changes, and then we'll review it again and report it out. That would be my proposal.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I'll just note, because I know we discussed a lot about the purpose and intentions of this ordinance at our first meeting, but just to quickly revisit because we're not going line by line on this, because frankly, it's pretty straightforward. I don't think that we need to. Just to summarize as briefly as I can, what this document says is essentially stating what we talked about as the goals being to give the city a mechanism to do enforcement when there is really problematic overgrowth that isn't being addressed on its own, defining the terms as needed, essentially saying overgrowth and harborage conditions that infringe on the public right of way or create nuisance conditions are prohibited. making a clear exception that nothing in this section shall be interpreted as to prohibit gardening, landscaping, etc. And that enforcement is only necessary if it is determined to be the cause of a public's safety threat or nuisance by city officials. It lays out who's enforcing it and penalties, and then it also does stipulate, as Director O'Connor suggested, that any penalty fines that are collected from enforcement of this ordinance will be deposited into the rodent control account to create revenue for doing rodent mitigation citywide. And I know that this draft was promulgated after the agenda for this meeting went out, so I'll make sure that the clerk can attach it to the committee report for this meeting so that the public can view it ahead of our next committee meeting. So with that, I would be happy to offer a motion to, I think the only thing left to do on this draft is to add in that we want a definition for standing water. And then I will forward this along to legal review and also ask for legal input on some of the questions and highlighted parts in the draft that I sent around to Councilors, which is mostly asking for their input on how to define certain terms the right way.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, if I may, I'd love to run quickly through the road and control ordinance updates. Thank you. This one is a little more I think it's equally straightforward, but it's a little more complicated because we're updating an existing ordinance. So I would be happy to just quickly summarize what I've added, or I could also quickly share my screen and just go through it, walk through it for our Councilors and the public. And just, I just wanna, make sure that we run through it very quickly before we... I would also make a motion to incorporate any suggestions from councillors, continue to work with Director O'Connor to further tweak these updates and then submit this for legal review as well. So I defer to my councillors. And if we would like to see it on the screen and go through it section by section, again, very quickly, or if a summary would be sufficient.
[Kit Collins]: Great, can do. So again, this is along many of the same goals that we have already discussed. And this is just a bit more for Councilors to read through because it is updates to the existing ordinance. What I am suggesting here in incorporating some of the new goals that we've heard from Director O'Connor for this ordinance to give the health department more tools to do the enforcement that they need to do. In adding those, I think that it would be helpful for us to do some light reorganization of the ordinance. So in the draft that I passed around to councilors prior to this meeting, which again, I will have the clerk attached to the committee report. I think that up until now, the ordinance has mostly been about definitions and then permitting requirements for commercial properties. Things that they have to do to get a permit as it pertains to rodent control, such as creating an integrated pest management plan, what has to be involved in that plan, what to do if they don't follow that plan, etc. A lot of what Director, or not a lot of, but some of the cornerstone of what Director O'Connor and I are trying to do in these updates is to put it all in the same ordinance, what we expect of commercial properties, what we expect of residential properties and what we expect of different types of residential properties. So I'm suggesting that we add in those goals that we discussed the first meeting and then reorganize the ordinance so that it kind of sets our purpose and goals up top, talks about residential properties, and then it talks about commercial properties, including all of those rules around integrated pest management plans and whatnot. So that draft does move around the sections a little bit and I propose that we just finalize the section numbers once everything is actually solidified. I have kind of slotted in everything that Director O'Connor and I have spoken about with goals for the updated ordinance. There are some specific questions that I have on wording, language sufficiency, making sure that things are phrased in such a way that it'll be seamlessly enforceable for city officials, to make sure that things are phrased in such a way that it will be really easy for residents and property owners to understand what is expected of them. So that's the type of thing that I would just like to get another round of feedback from city staff on and also get feedback during the legal review on to make sure that this language is where it ought to be. This ordinance also, One thing, another specific thing that I'd be looking for input from legal counsel on is one goal of the health department was to have different levels of fines for noncompliance with the rodent control ordinance from residential buildings with less than three units versus residential buildings with more than three units. I thought that there's kind of a fairness factor to having a heavier penalty for failure to do anything about rodent prevention and mitigation be levied upon condo buildings, apartment buildings, buildings that are run more similarly to commercial buildings, as opposed to your single families, your duplexes, your triplexes, owner-occupied buildings, which I think makes a lot of sense, but I want some guidance to make sure that we're just phrasing that the right way since ordinance fines are governed by state law and how we may allocate those fines. So I'm just calling that as a specific question that we put into legal counsel. Just running through to see if there's anything else major that I want to make sure that Councilors are aware of in this draft. And I don't believe that there are. I think I have several more nitty gritty language questions that I'd like to forward along to legal counsel, which were included in the markup version that was circulated to Councilors, and that will be attached to the committee report. But apart from that, the other major change in this ordinance is that it specifically, you know, It doubles down on the language for designating the rodent control account. And this newly states that integrated pest management permit fees will be deposited into the rodent control account, which is new as of these updates. I think those are the major points that I wanted to flag, the most substantial points that I wanted to flag from the update, but I defer to Director O'Connor if there's anything that we've missed or anything that she'd like to add or underline.
[Kit Collins]: What section was that, Director O'Connor?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, got it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Director O'Connor. And I would just note one thing I neglected to mention that was also sent around to councillors is the fee schedule that describes that the fees attached to integrated pest management, fees for rodent control issues that are attached to street openings are referenced in this ordinance, but those are governed by Appendix A, which is our fee schedule. So there are also proposed updates to that, which I will finalize, run by legal counsel, and attach to the updated version of this ordinance that comes before this committee at our next meeting date on this topic. So thank you so much for those comments, and I'd be, if there aren't any other comments or questions from councilors, I would make a motion to continue to incorporate feedback from Director O'Connor, run relevant sections of this update by the Commissioner of Public Works, Building Commissioner, run the section on composting by Director Hunt, and then get a legal review of the document, and also get some input from city staff on the updated fee schedule. And then when all of those documents are complete, keep this in committee and meet again after the legal review.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, legal or just professional insight. Yeah. As with the rest of our updating of the fee schedule across various departments, just want to make sure that we're in line with what other communities are doing.
[Kit Collins]: How about until legal review and all department review is complete?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to keep the papers in committee and adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you to President Bears. Thank you so much for being with us today to give us some context on this item. As has been discussed, it's always sobering to hear of having to potentially put on the table a little bit more than we initially thought would have to be budgeted. You know, unfortunately, we're in a fiscal environment where that is happening across the board because the cost of all sorts of infrastructural tools, materials and services are more expensive than they've been. You know, when these estimates were made several years in the past due to inflation and other factors. And I think that this is one of those scenarios where, you know, it never feels great to have to spend more than we had initially forecast. But this is still a non-negotiable and I think it is well worth spending a little bit more to make sure that what we are investing in is more resilient for the future when we know these systems will, you know, have to be maintained, have to be upgraded. And if we're going to be putting money on the table at all, I'd rather it be getting us closer to our climate goals and be a part of a new, more resilient system for our schools. You already covered the questions that I had. Thank you so much. And I would be happy to motion to approve this.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, do you have any more specifics about like which which roadways are going to be worked on?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Appreciate this discussion. I appreciate this discussion also being put in the context of the other budgeting tools that the Council goes through throughout the year. It seems to me that the questions of negotiations are ones that the administration forecasts and creates its container for during the annual budgeting process, which we of course went through this past June and will again for FY26 starting next year. And I also just want to remind the Council that the appropriations before us are from the capital, the capital stabilization fund. So the money requests, the appropriation requests that are before us are limited to appropriation for capital spending purposes. And they are very limited in that way. These are not dollars that could be used for any purpose at all in the city. They are limited to capital expenditures. And that is why we are considering infrastructural and maintenance projects before us this evening. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you president bears at this meeting of the planning and permitting committee as usual we are meeting with our zoning consultant this time it was to go over proposals for new zoning for the mystic Avenue quarter that are approaching a level of finalization those will be in the committee at least one more time before they are voted out and go to the community development board and then the city council for more discussion motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears appreciate the Councilor for bringing this forward and for the discussion so far. Very happy to see the council taking this issue up this evening. I think it is very important that we do publicly appreciate and acknowledge Tufts University when it does things that are positive for our community and, you know, show that partnership. And I think it's just as important for us to take note when it is missing opportunities to invest in our public sector. In the way that is in the spirit of the payment in lieu of tax relationship that we do have with the university I think that this is an important thing for us to advocate around specifically because it is not a part of our pilot agreement and we know that you know the kind of the point of the pilot agreement is that it is not equivalent to what Tufts would be investing in Medford if Tufts was a regular property taxpayer, like every other property taxpayer in the city of Medford. I think it's significant that this is one of, through this Neighborhood Fellows program, I think this is a really important program to call out because what it does in an intangible way is it empowers people in communities, including Medford and like Medford around the greater Boston area, to become people who can be more and more effective at investing and managing and developing public sectors and being changemakers in the public sector. And so I think it's It's been meaningful in the past that Tufts has chosen to extend this into our communities, and especially because Tufts and other tax-exempt nonprofits like it do not have to invest in a public sector the way that everybody else does. I hope that we can take them at their word when they say that they are trying to bring this back expeditiously, but that's not something that we have to take them at their word. I think we need to advocate for it, and I hope that we can see this program returned to its full strength very quickly. And while we remain in discussion with them around that, just to add our voice to the chorus to say we can see how meaningful this has been for students that come from Medford and our neighboring communities. And it's an important piece of that puzzle when it comes to making the city whole for all of the benefits that Tufts and other tax exempt nonprofits receive from being in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'd like to thank the Councilor for putting this forward. I'd be happy to second the motion. I think that when it comes to being an informed voter, you know, that's just the most important thing. And of course, as has been discussed, we have to be, you know, when we're talking about all these forums, we have to make, we have to remember that we have to treat this the same way that we would If a candidate was running their own campaign, we have to be really careful about not using city resources to be for one side or the other. That's why I do my campaigning on this issue outside of City Hall, even though everybody knows my position on it. But I think that it is extremely valuable to use our platform to hold a Q&A session, because when it comes to this issue, there are no bad questions. I've had some great conversations with people over the past few months. I remember one person said to me, let me get this straight. If this were to pass, my property taxes would go up by 2.5%. And I was like, I'm so glad you asked, because that's not the case. And I think it's really important that We work within the parameters that we have to have those conversations to make a space for those conversations, whether it's with our senior citizens to talk about this process, the potential impacts to talk about the many exemption programs that were maxed out on. and to invite all other parts of our constituencies, people who are hungry for that information so that everybody can go into the polling booths, feeling as informed as they want to be and really confident to cast their vote one way or the other. So I'll second the motion. Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Sorry, my audio cut out and I couldn't hear the clerk.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Planning and Permanent Committee on September 25, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: It's not him, so he's... Great, thank you. Four present, one absent. This meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this meeting is, again, paper 24033, Zoning Ordinance Updates with the NS Associates Team. At this meeting, we will be discussing a proposal for zoning along Mystic Avenue Corridor. which has been robustly discussed by this committee in various planning stages over the past several months. So tonight we're looking at a set of documents that are more baked than they have been over the past few weeks of workshopping this in committee with our zoning consultant, NS Associates. Before we get started, I just want to set the table for this meeting. We're getting a bit of a late start. I apologize for that. Had some delay getting everybody here and online. We are just gonna I think we should try to keep this to about if we can try and wrap by 8 p.m. I think that would be great. I think that that's we have plenty to Discuss but I think that we have some clear decision points this evening So I'm really confident that we can get through this in an hour and a half maybe even earlier because Councilors have had all weekend to review the documents that we're looking at before us tonight with some only some minor changes and I also want to note that it is our norm to have public participation at the end of committee meetings, so stick with us and we'll be sure to hear from everybody, whether you're here in the chambers with us or on Zoom, after the discussion between Councilors, staff, and the zoning consultant. Before I hand it over to Paola from Innes Associates to give us a presentation of what we're looking at tonight, I just want to say that Over the past several meetings the discussion of mystic corridor has been really central what we've talked about in this committee. We're kind of in a way splitting our work in rezoning between these kind of quarter by quarter approaches and global strategies for the whole city mystic has been a priority from the Council from the community. from staff, we know that we need to really make tracks to rezone this so that we get what we want on Mystic and not just what happens to be there by right now, that developers can utilize or take advantage of that might not reflect what residents currently want to see on Mystic and from Mystic and may not be giving the community all the benefits that we deserve and that we need. So I think that our main decision points that Paola is going to speak to are around doling up the land use for various parts of Mystic, particularly on the west side, where we have kind of a menu of options for how to deal with the zoning on the west side of Mystic, proposed included parcels, a question of setbacks. But beyond that, the documents that we're about to look at are the product of these many meetings of talking about What do we know that we want from Mystic Ave? What do our many studies and plans and community sessions over the past several years tell us that the community wants from Mystic Ave? So all of that feeds into the documents and the questions that we're looking at tonight. And, you know, from the chair, I'll say that my goal is for the end of the meeting tonight for us to be able to make some motions to give Innes Associates some really clear marching orders for how we wanna go forward so that two committee meetings from now on October 23rd, we can see a finalized proposal of this corridor zoning back and report it out of committee. But we'll have to make, we'll have to have a discussion tonight around those main decision points so that by the end of the evening, we can say, all right, this, this and that, we're gonna say yes on this, no on that. Here's what we want, please package it up. Let's look at it one more time. And let's get this moving onto the Community Development Board and the procedural steps after that. All right, with that table set, One minute? Oh yeah, I'd be happy to turn it over to Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: That's okay, we'll get you back up there.
[Kit Collins]: That's okay, let's take a beat and we're gonna get Paola's presentation back up. I'll take a question from Councilor Callahan. So I think Paola probably won't be able to respond for a couple moments.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think, yeah, I just want to give her a second to figure out her computer trouble. Okay.
[Kit Collins]: I have a quick question on that. The incentive zoning that you just outlined, would that be for both land use option A and option B? It could be, yes. Okay, thank you. I just want to clarify that's not specific to option B. Yeah, exactly.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Pella. I'll go to questions and comments from councillors, and then I'm really eager to hear our planning staff's perspective on this comparison and this menu of options as well. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think I saw a hand from Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. And I think we will be diving into incentive zoning more deeply at our next committee meeting as well. So go for it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll just a second. Councilor Hill. Thank you so much. Just to jump in there. I'm glad you just spoke to that. That was a question that I had on, um, the mixed use lens uses in particular is like where those would include life science or research specifically. So I think that would be a great thing to get more specific on for our next committee meeting, or even if we could kind of have an update on that in two weeks, just so we can kind of understand, you know, I think it's especially when I look at mixed use three in either option A or B, I could certainly see it kind of on that. more northern side of Mystic, and I'm curious to get a little more specific on where we could see that, where we could see developers opting into that. And I'll hold my further two cents for, I'll go to, Paula, do you have a quick response or, okay, then we'll go to Councilor Callaghan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Pella. And yeah, I think that is kind of one of our three critical decisions, or two or three critical decisions for tonight is, do we have mixed use four north of Mystic, or are we leaving that to mixed use three? And I do think part of my question on that, I like the ideas that have been posed so far. I certainly, I think that considering mixed use one for that area along Hicks, close to the park, the school, the housing, makes a lot of sense. kind of for the same motivations that we're putting Mixed Use 1 at the west end of Mystic. I think that putting Mixed Use 1 close to that, it's kind of a hub there. It's close to where a lot of streets join. We are starting to see some really nice ground floor commercial up at that joining. So I think that for a lot of reasons, changing that little elbow to Mixed Use 1 could improve either option. I'd personally like to know a little bit more about how life science and research could figure into mixed use three or the north side of Mystic. In either case, I'll go to Councilor Callahan and then President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: And if I could just jump in here before I hand it over to President Bears. In my understanding, like the way that these options unamended are presented to us right now, we could still like mixed use four, whether it's on both sides of Mystic or just one, developers could opt in to put life science and research there. It's just a question of, are we creating that kind of like natural environment on just the South side or on the North side as well? If it's the case that mixed use three is not exactly telegraphing life science to developers.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. So there's, I think, to add to the things on the table, there's a suggestion for this more streamlined way of defining maximum height to allow for that flexibility, especially in, which maybe would most come into play in mixed use four.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, so I really appreciate that and I think that was I think that was really well said and echoes you know kind of a lot of our goals with how to make sure that we are enticing the development that we really want and need to be seeing. here specifically. I think that general point of discussion is a really important one. For me, it further endears me to option B because I think it's extremely worth considering how much kind of zoned for commercial, telegraphing commercial is enough or too much. And this is already kind of further cordoning off that commercial specific to just the south side of Mystic. I wouldn't be a proponent necessarily of having no commercial zoning necessarily. I don't think that we need to go that far, but I feel comfortable, especially if we're, you know, amending this proposal such that it's kind of more clear where life science fits in and making it more flexible to include life science and research, putting that commercial zone how it currently is in option B, but with the carve out for perhaps mixed-use one along the park school housing area along Hicks Avenue. In terms of what we have, just to quickly gloss over, not comprehensively, what we've spoken about so far and some of the ideas that have been put on the table. Councilors. We know that we want to see this amended to include a definition of life sciences in the use table. I think we want to see that alternate way of defining maximum height for mixed-use 3 and commercial to allow that flexibility. It sounds like there's a lot of interest in seeing that carve out for mixed-use 1 along HCSAV and commercial like we were just talking about. And then I think we're going to come back to President Bears' suggestion about potentially, for the purposes of this proposal, just moving forward the highlighted parcels within the potential parcels for inclusion around Harvard, Alexander, and Bonner. Just to, yeah, great. Great. So just to, I just want to recenter us on kind of the questions that we need to make sure we answer tonight to move this forward. It sounds like we're approaching consensus on what we want to motion out as next steps for our zoning consultant in terms of land uses and proposed added parcels that we haven't taken motions on any of that yet. We haven't spoken as much about, we've touched on the setbacks issue. We haven't spoken as much about that. So I want to make sure if there's a discussion to be had about how we handle that issue, I want to make sure we spend some time on that. Go for it.
[Kit Collins]: Would it be possible for you to screen share that, Paola, the table of uses?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. Sorry, those of us behind the rail, myself included, struggled to find that. So I think I just want to get, with this, I just want to get clarity on if we should be taking care in the finalized proposal to be seeing life science included in the table of definitions and also added as allowed uses to mixed use three and four, or if it's already... Right now, manufacturing and research and testing are no, no, no, yes, or special permit.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you all. Um, it sounds like we're getting close to being able to make some motions. I think the setbacks issue can we can we skim over that? It sounds like that's pretty close to dispensed with. Are there questions from Councilors on how to Or Pella, is there a similar kind of like options that you're presenting to us when it comes to the treatment of setbacks in the various land uses along Mystic or?
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, I might have misphrased my question. I was talking about setbacks specifically.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think we can do that really quickly. Can we skim through the issue of the presentation on the setbacks?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think, I think, since the presentation was circulated ahead of time, if it's possible, Paola, to just kind of give us the comparison on what's, what's the difference between the two options for property owners, what's the difference in streetscape, and what is your recommendation?
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Can I jump in here? Yeah. I think I keep missing the second half of each of these options that we're setting up. With option A, is it the case that we have this 15 feet of curb and then we also get Do we have 15 feet of sidewalk in any case under this proposal, and then we maybe get three feet more depending on the negotiation with the property owner? I'm confused about what the difference is between these two. Could you make it even simpler than you're already doing?
[Kit Collins]: Is the difference in what we are asking of the property owners and how that setback curb zone is designated, like this is your building setback versus this is your property but you're designating it as an active pedestrian zone and just like how we're referring to it.
[Kit Collins]: I see. I mean, if option A is more, it sounds like you think it'd be more streamlined, which I'm always persuaded by.
[Kit Collins]: Are there further questions or comments from councillors on these kind of, it strikes me that the The resident experience for people walking down the sidewalk will not be much changed from option A versus option B. As one Councilor, I'd be comfortable with moving forward with trying to see if we can make option A happen pending Paula's future research. And then we can, you know, over the next, I guess that'd be two or three weeks, and then see what's possible for the final package on the 23rd. Are there additional questions or comments on this from Councilors? Or do we feel comfortable with putting that pin in it, seeing some thumbs up. Great, thank you for that explanation. So we have some resolution on the question of setbacks. I know President Bearss is working on a motion on land use, and then it sounded like there wasn't a lot of quarrel with the idea of for the proposal coming to us in a month, including just the highlighted parcels. inside those proposed additional parcels being added to the Mystic Ave corridor area, which satisfies my list of three questions that we absolutely had to speak to tonight. Paola, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that. Great, thank you for that substantive overview of a lot of what's before us for in the Stick Up corridor. This is really exciting. I know there were some motions in the works. I can't make motions from the chair. Any further questions, comments from councilors? I'm also happy to go to public participation while folks are thinking. Could you do that? And then I'll do the motions. Great. I'll open it up for public participation on this topic. If you're in person, you may approach the podium. I will recognize you if you're on Zoom, please click the raise hand button and I will recognize and unmute you. For public participation, everyone who wishes to speak has three minutes to speak their mind on this topic. Not seeing any hands raised, I'll give it a second for folks to find the button if they're looking. While I'm vamping, I'll just note that As Paola mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, our planned agenda for our next committee meeting, which is October 8th. So Innes Associates will be working on finalizing what comes out of this meeting into a final proposal for us to review on Mystic App Corridor. So at our next meeting on October 9th, I think our plan is again to revisit the topic of green score. which we touched on, I think it was two meetings ago now, or maybe just one, as well as our housing definitions. And I will make sure that all the documents that this committee received or looked at in committee around those two topics are recirculated to Councilors ahead of time so that we can come in ready to make some decisions and ask some really good questions around green score and housing and get those Moving along as well, so that green score, the housing definitions, and the Mystic Avenue zoning proposal can all be reported out as a package on October 23rd, if we should move that way. I misspoke, it's just October 9th.
[Kit Collins]: Green score and- And housing definitions.
[Kit Collins]: And we are hoping to have a finalized proposal. We are planning to have a finalized green score proposal to potentially report out on October 23 at the same time as Mystic Avenue zoning. Great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I see a second from Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Yeah. Great. Thank you so much for the clarification. All right. So that's a second from Councilor Callahan on President Bears' motion. We're not hybrid tonight, so unless anyone requests a roll call vote, all those in favor?
[Kit Collins]: All opposed? Motion passes. Great. Well, I'm really excited to leave this meeting with a clear set of next steps on zoning for the Mystic Ave corridor. Really excited to review that final proposal ahead of our committee meeting on the 23rd. Really excited to move forward a more specific plan for green score as well as shoring up our housing definitions on October 9th. Like I said, I'll make sure that all of our documents around green score and housing definitions are forwarded to Councilors ahead of time so we can review and come prepared. I just want to thank Paola and Jimmy from Innes Associates so much for your hard work in helping us get to this point. This is the culmination of not just nine months of work on zoning in this committee, but also incorporating many, many years of community outreach and planning as a community-wide process. Thank you for going through that with us, and thank you, of course, Director Hunt and Planner Evans for shepherding us through this work. Any final comments from councilors? Do I have a motion? Motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? All opposed? Meeting is adjourned.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Ken, just want to thank you so much for once again coming before the council to, you know, for folks who don't already know some of that history and context about the Chevalier, and for folks who know a little bit, maybe know it as an event venue, but haven't interfaced with what a community center it is and how much good it provides, not just as an entertainment center in Medford Square, but as a historic piece of property that's utilized by so many types of people. in our community with our neighbors. I think it's always great to shine a spotlight on that, and thank you so much for your work.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, Councilor Tseng, thank you so much for bringing this forward. As time goes on, it seems to me, I notice in lots of ways how much easier it is to be destructive than it is to be constructive or to do good or proactive things. case in point, you know, we have this hateful, divisive, self-serving, disgusting language, especially when it's propagated by national figures, that can very rapidly escalate to real harm against real people. It is much easier to say something horrible to trump up feelings in your base to achieve some kind of political ends than it is to use words to cultivate a society where people really are welcomed, really are supported, really are brought together, so easy to be divisive, so hard to cultivate genuine and true inclusivity. And I think we see that in lots of ways. But all that being said, I think it is still really important for bodies such as ours to try to counter that negative, hateful rhetoric with positive rhetoric whenever we can at every opportunity. Often it's in reaction to something that should never have been spoken. So I thank you for the opportunity for us to affirm as a city council, one, unequivocally condemning this incident that happened in Ohio and the harm that was caused and those who sought to enrich themselves politically because of it and to stand with people who are affected by that. And also to affirm here in Medford, whether you were born here or not born here or not born in this country, you're part of this community. We're so glad you're here. Let's stay together. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the opportunity.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. At the Planning and Permitting Committee meeting last week, the topic that we discussed with our zoning consultant was green score and incentive zoning. This was kind of a preliminary discussion on both of those topics. And so we will be meeting about them again before we take any votes. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for appearing before us today. And I definitely appreciate, you know, the spirit of compromise with the amended proposal that you put forward. I think that, you know, Councilor Scarponi brings up, you know, one of the most important things before this council, which is just making sure that the special permits that we extend are consistent. I appreciate the research that you and your company did to see what other what special permits have been granted to other restaurants to kind of keep in line with those norms. I personally, I think that I would be willing to approve this tonight and perhaps attach a 30, 60 and 90 day review to it so that we could continue to keep in contact with city partners and local residents and as you say, you know, collaborate to if there are issues arise because of the Midnight closing Monday through Thursday and 1 a.m. Closing Friday Saturday Sunday We can return and adjust that at those intervals But before putting forward a motion, I'd be happy to hear opinions from my fellow councillors Thank You Vice President Collins, Councilor Leming
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I definitely appreciate the discussion around this and completely respect my councilors' various perspectives on the issue. I would motion to approve the amended petition pending the public comment period and with the 30, 60, and 90-day review attached.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think anything that the city can do to make it easier for residents and visitors to enjoy our public spaces, we should at least look into doing. Totally hear Councilor Tseng when he says, you know, nobody's under the impression that this is something we could roll out in six months. Of course not. But, you know, all the more reason to start the conversation in partnership with city partners to see, you know, what can we learn from our neighboring communities that are rolling out this kind of program more and more so that we can, you know, kind of keep up with our with our regional neighbors and being able to offer that to people in our public spaces.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Appreciate you being with us today, Director Blake, and for communicating about this ahead of time. My only major question going into this appropriation request was essentially why this, why no. I think that's been laid out very clearly. This is, you know, This is an example of one of the reasons that I'm so glad that this council in partnership with the administration was able to finally set up a capital stabilization fund this year because this, it seems to me from the description given safety really is substandard at this location it's really important that we take an opportunity to bring it up to par and so important that we have funds to pay for those improvements that we can actually access, which is not the case with a free cash balance. We wouldn't be able to access it to leverage it for this project, and safety would go on being compromised or substandard at this location, and that's just not what our residents of this city deserve. So I am very excited to take our first couple of votes this evening on, I think, what are very worthy capital stabilization fund appropriation requests. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to my fellow colleagues for a substantive conversation around this paper. I just wanna recenter that we are talking about capital stabilization fund appropriation requests and not an override and not about financial mismanagement of which there's been no evidence in the city. I would motion to approve the papers before us.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for the context and kind of speaking to how this is grounded in not just decommissioning a vehicle that's been in heavy rotation for such a long time, but bringing us closer to our local climate goals and keeping in line with the state climate goals as well. Of course, we want to be keeping up with our municipal neighbors and doing our part as a municipality. This seems, as you outlined, there's no other funding for this, and this is something that we need, and something that we need, I think, in terms of municipal timelines fairly urgently. With that in mind, I think this vote to me is unambiguous, and I would actually like to make a motion to reconsider the previous vote to sever. To me, these are both slam dunk. I think we should consider them at the same time. So that's a motion to reconsider. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: I will restate my motion to approve both of the appropriation requests before us.
[Kit Collins]: I have some ideas and suggestions in just a little bit more context that I'm ready to share, but I do want to just pause and invite through the Chair, Director O'Connor to speak first because her department is so intimately involved in both all the work that they're already doing all the time to try and respond to COVID-19 the pest issues that arise from overgrowth and also just the public access issues that arrive from overgrowth. And then of course, how this dovetails with the rodent mitigation issue. So I'm happy to pause there and I can pick it back up with sort of more perspective, more context on this and some specific proposals.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for that overview, Director O'Connor. Really appreciate it. Appreciate the work that you and your team are doing all the time on rodent mitigation efforts in our community. Super important now more than ever, it seems. So I want to just to kind of orient us with What we're looking to do here may be helpful if I just kind of step back to that kind of 30,000 foot view to talk about kind of the multiple, again, just touch on all the multiple motivations for the Overgrowth Ordinance, and then walk through some of the suggestions that I've heard from Director O'Connor and the administration about amendments to the Road and Control Ordinance. with an eye towards kind of having this be a conversation, an initial conversation where we can try to flesh out that list of what needs to be introduced in the new ordinance, make sure we have everything on paper of what ought to be added to the rodent control ordinance, and just figure out what are those items that need to be drafted? What are those questions that need to be answered? And indeed, if there's an amendment that should be added to, for example, the wildlife feeding ordinance, to make sure that that goes into this account as well that we kind of have our punch list of legislative additions or tweaks to make. So if it's all right with you as chair, I'll just start and run through that list quickly, starting with the overgrowth ordinance. And again, just to kind of set the table. I started hearing about the need for an overgrowth ordinance a year or two ago, and actually when it first kind of came across my desk, it wasn't really related to the rodent problem specifically, but rather that people were noticing spots in the neighborhood where certain properties, neglected properties, perhaps with out-of-town property owners, where vegetation was growing, so abundantly that it was actually blocking the public right away, it was blocking the sidewalk. And it's my understanding that the building department code enforcement lacks sufficient language in our code of ordinances to actually be empowered to enforce around that. For me, even just the public access issue is kind of sufficient. I think that this is one of those areas where if it's not a problem, it's not a problem. But if a sidewalk is being blocked and somebody can't walk there or push a stroller there or roll their wheelchair there, the city needs to be empowered to intervene. And then of course, as Director O'Connor mentioned, this dovetails with the rodent control issue and that a lot of these overgrown areas also make it really hard to keep the lid on the rodent population. And I think it's kind of important to just keep observing that when it comes to rodent mitigation, We have to do a better job overall citywide because you know, none of our lovely wildlife that we have in the city observe, you know, boundaries between public property and private properties and different lots like we do as humans. So we need to be doing a better job of making sure that if there's a problem on private property, on commercial property, that is really causing for neighbors or that is really undermining citywide effects to keep the rodent population in check. We just need reasonable tools to be able to enforce around that.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a really thanks for asking sort of like the important preliminary question of why is this an issue to begin with? I'll defer to Director O'Connor to give a more intelligent answer on like, why is this an issue in why is this an issue in the city when it's not an issue in the fells, like to put it simply. But in terms of the scope of the overgrowth ordinance, I would want to, I think this is one of the kind of scope issues that I'd want to drill down on in committee and with legal counsel. But in my impression, kind of our scope here would be to have this be dealing with issues on private property inclusive of residential and commercial that are either causing public health hazards. This pertains to kind of our list of nuisances that are currently in the city ordinances or that are blocking public right of way. And I think that's where the distinction between nobody's gonna be enforcing an overgrowth ordinance in like conserved land on the fells. It's an issue of making sure that if there's a plant originating on private property, that's impeding public property where we all have a right to be able to access, that's the issue we need to be able to deal with.
[Kit Collins]: Exactly. And before I pass it over to Director O'Connor, just to shore up that point, when I spoke to code enforcement about this last year, they shared that Summerville has template language that we might look to. And just for example, their overgrowth ordinance or their analog for it says, no person in control of any property abutting a sidewalk or public right of way shall allow to remain uncut or any overgrowth of grass, shrubs, weeds, et cetera. growing in or around such sidewalk or public right-of-way. So this is really just about making sure that what originates on private property does not trammel on public property. It has nothing to do with landscaping or the visual appeal or cutting branches up in the fells or anything like that.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, no, thank you for doing that. So I think that to me, I think the kind of the scope and intent of an overgrowth ordinance feels pretty clear to me from conversations with partners and city staff. In terms of next steps of putting pen to paper. I think it makes sense for this council to look at language that's been adopted by our neighboring municipalities that are, of course, you know, reacting to all the same issues, whether it's maintaining access on public property and mitigating rodent populations. In a review of Somerville's ordinance that touches on this, which is their section 9-56, it essentially says what we went over before, which is You're not allowed to have overgrowth on your private property be impeding upon the public right of way. If you own a property that has vegetation in such a way that it is a harborage for animals in such a way that could become a public health hazard like, and this doesn't necessarily mean to be need to mean rats, but for example, if you have large pools of standing water, that might be something that the Board of Health would want the ability to look into, especially this year. That's just an example, but I'm just thinking of other relevant, relevant nuisances bordering on public health hazards. Essentially, it's covering all of these ways that there could be circumstances on private property in which the Board of Health would want to intervene because it's posing a nuisance or potential health hazard. If there are any violations, then, you know, fines can occur and those fines go into a specific fund. So I think that that is a pretty straightforward template that we can use. I think that a next step for this council would be to draft an initial version of said ordinance with everything that we typically see in our ordinances, definitions, scope and intent, running through that list of if thens, here's whys. The enforcing body, and I would wanna make sure that we're having a discussion with Director O'Connor about what other partners in City Hall should be involved, if any, for example, code enforcement or DPW, because this does involve the public way. And then just to make sure that we're really specific on that language about enforcement, fines, and the rodent control fund that Director O'Connor has suggested that any fees and fines go into. I'd be happy to propose a motion that as sponsor of the paper I, you know, review neighboring municipalities ordinances to create this first draft of the overgrowth ordinance in collaboration with Director O'Connor. Once this committee has had, you know, our full conversation on and consensus on what the scope of that should be, but I would be happy to if such a motion were passed, I'd be happy to take that on so that at our next meeting on this topic, the committee could consider a first draft and kind of iterate from there.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Um, before I put forth the motion, um, Director O'Connor, I didn't catch the specific name of the fund that we're talking about. Would you mind repeating that? Is that the rodent control fund?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I found the precise term, if needed.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you so much. I appreciate this. committee being willing to take up both topics at the same time, I think that there, as Director O'Connor and others in city administration have noted, they're so related that I really, I think I appreciate the opportunity to consider them both at the same time. On the rodent control ordinance, so that already exists, that is, let me pull it up, That's article five is our rodent control ordinance and our stuff on Unicode. And essentially the goals here and updating it as I understand it is to work with the health department and code enforcement, perhaps DPW on amendments that will enforcement so that we can improve those outcomes. I think that there, it seems like there are some kind of essentially holes in the ordinance like Director O'Connor mentioned, expanding this to include, touch a little bit more on private properties. Again, I think when it comes to rodent control, it strikes me as kind of a of that like Swiss cheese method of problem solving where we need to layer things on top of each other. And if enforcement on residential areas is missing from our current ordinance and that undermines what we're trying to do in more business areas, commercial areas, development areas, etc. And in addition, those updates to make sure that the fines as much as possible finds collected for violations of the ordinance are going back into this fund that gives the city more capacity to do those reactions and preventative measures that will hopefully make us a. more rat-free community in the future. So, Director O'Connor, you mentioned before that kind of list of amendments that you had suggested to me. I have those before me. I'd like to invite you to run through them if you'd like to. I can also just kind of quickly run through them, and then you can chime in. Up to you. Vice President, go for it. Sure. Great, thank you. So first, to touch on the issues of the fines and the funding, we talked about including the overgrowth ordinance, writing that in such a way that the revenue collected through those violations will also go into the fund established by the Rodent Control Ordinance. Same for that for the Wildlife Feeding Ordinance. So just to get those two out of the way first, those include amendments to other ordinances. On the Rodent Control Ordinance itself, there's the suggestion to add IPM fees collected by the Rodent Control Ordinance to also go to the Rodent Control account because currently, so currently the fees don't go to the account, but the fines do. And actually, if I could pause there, Director O'Connor, if you don't mind breaking down for us the difference between fees and fines with the enforcement of the ordinance, I think it'd be really helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much. So as I understand it currently, so these kind of larger scale ventures, a utility company opening a road, a major development, places that have dumpsters, there are fines associated with doing those types of activities or being that type of entity in Medford. They're permitted as such, and there's a fine attached to Wait, is that the, that's the fee, that's not the fine.
[Kit Collins]: Fees associated with that, those fees are already earmarked into the road and control account. And what we're talking about is adding in.
[Kit Collins]: Did I say it wrong again?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, I see. Currently fines are included and fees are not, but the suggestion is to include fees as well. Correct. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Great. Thank you, Director O'Connor. So it seems to me that on that point, the Road and Control Ordinance already has it set that fines for violation of the existing ordinance go into the Road and Control Account, and what we're looking to do is make sure that IPM fees are also going into that account to fund more mitigation. Great, we'll work to include that. We can work to include that language. Next, there's a suggestion that the roading control fee schedule for public works street openings should be changed to a minimum of $250 plus $1 per foot with no maximum. I do understand that that suggestion came from the city engineer's office. If you're able to speak to that, that would be great. And if you could point me to I'd wanna make sure that I'm clear on, I believe it's section 6112B currently in the Road and Patrol Ordinance. That'll be changed by that. But I wanna make sure that we're tweaking the right section.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Absolutely, yeah, I apologize for not doing that prior to the meeting. I'll send this list of suggestions from Director O'Connor to the committee via the clerk. Thank you for that explanation, Director O'Connor. And I also want to note that I think this seems to me to be pretty aligned with the work that we have begun to do in the Administration and Finance Committee of updating fee schedules across many city departments, where when we do take a look, we realize that these are kind of insufficient to cover administrative costs or out of step with what most other of our neighboring municipalities are charging for similar circumstances or similar services. So it's my understanding that the roading control fee for street openings relates to this because I mean and a lot of people unfortunately know this because they're living it in Medford but when a street is open when there's major drilling or some such, that displaces the rodent population and then it becomes an issue. And so it's my understanding that this is another thing that is kind of very directly related to presence of rodents, rodent issues for residents, and certainly seems reasonable to me to kind of raise the floor on that.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. I'll continue, I think there's just a few more. The next suggestion touches on adding a residential component to the road and control ordinance, which should reference compliance to the, you know, to be drafted overgrowth ordinance and the existing wildlife feeding ordinance, but should also touch on the storage of debris or refuse on residential properties. Specifically noted, which Director O'Connor brought up earlier, is that we need some solid language that when a trash barrel has a hole in it, it must be replaced within 15 days. And I understand that that's being suggested because there's kind of a specific problem around there being holes in trash barrels and them not getting replaced. And it's kind of a banal thing, but that is a way that rats stay happy. So we need to find a way to give the city a tool to make sure that's happening when it needs to happen. This would also touch on the mismanagement or excessive trash on private property, residential property, again, mandatory replacing damaged barrels, as well as, you know, giving the city tools to step in when there are boroughs on private property that are just not being treated. And, you know, kind of an additional stipulation that, you know, if there are other sundry conditions that are deemed conducive to rodent activity, again, overgrowth, overly abundant fruit trees, standing water, all these things that can, you know, create the right environment, that that the health director and other city partners are enabled to step in when these conditions are creating an issue. Director O'Connor, I know that there was also, I'm curious with the residential component to hear your thoughts on the enforcement piece of this and also kind of some guidance on what you think would be actionable and fair in terms of, you know, fines and penalties. I also know there's a suggestion to increase fines for violations on larger properties as opposed to smaller ones, like larger apartment buildings, as opposed to one or two families. Could you speak a bit to that?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Director O'Connor. And I think that this is, I think that a lot of these suggestions are ones where again, At least just to get the source material for what this council will what this committee will look at, we can be looking to neighboring municipalities for language that's already being used enforcement amounts fine amounts to make sure that that is kind of. standard with our neighbors. And of course, since you know, just like this is not a neighborhood issue, but a city issue, this is not a one city issue, but a regional issue. So I think in general, where there are opportunities to align with what our neighboring communities are doing, hopefully that will make that will help us all help each other and kind of keep consistent. One specific question that I have on the enforcement mechanism for if we're adding a residential component, Director O'Connor, I'm curious if you see the health department being the main enforcing body for this section of the ordinance, or if it should also be inclusive of, for example, code enforcement, DPW, what would your perspective on that be?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Director O'Connor. I'm glad you raised that. Definitely something to put a flag on is what exemptions or exceptions or just helpful programs we can make sure exists in the language so that for folks who, you know, with all best intentions, don't have the same kind of means to respond to the new stipulations of the ordinance, that we're working with them on solutions instead of finding them where that isn't really fair.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate that. I think Director O'Connor has been really proactive in bringing forward some suggested amendments for the rodent control ordinance. And I think I see these as being really closely aligned. So I hope that kind of working on the overgrowth ordinance updates the rodent control ordinance and perhaps adding that line about the fund to the wildlife feeding ordinance as well. Project that this committee recently completed. To me, as one Councilor, it seems really clear what we have to do here, so I hope that we can get these additions and amendments done pretty quickly. So I would offer another motion, or maybe it's one motion, to approve. authorize myself as sponsor of the papers to draft suggested language, discuss with department heads, and potentially submit first drafts for legal review before our next meeting on these topics.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Before I motion to adjourn, unless any of my fellow councilors have something else to add, I just wanted to also thank Director O'Connor for your stalwart efforts on this and being one of our city's foremost defenders against rats. But seriously, thank you for reaching out to the council about this ordinance project that can help you and your team, code enforcement, DPW, continue to do the work that you are trying to do.
[Kit Collins]: actions or on the questions that, um, how opposed comes to present bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. For myself, I agree, I think that This is a less is more situation, especially when we consider that any sort of green score that we do apply is a big improvement in terms of the new features and benefits that will get from that over what we currently have, which is you know we don't have this type of worksheet we don't have these types of regulations right now. So I think that the most important, my number one priority is kind of making sure that we are crystal clear on what goes on to that worksheet, what are the goals and the priorities that we're formulating the rubric around. I agree, I think that we could have, there's certainly a lot of rabbit holes to get into, especially we I'm sure we could have a very fun conversation about exactly what types of plants and trees we'd like to see in different districts around the city. But I'm going, you know, as one Councilor, I think I'll challenge myself to take this big picture. I'd be curious to hear from city staff on that question of if we're, you know, if we're trying to pick three major topics that we want to organize the rubric around, whether it's heat mitigation, functional landscapes or another feature on the question of, you know, capacity for managing this policy. How much do we think that we can fit on the menu? What feels like the most important thing to have on it in terms of goals?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, I'll recognize Planner Evans.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Daniel. I appreciate that. I'm hearing that in terms of capacity and making this doable. Apart from, let me know if I'm mishearing you, apart from the rubric of the green score itself, having a metric that just quantitatively says if a property, if a site is subject to green score or not would also be helpful so that that's not getting into the more arbitrary using your best judgment side of things, which would add another layer. Is that correct? Yep, just making it super clear. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I think that if we are, I think that it'll be important to have a very, very clear user-friendly frame around what properties are subject to this and which are not, if we're getting into, you know, drawing lines around. If this is to be not a universal policy, which it seems like, Paul, please correct me if I'm wrong, in all the cities that you gave example from, it sounded like it was targeted at larger developments and that size threshold was different based on district and building usage. Is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: In the examples that you reviewed, it's true that in each case, green score only kicks in for buildings over a certain size threshold, but that size threshold is different depending on the zoning district.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. Well, I think for myself, again, trying to thread that needle in between pie in the sky, let's use this mechanism to, you know, robustly elicit more of the things that we know we want to see in our city between we have the staff that we have and let's make this a policy that we can really put into action and make sure that this is manageable for, you know, developers of all sizes in Medford. You know I'm inclined to have green score focus on, you know, greening our urban landscape here in Medford focused on functional landscapes that bringing more diversity to the green spaces that we do have on our lots apart from just lawns which don't improve the environment as well as some other options as well as, I think, mitigating the urban heat island effect is really important and some of those. Greening the landscape options are, of course, you know, rhyme very well with that goal. When it comes to how far should this extend, where should this kick in, and how ambitious should we be, I'm kind of of two minds. I think that You know, we can look at what's simple to implement and then think about like the consequences to city staff and the consequences on, you know, smaller scale developers. It's interesting to note that in some of all the supplies to all districts and to note that smaller scale development, you know, those small development projects are still going on at the same time. I think that there's also an argument to be made for this having kick in concurrent with site plan review, especially if we're hearing from planning staff that that's what's doable. Though I do like the idea of expanding this to all new development in the city. I think that that might have to be paired with maybe for a small development, you only have to reach like 50%, for example, whereas for a big commercial development, we'd want them to get all the way to 100. And I think we need to think through how to change the score depending on the size of the development without making it confusing or onerous. I'm curious to hear from my fellow Councilors if we have general agreement on at least the goals of functional greening and heat island effect and to kind of try to reach a decision about how far this should, how maximally this should apply to districts and developments in Medford. Any other considerations from our fellow councillors at this time on this topic? President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: Okay. All right, I'm hearing consensus around prioritizing. Councilor Callahan, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Councilor Callahan. I caught that, were other people able to? Okay, okay, great. We got you, Councilor Callahan, yeah. All right, great. Well, Paola, thank you so much for this overview. I'm really excited to work together on a policy that focuses on mitigating urban heat island effect, functional greening of the landscapes that runs concurrent with site plan review. In terms of next steps, I am curious, what does a green score policy look like on the city council side? Is this a matter of just putting enabling legislation into our code of ordinances and then like the planning department develops the rubric based on our priorities or do we get into that level of specificity. In a language proposal on as part of this process. Paula, sorry, that was to you. What can we expect in terms of... Sorry.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great, thank you so much. Appreciate that, look forward to next steps. I understand our next topic on the agenda is, would that be incentive zoning? Yes. Great, I believe we have public participation on this item, so just quickly before we go on, Gaston, if you'd like to be recognized, you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Paola. All right, let's get on to incentive zoning. Thank you. Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Paola. On the last question, yes, we should do incentive zoning. I think it's a very well-suited for Mystic Valley Corridor and other areas of the city. Just quickly before I recognize Councilor Leming, just for my notes, was that example from Portland, Maine or Portland, Oregon?
[Kit Collins]: All right, that's okay. Probably main then. Councilor Leming, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paula. I recognize President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: I agree. Great. Thank you. Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And yeah, I think what I keep coming back to in this conversation is, we're talking about a mechanism that is mostly going to be seen and useful in those zones where there is a larger potential discrepancy between minimum allowable by right height and that maximum bonus height. That's our squares and our corridors, especially the corridors. that are currently a mix of or aspiring to mixed use and commercial. And so thinking about it in those terms, focusing it there, I think that this makes sense to target on the squares and corridors, because that's where we really have the space in terms of those potential bonuses to curate that tight list of priorities, but know that at development of those scales, we might be able to see developers who are able to have those negotiations to get affordable housing and some dovetailing with investments in transit street infrastructure, because to me that's really the use case of this. So I agree with what my colleagues have said. I'm really excited to see this pushed forward and I think that this is going to harmonize really well with some of the other incentive schemes that we're working on and kind of thinking of site plan review as a bit of a like organizational mechanism. I know that we're considering a bunch of different incentive schemes now, but I hope that there's, you know, I think that we can stay in conversation about how to make sure that that process stays streamlined so that it's achievable for planning staff and, you know, becomes a legible, followable rule book for developers. It seems like we have a path forward on this. Any further comments on incentive zoning from councilors, staff, Paola, do you feel like you have a read on where we're at on this?
[Kit Collins]: Definitely. Thank you, Mr. Pierce. Great, well, thank you for laying out the next steps on that, Paola. Really excited to start reviewing draft language around a incentive zoning policy and get into the details on exactly what districts that we discussed will comprise it. Thank you so much. Let's move on to our next agenda item.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you for making that determination. I appreciate it. I'm not sure who it was that told me condo conversion was definitely a zoning ordinance, but whoever it was, it was two years ago. I'm shaking your head. I wasn't accusing you, definitely wasn't you. All right, great. Let's move on to housing definitions. Thank you so much, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Can I just cut in here? Can you just begin with a little context on, are these all new definitions that we're considering adding to our zoning bylaws to have them in place when new zoning ordinance makes reference to them? Or is there other context that we should know about these?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. And if that sounds good to my fellow councillors, just with understanding, I know you've had a very long day of public meetings, I'd love it if you could give us an overview of these. And then if councillors have questions on where the definition came from or want to get more into the weeds, please just wave your hand at me and we can pause there. But otherwise, I think we can just go through the definitions themselves.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. Yes, like Councilor Callahan, I think, you know, this is the type of thing that I can't really digest for the first time in a meeting. I think now that we know that committee members have these range of options, we can consider these, come back at a future meeting and I'm sure we can quickly arrive at a consensus for which it makes sense to go with and come back with more informed considered opinions on modifying some of these examples and making sure that all the best parts from different cities templates are present in the definitions that we go with, and of course, we'll want to also consider the expertise of city staff when we're putting forward new definitions into our zoning code. Any other initial comments? And Paola, I believe I have a file of this PowerPoint from just before our meeting, so I'll make sure that's circulated to committee members so that folks can have time to review this before we consider it again. Thank you. Any other comments on this topic tonight?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. Seeing no other comments from councilors at this time. Paolo, is this the last item on our agenda for tonight? I think you're gonna just touch base on the status of corridors for our next committee meeting in two weeks, but we'll be saving our substantive conversation for then, is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. We look forward to that. Um before a solicit any final thoughts from
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Gaston. All right, well, thank you all so much for this robust discussion, kickoff discussion about green score and incentive zoning and I'm glad we got to lay eyes for the first time on those new additions to housing definitions within our code of ordinances. I think we have our next steps for our partners in zoning on green score and incentive zoning and really looking forward to getting some draft language on corridors and squares at our next committee meetings. That's a big step forward. And so much of our prep work on zoning this year has been gearing up to those really major goals. So it's exciting to be at this point. Thank you so much to my fellow councilors, city staff for guiding us in this process. And of course, to you, Paola and your team and associates. Looking forward to some really substantive work between mid-November, sorry, mid-September and November. Any further thoughts from my fellow Councilors before we adjourn? Seeing none, do I hear a motion? Motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Leming. And let me check if we are still hybrid.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you Councilor Scarpelli. Whenever you're ready Mr. Clerk. No.
[Kit Collins]: Five in favor, none opposed. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order, I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This was another meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee with the City Council's Zoning Consultant, Ines Associates. I believe at this latest meeting, we were considering potential options for proposed updates to the zoning for the Mystic Avenue Corridor, as well as Salem Street Corridor. These are two of the shared priorities between the City Council, the city's planning department and I know many constituents in the city of Medford. So I'm really glad for the opportunity to prioritize that in our comprehensive look at our zoning and make sure that we are considering many goals and priorities for those two key corridors as we have this opportunity to change the zoning that will inform what it's easy to build and see and experience there. And we will continue meeting with our, as I like to remind us every regular meeting, we'll continue to meet with Innes Associates at least monthly in the Planning and Submitting Committee, including tomorrow night at 6 p.m. Move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. So I've been in conversation with, among other people within City Hall, our Board of Health Director, Health Director, Director O'Connor, about some amendments to the rodent control ordinance that she and her team are seeing on their side that they believe could help them better implement best practices and rules for residents and businesses to be part of our multi-pronged approach at mitigating the growing rodent population in the city. They've identified some changes that we could make within the text of the ordinance that would give them more latitude to enforce, such as how trash receptacles are placed and maintained on property. I've talked to a lot of people in the city and outside about this, and they say one of the problems that we're running into is just that we need to keep it tighter when it comes to how trash and recycling and things that attract rodents, how those are stowed around residential and business areas. So they've identified some changes in the ordinance that they would like for the council to consider that will just make enforcement easier on their side. We're considering a committee meeting date for next week just to get the ball moving on that quickly. And at the same time, I believe we're also going to consider a paper that's already before the council, an overgrowth ordinance, which will have some same hopeful goals of giving the city more tools to where we see those problem areas in the city that are places where rodents are congregating, where the threat population is concentrated, give the city more tools to do enforcement around making sure those are cleaned up so that we're not harboring rodents where we don't need to be. So I would motion to move this to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to suspend the rules to take papers 24463 and then public participation out of order.
[Kit Collins]: A motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for coming tonight I really appreciate it, especially knowing that there is a another even more star studded event that you could have been at tonight thank you so much for coming and speaking to us and, you know, continuing to raise the profile of Australia and in addition to all the work that you and the rest of the board is doing every week and every month we really appreciate it. And I appreciate the, you know, kind of the reminder the call to action of how much this team is doing behind the scenes week in and week out. I know as a Councilor, one thing that I'm that I think we're always keeping an eye on kind of on an annual basis is making sure that the casino mitigation funds I know that there's a portion of that that's earmarked for the Chevalier, we want to make sure that that remains because it's so important for this very uniquely Medford institution to be able to stay important, stay special, and stay competitive when these like very large corporate venues such as Encore do come into the region. In addition, I've always really valued getting those like snapshots of progress and whenever the Chevalier comes forward with the CPA application, It's always like this incredible pamphlet of what's been going on and how much more there is to do, whether it's restoring the building. I know there was a big organ restoration project that was wrapped up the past couple years. Anyway, I know that's just really scratching the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how much is going on behind those doors. every year. So thank you for, you know, platforming the membership drive, the annual meeting. I would love to get more involved and get a little bit more into the details about what you all are working on all the time. I think as Councilors, and especially as, you know, as residents, whenever the Chevalier is bringing in, you know, another great act every weekend, you see the cars. I know there's so often that I'm like walking down Forest Street. I'm like, wow, they got that person? Amazing. What a pull. So it's visible. what an incredible theater this is here in Medford. And, you know, it shouldn't go without saying how much work goes into keeping it that way. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I just wanted to thank you for appearing tonight, and I think my fellow councilor's suggestions are good ones. When we consider special permits like these, we wanna make sure that we're staying within what's been afforded to other nearby residents that we're keeping with precedent that's been established. But I'm sure that we can, like we have in the past, work together with yourself, city staff, residents, to make sure that we seek some sort of compromise that's still an improvement for everybody. Thank you. Of course, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for being present to me. Thank you for your presentation. I'm feeling a little confused about what's changed since, well, I'm not confused about what's changed. I'm a bit confused about why there's been a change since the agreement that the council and the city department came to. With National Grid last fall, I think that you know we had a essentially a contract between the city and National Grid stating the agreement curb to curb and stating these conditions that there would be an equivalent square footage or whatever the proper terminology is in this case that would be restored on adjacent seats close to the affected area. Those are the stipulations that this council added to the special permit. And we've had that in place since November. So I admit I'm a little surprised to hear that characterized as a non-starter now, many months later. To be honest, I still think that the stipulations are very reasonable. I'm a little surprised to hear the notion of this affecting utility rates for Medford ratepayers because we know that rates are not set on a granular city by city basis like that so that strikes me as a surprising thing to hear put forward in a public meeting I don't think that we should be making a decision based on that because we know that's not true. And if I recall correctly from our discussions about this last term. Part of the context around this conversation is National Grid did work in a similar area of Long Main Street quite recently, within five years, so this is asking the Butters to, you know, of course it's all for good reason, but it's asking the Butters to go through that inconvenience, again, in a relatively short timeline, and I think that's why it's important to make sure that if the Butters are to be put through that, that, you know, we get back an appropriate public benefit in the term of that curb-to-curb restoration. And as long as there's work being done, you know, disrupting traffic and neighbors in the area, I think it's appropriate to stick with the original stipulation that we have equivalent square footage restoration in those other areas that the Council stipulated back in November. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Is there work currently scheduled?
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate the councilor for bringing this forward for lots of reasons, including we have so many discussions inside these chambers about the pretty vast budgetary needs facing so many of our city departments, including the four that are specifically targeted by linkage. And we need to be keeping pace with other communities in adopting and evolving to those best practices for how to have sources of revenue that don't just come from sales tax and property tax because our needs are too great. We do have a comprehensive plan, the city of Medford comprehensive plan was put together over the course of several years with a ton of resident feedback. It is on the city website. And there's a lot of really big, beautiful lofty goals for how to evolve the Medford that we love today into the community that we're already striving to become. And we know how much funding and resources those goals take to manifest. And so, I think it's about time that we update this mechanism so that these large developers, the only ones that are targeted by linkage are paying their fair share. And that's really all that this is. And I think it's heartening to know that some of this research was based on the city of Watertown, which in recent years, if anybody's gone down Arsenal Street, they've seen a huge development boom, heartening to see. And I lost the second place that I was going with that font. In terms of the developer experience, I think that, you know, this creates a highly predictable increase that developers can know about. So I don't have any fears attached to this. I'm really glad that we're doing it. Thank you, Councilor Leming, for your leadership on it. And I know that City Hall staff were very helpful in the research as well. So I'll second the motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. So this is a... We're at the... culmination of an ordinance project that began last year in 2023. The idea for a wildlife feeding ordinance was first brought up to me by constituents who were kind of facing this problem firsthand, which I know many people in the city and other cities face, which is there's the wrong kind of animal on my property. It's not a pet. It's not domesticated. I don't want it here. It's a nuisance. It's potentially a health hazard. And Part of the reason that it might be on private property in a residential area in an environment that is not appropriate for humans or for the animal is because there are wildlife attractants out, namely food sources for wildlife. So I discussed this matter with our code enforcement officers, with our health director, Director O'Connor. with other city hall staff and received a lot of really helpful guidance on how to take a model of wildlife feeding ordinances from other cities and environments such as ours and create a mechanism so that city staff have a way to enforce around only inappropriate and problematic feeding of wildlife, the type of which is drawing wildlife. animals that shouldn't be there onto residential areas. What this is not is an ordinance that says you can't have a bird feeder. We specifically say you can have a bird feeder. The health director said we should put in language on there to make sure that bird feeders are constructed properly, that they're not just squirrel feeding devices, because that's also a problem. But this is not an anti-bird feeding ordinance. This is not an anti-pet feeding ordinance. The subcommittee on, or the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety really took its time with this ordinance to make sure that we thought through all the nuances and got the right language with advice from legal counsel on how to make sure that this is targeted, just so that when there is problematic wildlife feeding going on the city has a mechanism to step in first to say, Hey, that's a problem. Please clean up your act. And then if the problem willfully persists to issue a ticket or a fine, and this is all towards the end of making sure that our beautiful private residential spaces in Medford can stay safe for wildlife and also stay enjoyable for the people that live there. So I welcome questions from members of the council, especially those that were not on the committee where this is discussed, but otherwise I would want to thank especially our code enforcement officers, building director and health director, Mary Ann O'Connor, most of all for their guidance and a motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: to thank you so much for all of your work on this program and so many other initiatives. It's great to see Medford beginning to give, you know, our climate and climate adjacent policies the priority that they really deserve and that, you know, our residents deserve and that we need. It's great to see that we're, you know, taking a really granular look at our EB program and say, you know, we need to make sure that this program, you know, kind of reaches that flywheel effect where we are getting the revenue that we need to expand it further and make it ever more easy and convenient to drive an EV in or through Medford. So I really appreciate seeing this before us tonight. Thank you so much for your work and I'd motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for putting this together. I'm looking for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Gaston, if you're interested, I'm happy to share a little bit of the thought that went into this ordinance if you totally hear you. This was kind of the main question that we were keeping in mind when we were crafting this, because for me, The goal is to have an enforcement mechanism for when accidental feeding is going awry without saying, hey, this benevolent thing that you're doing that isn't currently causing a problem, we don't wanna penalize that stuff. So we worked hard to phrase this in such a way under prohibited activity, that section, to say there's no violation occurring until a problem occurs. So for example, if there's a fruit tree, if there's fruit on the ground, If it's not attracting wildlife at such a level where anybody's ever gonna notice or file a complaint, then it's not in violation of the ordinance. Does that make sense? If it's happening and it's not problematic, it's not in violation. If there's a problem going on and the board of health director or the court enforcement offer or the animal control officer visits and says, yikes, this is causing some problems, then if it's not ameliorated, it's a violation. If that doesn't occur, it's not a violation. So I just offer that.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This latest meeting of the Planning and Permanent Committee was once again held with the City Council's zoning consultant. This was kind of a fun and unusual meeting. They arranged for us a mapping workshop where their GIS specialists printed out a whole range of zoning-related maps showing different characteristics of the city from a zoning perspective. everything from lot frontage to average income in different neighborhoods. We spread them all out in tapers in City Hall. We had a lot of department heads, members of the public joined us. It was really interesting. And that discussion and the takeaways and questions that came out of it are going to inform our further committee meetings with the zoning consultant, beginning with the next one, which is tomorrow at 7 p.m. to review the findings and questions from that committee and start going over some of our corridor strategies as well as global strategies for the zoning overhaul throughout the city. So I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to suspend the rules to take papers 24-455, 24-453, and 24-454 out of order. On the motion, I have Vice President Collins to take papers 24-455, 24-453, and 24-454 from the table. Seconded by? Second.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And, you know, as a similar alternative you know I think I know the Election Commission is working part pretty much year round to publicize upcoming elections and, you know, not just make sure that people know the dates on the calendars and where to go but to do things like motor drives, you know if I would offer at the point asking the Elections Commission to add another layer to redouble their existing efforts to make sure that people know when to get out and vote. I would say, you know, there's there's a primary on September 3rd, not just in the 35 Middlesex, you know, it asked me, but we can just extend that to incorporate all voters within the city of Medford. I think everybody more people, you know, that we would think can always use a reminder about when to vote. And that goes for everybody within the city for September 3rd, as well as for the November election this year. So I'd offer as an alternative, you know, I would certainly support any efforts to make sure that people know and have that date circled on their calendar and, you know, not just one district, but citywide. So if we could, if you consider an amendment to have that just be a citywide effort at the point that we're going through the effort of a robocall at all, I'm sure that many voters across the community would benefit from it.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, for the September 3rd primary.
[Kit Collins]: Through the chair.
[Kit Collins]: I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli as well as President Bears for bringing this forward and for being so responsive to, you know, really just the latest wave of resident outreach about this. And I think Councilor Scarpelli is exactly right, you know, I think that the city has been Working hard with the available tools to try to stem the tide of increasing rat populations over the past several years, but it's always seemed to me that our approach is, you know, fundamentally reactive and everybody can everybody can see with their eyes, you know that that isn't doing enough. I think that the idea of a task force is potentially a great idea because there have been so many disparate approaches either tried already in the city or things that have been floated. I think it'd be great to collect some of the topics of discussion from the Solid Waste Task Force, which I was a member of a couple of years ago talking about. you know, how can we make sure that our evolving trash and compost receptacles are getting better and better at being rodent-proof, which is something that they are getting better and better at being rodent-proof, but it's important to share that information with the community whenever we can. I know that there's a lot of pioneering rodent innovations going on in neighboring cities that hear about time to time from residents. One, because they seem more effective than just sending somebody out when we get that latest call about where it's getting especially bad, and because we do want to mitigate the effects on other members of the ecosystem. And I think that we're all aware that just putting out a lot of rat poison is really harmful to the other animals that we do treasure in Medford. So everything takes resources, investing in the right tools and the right systems to really attack this. It's not going to get better without these major institutions pitching in to help us have a more systemic approach. So I would absolutely support this. I thank my fellow councilors for bringing it forward.
[Kit Collins]: Not more, but just I think in terms of what, and I agree, I think that this was a lot of what was kind of negotiated while this new contract was being formed between the city side and waste management. I think that a lot of the provisions and goals, since it just went into effect July 1, are probably still being formulated. But I think in terms of what residents can expect to see, especially in the square specifically, is consolidation, because absolutely when you have one business that has overflow trash cans on the sidewalk, and another that has a dumpster, and then the other one doesn't use that dumpster, they just have a receptacle, and the next one just has a bag. It looks messy, and the more we can just keep everything in one container that really is solid and reinforced, hopefully that'll be, you know, one piece of the puzzle in getting trash off the streets, rats off the streets.
[Kit Collins]: I don't have a question on the resolution specifically. I thank the councilor for bringing it forward. I think that a lot of what we've heard in terms of premises for this conversation, I have an honest disagreement with at the same time. I think that there's a lot of ways for us to have really productive conversations about settlements and liabilities before the city. These sometimes occur in public session. These sometimes occur in executive session. Anytime we are getting more information from the administration as opposed to less when it comes to the city side of things, we have no jurisdiction over the schools. I think that is a good thing. I think that always leaves us better off. That often leaves the atmosphere more productive and collaborative than it was when we were feeling under-informed prior to, you know, whether it's a meeting or a memo or just a substantive update. I think for myself, I feel, I think, across many issues we've all had the experience of feeling under informed on various issues and then we get that bolus of information it's like wow, now we can really have a conversation about this, that leaves me feeling pretty open and flexible when it comes to what type of format or venue we receive information about settlements and liabilities in going forward. This, like a lot of our resolutions, when it comes to making resolutions to the administration, they are essentially requests. We cannot compel reports or requests to be filled by the administration just because of the nature of the way our government is set up. That being said, I hope that the administration takes this request for more information as a in the best faith possible to say, it is better for us when we put our issues out on the table and we're able to have these conversations when there's fewer surprises. And I think that, you know, there's a lot of cliche ways to put this, but I think that we're better when fewer things are in the dark. I think that it's better to shine a light on things that people are hearing about than to, to speculate until kind of a belated information. So that being said, more information is always better. I know that a lot of this is very sensitive, like we saw earlier today. A lot of this has to be discussed in executive session. Some of it, you know, there's some litigations, there's some settlements that always come to the council as a matter of course, we saw that earlier this evening. I always want to correct the record when it comes to what information, you know, the city council does get certain settlements do come before us, we do appropriate. You know, I wouldn't want to put forward a request and also forward the story that, you know, we're in this complete and total information desert in the same way that I, you know, wouldn't want it to go by that, you know, an unusual number for free cash is in some way evidence of financial mismanagement. It's not. We know from communities across the street that this was a banner year for free cash surpluses for many communities. But in the same way, I don't think that we should need to treat settlements and liabilities like something that we cannot talk about and we cannot ask about. I think to the extent that we are able to have a freer flow of information about this with the administration, leave us better off, leave us better able to communicate with the community when there are concerns, be able to say, this is what it really is. you know, and help us dial in on what our real problems are. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I do wanna underline the point, which is reflected in city paperwork, most of which has already been reviewed by the council in public session. If one of the points that this conversation is about is, Is there secret money being spent on settlements that is not known to Councilors, that is not known to the public? I would offer an amendment or a B paper that this information, if it's provided by the administration, also include legal department, budget to actuals for this fiscal years that are being asked about so that we can, we don't have to, I mean, I was going to say we don't have to take it on faith, but it's on the city website already. We get to see it on paper in the packet that we will receive how much money was budgeted for the legal department and how much was spent.
[Kit Collins]: And with that, President Perez, that was the question.
[Kit Collins]: I would put that forward as an amendment if the councilor is open to it.
[Kit Collins]: If I may?
[Kit Collins]: I just want to note, I obviously strongly disagree that there's anything fraudulent going on, but my point with the, including the budget to actuals as context in this information is to illustrate, if we talk about managing money, what does that literally mean? Where the money comes from, where it goes, the budget to actuals, we don't have to talk about how much money is being spent and where does it come from, we can literally see it. And I don't see why that shouldn't be a part of the conversation. And again, we do already have that information, but I think it makes sense to put all the context next to each other. I'm gonna split your paper, George.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for stepping up and putting yourself forward to fill this position. I think we'd be very lucky to have you. I have a motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: 24452, resolution to support question four, limited legalization and regulation of certain natural substances on the November 5, 2024 general election ballot offered by President Bears. Whereas one in three Massachusetts residents struggle with mental health challenges, and whereas pioneering research from Johns Hopkins and Harvard Medical School find that natural psychedelics can be effective in managing treatment-resistant depression and other forms of mental illness, and whereas the FDA recently granted psilocybin, one of the psychedelics, a, quote, breakthrough therapy, unquote, designation for treatment-resistant depression, And whereas the ballot question would create a regulated framework for psychedelic-assisted therapy for adults 21 and older, now therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we support question four, limited legalization and regulation of certain natural psychedelic substances on the November 4, 2024 general election ballot.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Any further comment from members of the council? I have a motion to approve from Councilor Tseng. Is there a second? Seconded by President Bears. Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. I have a hand from Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Seeing no further comments on the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Six in favor, one opposed. The motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: No objection.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I would motion to take from the table and approve for third reading.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take from the table and approve for surgery day. You all right?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, August 14, 2024. This meeting will take place at 7 p.m. in the city council chamber, second floor, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: present, and I see that Councilor Callahan just joined.
[Kit Collins]: Good to go. Great, thank you. Thanks everybody for your patience. The action discussion items for this committee meeting is again 24-033 zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. At our last committee meeting, which was either two or three weeks ago, I forget, we had a really great mapping workshop that Innes Associates prepared. We looked at many different zoning maps displaying different zoning characteristics of Medford together. We split them out along tables in the city council chambers. We could all take a look. Many people made notes, asked questions. This is a forum for kind of more informal dialogue and lodging notes and asking questions of NS associates. So I understand that tonight we'll kind of have a short debrief. of some of the key takeaways from that forum. Of course, there were so many, so I'm hoping that we can just quickly touch on the highlights that will most directly inform the more short-term work ahead of this committee now, which is dealing with discussing and reviewing proposed updates to Mystic Avenue Corridor and the Salem Street Corridor. I believe we're also going to hear an update on the ADUs law that was recently updated at the state level, and perhaps here's some updates on the condo conversion ordinance as well on these topics are all linked because of their relevance to both district and global housing strategies throughout the city. I recognize we are starting a little bit behind schedule which is entirely my fault I apologize. Still since this meeting has a seven o'clock start I'm going to ask that we all make best efforts to wrap this up by 830 because City Hall staff has had a long day, and non City Hall staff has had a long day too. Thank you so much. I'll pass it off to Director Hunt and Planner Evans if you'd like to say anything and then we can just let NS Associates take it away.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. Paola and Jimmy, thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Paola, I really appreciate that thorough overview of what you've been preparing. I know that you've incorporated some of the comments that were most recently raised at our mapping workshop just a few weeks ago. I have a couple comments myself, but I'll go to President Bears first.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Bears and just to follow up on that point, I definitely would be interested to see. I think this is, as I mentioned, I'm really excited by this map I think this is a really important step forward in our, you know, kind of months of talks gearing up to this so thank you so much for this I think this is an excellent draft. As we do consider to continue to iterate on this, you know, since I know, kind of a part of this. project that looms large for all of these sections is the transition between mixed-use 1, mixed-use 2, mixed-use 3, etc. I would be curious to see if we can play around with a bit of a more transitional you know, perhaps mixed use three or two in that section that President Bears was just bringing up. And part of the reason for saying that is just to not want it to feel like a acute difference from one edge of that, you know, highway off-ramp to the other. I really appreciate the focus on walkability on Mystic Ave. And I think that transit is another big piece of that. I know from experience, you know, I think all of us do it is difficult to be a pedestrian. It is difficult to be a pedestrian on Mystic Ave, it's especially difficult to cross, but there are a lot of people who do utilize it because they need to take the bus up and down and they live in the dense housing area. That's just south of there. So kind of thinking about that and thinking about the pedestrians that will be on the street, kind of if there's a way to implement some of that flexibility and mixed use into the commercial zone. I think it would look better, and I think I could see some developers taking us up on that. One last question for me while we're on the topic of the setbacks, just to make sure I'm very clear on what we're talking about in mixed use 1, 2, and 3 with the setbacks. Is it that those are a condition or an incentive for increased height, or are the setbacks that you've prescribed a matter of course, and then the bonus heights come from meeting other criteria? Like, are these setbacks just baked in no matter how high the building is, or does it come in at certain levels of flooring?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that makes sense, too. I just wanted to be clear on that. what the mechanism was for that, but I think that makes a lot of sense. And it is, you know, from one perspective, it is exciting to think about, you know, if this were to be implemented, how the experience of walking or biking or even driving down Mystic Ave might be different in 20 years with more actual space to enjoy. Great. I see a hand up. It is our custom to take public participation at the end of committee meetings, but I know that we're going to be shifting gears pretty soon to the Salem Street Corridor. Do you have a comment? I'm happy to. Is there any further comments from councilors, from city staff, before we move on to the next item in Ines's presentation? President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. Go ahead, Director.
[Kit Collins]: Absolutely. No, I think that stands to reason, and I would agree. I would love to get the ball rolling on that sooner, you know, inclusive of if it's, it sounds like even rough drafts would be very useful to see in the rough stage that we can get a start on all of the accessories that have to be considered at the same time. So I would endorse that request from the planning department. President Bairst, do you have a follow up?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Paula, is there more on this section of the presentation or should we proceed to the Salem Street Corridor?
[Kit Collins]: Great. And actually, I'm going to interrupt you and myself really quickly in the event that this is a public comment on Mystic Gap Corridor specifically. I will recognize you Gaston. Name and address for the record. You have 3 minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola, and I think it's, um, I definitely appreciate the question. I'm hoping that, um, I'm not sure if the appropriate mechanism would be in some design standards phase or potentially as we're getting into other criteria for height, et cetera, bonuses, if we can look to some of the So I'm trying to think of what the right terms for this is ways we can write into our zoning and perhaps this is a site plan review issue ways to kind of incentivize large developments including bike infrastructure or at least kind of like a bike accessory infrastructure on those developments as condition for greater height or just as a from a piece of what we try to incentivize in our development. I think the complicating factor is that Mystic Gap itself is, as we discussed largely, DOT operated, so there's not a lot that we can do in terms of the actual streetscape, but whatever we can do to incentivize making those privately held lots more hospitable for cyclists, I would like for us to look at.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. I appreciate that. With that, let's move along to Salem Street Corridor.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, I'm sorry. Was there more you're going to add just there? Shall I open up to comment from councilors? Good to go. Thank you so much for that overview. Very interesting to consider these two corridors in parallel. I'll go first to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Pamela. Yeah, I think, I think in general and I, this is comes from personal preference and also I think from what we're heard from the community and various forums over the years. I think that broadly our instinct to try and consolidate commercial especially light industrial uses is super intuitive, makes a lot of sense. I also think that where I see the most enthusiasm is for that mixed use. And so even in, you know, kind of what we're considering our commercial nodes, you know, like we mentioned along the stick, the stick out for order, I'd be really excited to see, you know, that flexibility for mixed use. So that existing commercial uses can continue to have on there, continue to cluster with other uses, that makes sense. But that we are kind of leaving a, having our zoning leave a very warm welcome open, a very open door towards that mixed use. And for these nodes being functional commercial hubs without being so obviously commercial that other uses can't picture themselves there. And it's my hope that some of those kind of Unappealingly resolutely industrial areas I'm in care thinking about the bus depot which I think nobody is really happy about. It's just something that we don't have control over right now. I'm hopeful that through zoning the adjacent areas we can hopefully entice the partners that we don't have jurisdiction over to kind of conform with how the neighborhood is changing around that depot and other another outdated uses like it that we'd like to see go somewhere else or be converted into something more useful and more modern.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that, Councilor Tseng. Director Hunt?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Danielle. Yeah, I think this is an important discussion to have. But I think in general, on the issue of how much height can a particular corridor or block support, typically the way I enter into that kind of question is like, I think we all agree on the basic premise of, we need more housing units. We want to do that in a way that's appropriate and sensitive and thoughtful. And when it comes to considering cases that are right now notably higher than average, the question is, what are we getting out of it? What's the value to the community beyond just the units themselves? And that makes me curious to contemplate, what feels like a new, what feels like an appropriate new normal that we can say we feel like this is a slam dunk, we're always comfortable with this, and then for those cases above that, whether that normal is four or five, if not six, maybe it's six, what do we want to get in return if we are going to contemplate letting a developer build above that? And I think that there's a lot that Probably a lot that we have in common that we find intriguing, whether it's parking underneath or some of those public space uses towards the front. President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I appreciate this discussion. I think that more so than Mystic Ave, Salem Street Corridor is a scenario where we kind of have to have a bit more of a confronting conversation around what we'd really like to see here, what is the zoning we could write that could bring that about, what is likely to happen. and make our best studies and guesses at what developers are going to take us up on and what's likely to result from the zoning that we do propose and pass. And so I'm happy that we're having this conversation because I would like us to take a really serious look at what could setbacks do for us? What is our best guess of what could arise in 5, 10, 20 years from that? Is there a meaningful community value that we can expect to get from that in the long term? If it seems like the geography of the corridor that we just can't change unless there's a mass eminent domain campaign, which obviously it's just a joke, I don't mean that, then what is the next best um, strategy for maximizing community value on this corridor. I would love to see more usable public space on this corridor. And everyone, um, I'm glad that we have Innis to help us take a, you know, a really sober look at what's our best chance of achieving that. Um, if it's really hard to do that through the geography, then, you know, we'll continue along our other goals for maximizing, um, residential usage of this corridor. And I think that, um, I'm really excited about the step backs being a component of making the height feel friendly and welcoming and hospitable along this corridor, because we know this is such a dense area of the city already and, and yet it's not enough for all the people that want to live there. And I think that could be a really great tool in our toolbox. So just a quick time check. It is almost 8.40. Paola, I want to pass the mic back to you before we go to public participation and just ask what else you'd like for us to hear to round out the presentation before we close out the meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Paola. appreciate that. And so just to quickly recap, unless there's any further comments by councillors, what we can expect for our next committee meeting on September the 11th. I would love it if we can, you know, return to these topics just briefly to touch on kind of an update to the timeline when we can expect to see just even a beginning or very rough draft, something that planning department can start to chew on. If we can get a timing update at that time, that'd be great. I mean, if we can get drafts before then, even if they're again, even if they're super scrappy, it sounds like even that would be useful. So please do feel free to send those over to myself and planning department. If any initial bullet points become available before that date. We'll also be going over and please correct me if I'm missing anything the condo conversion ordinance housing definitions incentive zoning. Are there any other updates to the corridors plan that we can expect at September 11.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. And that sounds like, uh, more than enough for one meeting. Thank you. I'll go to public participation. Just name and address for the record again. You have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Gaston. I really appreciate that. And yeah, I think we're all. very interested to see more data on the setbacks to inform where we go with this. Thank you very much for your comments. Are there any further comments or questions from councillors this evening? Seeing none on Zoom, would Paolo or city staff have any closing comments to make before we adjourn?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for the advance notice. Well, thank you so much to both of you for being here, for your insight throughout this project. Thank you so much, Paola, Jimmy, and Attorney Silverstein for being on the line with us, as always, and providing expert guidance on these very exciting proposals. Onward. Is there a motion?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by, oh, nevermind.
[Kit Collins]: Motion by Councilor Leming to adjourn, seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Seems she dropped off.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Thank you all, meeting is adjourned.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Sure, thank you, Chair Lazzaro. So I, again, wanna thank the Board of Health Director, Director O'Connor, and Officer Hogan, as well as the Code Enforcement Officers for, I know Director O'Connor is on the call tonight, and other city staff gave some really helpful insight onto this ordinance between, this meeting and our last one when the committee reported out some specific questions for them. So just thank you so much for being here. Thank you for your time and your thoughts on this. Um, at our last committee meeting on this ordinance, which I was, I want to say was in June. It's either late May or June. Um, we had just received the legal review of the draft ordinance, which just as a recap, I, uh, this committee authorized me as lead sponsor to write that, um, which I did pulling from example ordinances from a couple communities, which it sought to create local ordinances towards the same purpose, which is essentially, you know, not to penalize anybody accidentally leaving some, you know, something tasty out for a critter one time, not to penalize your bird feeder, but just to create a legal mechanism so that if there is really inappropriate intentional repeated wildlife feeding going on in inappropriate areas, such as in a backyard in such a way that it is creating a nuisance or creating a health hazard that the city essentially has cover to go and help out residents in those cases where it is getting problematic. So the initial draft of the ordinance came from other communities that created ordinances along the same goals. At our last meeting, we reviewed some initial feedback from city staff. We also reviewed the legal opinion on that draft ordinance. At the last meeting, we also motioned to ask several further questions of city staff, just to kind of run some of that legal feedback by them to get their take on it from an implementation standpoint. So what I have prepared for tonight is a, I did a tracked changes version of the most recent draft of the draft ordinance, which does have the suggestions from legal in there. I also incorporated several of the suggestions that legal made, but didn't draft that city staff then went on to endorse. So what I'd like to do, if this sounds good, is to, I'd be happy to walk us through the track changes version of the ordinance, just so we can see what was suggested by whom. And then at the end, I'd be happy to, you know, entertain motions to adopt as much of the changes the committee agrees. you know, we'd like to include. And I think that, you know, we've had a really robust process so far of getting city staff feedback on this and hearing from residents about why they want this in the first place. So I'd love it if we could kind of review all of the final tweaks and additions tonight, and then hopefully report this out to be reviewed by the full body of the council.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, I will share my screen. Please let me know if this is visible. All right, looks like it is. Okay, I will just start running through this top to bottom. I mean, the ordinance is not terribly long start to finish. Please feel free to interrupt me with any questions or if I should slow down or speed up. So once again, this is the original version of the ordinance with modifications by KP Law and then further additions based on the legal feedback that city staff said they liked and endorsed and thought would find useful. So I'll just go from the top, the purpose section. I don't think this is meant to be deleted. Purpose and intent. I think Attorney Braun from KP Law thought that we should start with a really high level statement of intent. The intent of this ordinance is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community via curtailing the inappropriate feeding of wildlife. We then have some just slight language tweaks to the rest of that section, which was present in my initial draft of the ordinance, just kind of laying the groundwork. We're doing this because, you know, obviously we share permeable boundaries with the fells, many other natural areas, but we want to make sure that wildlife are staying where is appropriate for them, where they are safe, and we are not doing things to inappropriately entice wildlife into residential areas. We talk about the nuisances and health hazards that can be created for residents, how it can hamper residents' enjoyment of their outdoor spaces when wildlife are inordinately or inappropriately attracted onto those spaces. And Attorney Braun included some additional color into that section here, saying it can interrupt their normal feeding patterns, cause nutritional issues, threaten their health, promote the spread of diseases. So this is for the sake of animals, not just for the sake of residents and their enjoyments of their backyards. Attorney Braun also added, this ordinance should not be interpreted in any way to interfere with the authority of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife or any other state agency with jurisdiction over wildlife. I think for a lot of us that goes without saying that city ordinances are subservient to state level laws. We have added a couple definitions into the definitions section. You can see there's some minor language changes from Attorney Braun. I'm just adding some other commonly found wildlife in Medford into our list. We have definitions of what wildlife means, what feed or feeding means, and then what we've added. Because further down in the ordinance, we reference bird feeders and that we exempt them. KP Law, as well as Director O'Connor, thought it'd be very helpful to have a definition of what we mean when we say bird feeder. We also later in the ordinance will add a section that has to do with the treatment of feral or stray cats or exceptions that make sense for people who are taking care of feral or stray cats and seeking to domesticate, neuter, and spay them. So we also added a definition of pets just so that it's crystal clear what we're talking about. Then we get into the meat of the ordinance, what is prohibited. This is substantively the same as it was in June. I just want to highlight two substantive comments that Attorney Braun from KP Law had on this. Attorney Braun mentioned, it might be helpful to add an intent section. I think something that you probably heard me emphasize verbally in previous committee meetings was that the point of this is not to, you know, create a way to ticket somebody who like accidentally leaves out something that an animal construes as feed and eats on one time. We're not looking to police people's behavior, or trying to distinguish between repeated inappropriate intentional wildlife feeding and stuff that just happens one time or accidentally. And so following that suggestion, we added subsection B, whenever the animal control officer becomes aware that wildlife has been found feeding on any substance. and the resident for the property has been notified thereof, any subsequent feedings shall be evidence that the feeding was with the knowledge or intent of the resident or the person responsible for the property. So essentially that's saying it happens one time and it's enough of a problem that the animal control officer hears about it, he or she will first say, hey, it seems like this is becoming a problem, don't do it again. And then if it happens again, when we know that notice has been given, then we can start that kind of enforcement ladder. Attorney Braun also suggested, in addition, having to do with if animals are feeding on substances found within outdoor trash or compost receptacles. And here it's, you know, a very similar theme. If animals are getting into, if a trash or compost receptacle is compromised and it's causing enough of a problem that the animal control officer or director of health hears about it, first they will just get in contact with the resident or property owner and say, hey, it looks like this is causing a problem that's escalated to the level of a nuisance, please fix it. Then if they have the opportunity to do so and they don't, you know, then the city does have a mechanism to intervene again, again, just to make sure that wildlife are not making a habit of inappropriately feeding in residential areas. We then get into exceptions, and this is largely unchanged for the last time we reviewed this ordinance. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit bird feeders. However, if a bird feeder is determined to be the cause of a public safety threat or nuisance, then the animal control officer, health director, or code enforcement officers can intervene to have it removed. But again, like the standard here is bird feeders are okay. Bird feeders are not often an issue. We also add or also we kept the exception that this has nothing to do with normal appropriate feeding of pets. Again, it's the same thing as if your trash bin has a huge hole in it and raccoons are getting into it, that's an issue. Ditto if you keep your dog food outside and raccoons are getting into it, that's an issue too. But if it's not an issue, it's not an issue. This is a new section that we talked about at length in our last committee meeting in June on stray or feral cats. I think Chair Lazzaro raised an important point that she had heard from some residents essentially saying like, hey, there are people who, you know, for years have volunteered in the community to do the work of, you know, essentially trying to humanely bait stray and feral cats so that they can be neutered, vaccinated, hopefully domesticated, adopted as pets. Attorney Braun had some helpful language around this, and Officer Hogan and Director O'Connor also gave a lot of great insight on this, endorsing this exception and pointing to the feral cat caretaker ordinances in Medford's Code of Ordinances. So we came up with this language to say explicitly no person shall feed any feral or stray cats with the following exceptions. If you are registered as a feral cat caretaker per this ordinance, you know, there's an exception for you, that work is registered, that work is fine, this ordinance will not interfere with you continuing that work. It says explicitly this section is in no way intended to hinder the work of duly registered feral cat caretakers, and I think this is the language suggested explicitly by Officer Hogan or Attorney Braun, this section shall not apply to persons feeding feral or stray cats with the express purpose of adopting and domesticated said cats. I think that these specific timetables and citations came from Attorney Braun, which points to mass general law on the topic of vaccination and domestication of feral cats. And I know that Officer Hogan ran this section past, I believe it's Medford Kitty Connections, if I have that right. leader from that organization did mention, you know, occasionally, depending on the situation, we do have to sometimes feed feral cats for more than 14 days, depending on the situation. So we just included here, if, if there's a litter where the feeding has to go on for more than 14 days before the next steps are taken, I know that the officer control officer and Medford Kitty Connections or other federal cat caretakers are always in communication about situations like these anyway, so that can go on at their discretion. And I'll pause because I see Councilor Callahan has a hand up.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you for mentioning that, because I definitely said that out loud, and I think I probably just assumed that spaying and neutering is something that is always done. I'm not sure. I've never, I'm not deeply familiar with the trap neutering. I know there's an acronym, I believe it's TNR, but I'm forgetting what the T and the R stand for. Release, trap neuter release. Oh, trap, neuter, release. Oh, thank you, whoever that was. I think in this case, I don't think that this ordinance should prescribe what goes on after the cats are fed and vaccinated, but I appreciate you flagging that, because I wouldn't wanna, I don't wanna say something inaccurate on record, not knowing what the protocols are after they are vaccinated. So that's a major new section. The rest of this is pretty true to what we reviewed a couple months ago. In terms of enforcement, the animal control officer, health director, code enforcement officers, and Attorney Braun also added police officers, are all authorized to administer and enforce the ordinance. It is enforced according to MGL Chapter 40, which is true of, I believe, all kind of non-criminal disposition of many of our regulatory ordinances at the city level. We have the same kind of offense letter that we had from our earlier reviews of the ordinance. The first offense is just a written warning. The second offense, that's again, after the problem has been raised and discussed with whoever is deemed to be committing the violation, the $50 citation, and then the third and each subsequent defense is $100 citation. We've also added the effective date of immediately upon passage. So I'll pause there. Thanks for bearing with me through that. And I, again, want to thank Director O'Connor and Officer Hogan and the code enforcement officers for reviewing this a couple of times as this was going through some suggested edits.
[Kit Collins]: I'd be happy to pull it up.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I'd be happy to make those motions. I did just want to, again, recognize Director O'Connor and I'm not sure if Officer Hogan is on the call, but if there's any city staff who were very helpful in crafting this, if they'd like to speak to any aspect of this or raise any final ideas or adjustments, I'd love to hear those before making the motions I planned.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Director O'Connor. I'm glad you brought that up. So this is kind of interesting, because I believe in a lot of our other city ordinances, we do include, you know, ex-city staff member or their designees. Attorney Broad, in this case, offered a legal opinion that, in their opinion, according to, I believe it's MGL Chapter 40, Section 21D, is a, oh wait, I'm not sharing my screen anymore, hang on a sec. Attorney Brown said, specifically, though attorney general review is not applicable to city ordinances, the AG has clarified that under chapter 40, section 21D requires that the bylaw identify the enforcing persons, this decision number 1096 from 2021. If an ordinance allows a party to designate an enforcing person at a later time, it therefore does not identify the enforcing persons in the ordinance itself and fails to put the public on notice of such enforcing. persons. So essentially, this was also, let me try and frame that in human English. A lot of our ordinances do use the language of, you know, say, for example, the director of director of public health or their designee, this opinion says that's actually generally disapproved of. I don't know that it's illegal or out of bounds, but it sounds like recent decisions have discouraged that so that it's crystal clear for the public who exactly the enforcer is to list all of those persons by title in the ordinance itself, instead of saying this department head or their designees. So that's, you know, I kind of like being able to assign it to a department head and say, you know, whoever they want to delegate it to. I think that is really streamlined from an implementation standpoint. But by way of explanation, that's why that was taken out.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Is there any other titles from your office that we should add to that list?
[Kit Collins]: Sanitarians instead of health inspectors?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'm gonna do a quick search for where it identifies the animal control officer as the administrator and make sure that the health director and sanitarians are included and code enforcement officers are included in that list as well.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, unless there are any other, I would certainly welcome any further comments or questions from members of the public or city staff. But barring that, I'd be happy to make a motion to adopt all of the changes reflected in this draft changes document that we've reviewed tonight. to adopt the additions, the deletions from city staff and legal review that were present in this draft, and then report that amended draft out to the city council.
[Kit Collins]: Anna's here.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry. Councilor is saying that was present as a non-voting member last time.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'll kick us off and then I'll throw it to you for if there's anything you want to add. Just let me know whenever you're ready. Okay. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Purbanning Committee, Wednesday, July 24th, is that right? 5.30 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to go for paper 24-033, which is comprehensive zoning updates in collaboration with the city council's Zoning consultant. The format of this committee meeting is going to be a little bit different than usual. We have arranged to have a zoning mapping workshop prepared by Innes Associates. So for the first give or take 90 minutes, councillors, committee members, City staff, members of the public are going to be circulating, looking at the zoning maps which were presented by Innes Associates at a couple previous committee meetings, asking questions, making notes on sticky notes for further review and discussion. All of this will inform our future work on tweaks to the zoning map, housing strategies and other strategies. Then around 7 p.m. I'm going to reconvene us to our typical format, where we'll have a discussion about the main threads to come out of this discussion, questions we'd like to pose to experts, to department heads, to the public, based on what came out of the mapping workshop discussion and the questions on the sticky notes. And we'll go until about 8 p.m. reviewing that discussion and talking about our next steps, particularly along zoning changes along some of our corridors and housing strategies both corridor level and globally. I'd like to pass it off to Director Hunt if you have anything else to add or Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that introduction, both. Thank you for preparing this. So just to underline that last point, blue sticky notes are for general questions and comments. Green sticky notes are for questions that we might like to pose to the public. Go forth, have fun. I'll reconvene us around 7 p.m. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: And I think that this conversation about where the conversation goes from here can be part of the record. Yeah, no, thank you. So we've had, I think, a very substantive 90 minutes in our, what we're calling our mapping workshop. I know I contributed a lot of sticky notes to the maps that NS Associates created and laid out for us. Thank you so much. I definitely saw a lot of sticky notes from other Councilors and department heads, members of the public. The intent for the second half or the final third of this meeting was to kind of briefly recap the mapping workshop. If anybody feels called to, you know, kind of shout out a thread that they heard or discussed or saw very often, or if there's any major bottom lines that they wanted to articulate that they wrote down or talked about with other attendees. I think we can speak to that. And then the other intent for this part of the meeting was to discuss our kind of most immediate next steps on the housing strategies piece of this work, as well as our most immediate next steps on our two priority corridors, those being Salem Street and Mystic Ave. So like for Innes Associates, department heads, Councilors, feel free to speak to any part of that. I think that all of these are obviously very intertwined. I think that a lot of our comments from the mapping workshop are going to touch on those priority issues. So if any of my fellow Councilors would like to raise any thoughts, questions that came up during the mapping workshop, I'm happy to turn it over to Emily and Paula to discuss our next steps on the corridors and housing. Seeing none, we can popcorn around.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. I know for myself as one Councilor, I think we've been talking about a lot of the same priorities for a lot of this term and prior to that. you know, including when you were assisting the city of Medford in a previous role, helping us with our comprehensive planning. And so it's, it's exciting to get to the point where, you know, we're kind of visualizing and articulating a lot of these goals in various ways. And our next step being to, you know, use our use you as our technical assistance in bringing these goals into language into the zoning changes. First, in these priority corridors, expanding into the squares and kind of having these global strategies inform corridor strategies and vice versa. And I think it makes a lot of sense procedurally to focus on certain geographic areas, have those discussions of what do we know that we want for this zone? What are people already asking for? What have people been asking for for Mystic Ave, for Salem Street, for Medford Square for years? What changes need to be made that make sense for this area? what makes sense for the area adjacent to that, adjacent to that, what strategies make sense for the community overall. So I think this is the beginning of an exciting process. In terms of our next steps, I know that several of these strategies are already in the works. We've talked before, for example, one out of many for making ADUs by right. I know that there are several items in the queue that we might expect to see. We might be able to review language at a meeting soon. Are there any updated thoughts on what pieces of language you might like the Council to review and give feedback on at our next meeting or the one after that, whether it's a global strategy or, you know, addressing the corridors first?
[Kit Collins]: I'm so sorry, could you repeat the last part? The sound is very loud.
[Kit Collins]: that's great. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that discussion. I'm inclined to agree that if we have a window of opportunity to, in a reasonable baseline that seems unproblematic, I like taking opportunities to make improvements when they avail themselves, knowing that, knowing and telegraphing that an opportunity for more tailored tweaks and further amendments will be shortly forthcoming as well. And kind of towards the same point, I think that It would be great to, even if it evolves over the course of the year, to have that draft timeline of when we're going to be discussing particular corridors, neighborhoods, to be able to broadcast that early and also broadcast when those meetings get shuffled around. I think that that will sort of help reinforce for people. through another way, what this project is all about, which is hitting all of our priority areas, having this comprehensive approach and breaking down when different pieces of it are going to happen. That'll help keep us on schedule as well. Any other questions or comments from Councilors in this department heads about our next steps for August? and they're on afterwards, or any other threads that we want to call out from the mapping workshop earlier? There's a lot of great stuff, but I know we discussed it very in-depth around the tables.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'll echo that. It was great to have that discussion include people who aren't, you know, always a part of these conversations. And I hope we can, you know, have that again at our conversations that are more neighborhood and corridor and other specific focuses.
[Kit Collins]: Yep, totally agree. I think it's just a value add. Great, well, thank you so much for your hard work that went into the format of this meeting. I'm excited at our meeting in August to begin to dig in deeper on the corridors, begin that granular moving outward kind of conversation and to sketch out a plan for how to approach that through next spring. Any other closing comments from councilors or other attendees? Seeing none, thank you all so much for a really productive conversation, a really productive exercise. Really grateful to everybody for being here. Moved to adjourn. Seconded by President Bears. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. At our June 25th meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee, we met once again with the City Council's zoning consultant. The topic this time was to go over in more detail a work plan for the remainder of the year and the term. With that zoning consultant, moving plans and goals that have been placed in Medford's comprehensive plan, housing production plan climate action and adaptation plan and other public city plans into pieces of legislation that the council can consider debate and vote on. And at that meeting, we determined that the next meeting of the planning and permitting committee, which happens to be tomorrow, Wednesday, we would go over detailed zoning maps with the zoning consultant, followed by a discussion of housing related topics to further our work on global and district level zoning changes in the city. and to begin talking about housing-related issues. I move approval.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears, did Councilor Scarpelli move the question or is debate still out on the floor?
[Kit Collins]: I'll happily defer to Councilor Callahan while I collect my thoughts.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for bringing forward this topic of discussion. Thank you, Councilor Callahan for your words. Pardon me while I get my thoughts together. I'd like to... You know, I agree that the words accountability and transparency are used so often that they tend to lose meaning. And I think in this case, we're kind of having a community-wide discussion about what does transparency look like? Are we currently seeing it? Where aren't we seeing it that we would like to? I think if we want the city council to be transparent, then we have to be the forum that states the facts where there's misinformation going around. It is true that the city gets audited every year. That is a fact. I would not want to be untransparent and pretend that that is not the case. That is the case. The city is audited every year. It makes me saddened as a member of this council, as a colleague, to see our discussion and debate behind the rail go to this place. I see bodies like this as enacted for the purpose of having disagreement. We have had a lot of disagreement this year. We've had a lot of disagreement the previous term, my first term. There was plenty of disagreement the term before that. That is not a bug. That is a function. That is what democracy looks like, is getting people from the community who disagree with each other to represent the community, to have disagreements and try either by compromise or by vote to find a path forward. And hopefully a lot of the time we'll find our way to the best path forward. And if we don't, that's why we have elections and new people take these seats and they'll have a disagreements again, and maybe they'll arrive at different decisions by compromise or by vote. I think it's worth noting that the invoking of, I know that there's a couple issues at play here behind what was explicitly written about in the letter. I think it's worth noting that some of the inflammatory motions here that predated Councilor Scarpelli's communication to our partners at the state level, the invoking of Rule 21 and the suspension of Rule 21. I just want to state a few things. One, council rules are council rules. We've amended the council rules in the past. That can be put forward by any councillor. That's a thing that councillors are allowed to do and that we vote on them. I also think it's worth noting that rules have been suspended for time immemorial, at least as long as I've been paying attention. That's not new. Rule 21 has been invoked since I started paying attention. That's not new. Rules have been suspended for various reasons. For as long as I've been watching these meetings, that's not new. And I think, you know, when I look at the current climate, behind this rail at this team of people who were elected to work together and disagree together and take votes together, makes me wonder what's changed that instead of taking votes and moving on, taking votes and trying to find compromise and using the forum of the debate to try to be persuasive, try to listen in good faith and talk in good faith, you know, This is hard for me to do. But a lot of people behind this rail are speaking my mind, so I think that it's only fair that in the spirit of productive disagreement, you know, we do the same. I think it's important. that any member who finds themselves on the losing side of any vote to see that for what it is. And I think they owe it to this body to continue in the spirit of productive disagreement, not to gum up the works of the body through making allegations or accusations of inappropriate behavior, of breaking of the rules, of inappropriateness. I think that is harmful to what this body does. I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's good sportsmanship. I don't think it helps this community. I hope that after this spate of, frankly, misinformation that this community has been weathering and conversing about for the past couple of months, we can get back to a place where we say, we want this body to be productive. We don't want to sling mud at each other. We don't want to use our state-level partners as a forum for trying to bring each other down by claiming inappropriateness. Let's debate, let's discuss, let's disagree, let's yell at each other if we have to. That's nothing new. And then let's take the votes and move on and let's remember that we're all here because of votes that were cast. And that happens every two years. And I don't think it is helpful for our community at all to let these accusations of inappropriateness and illegality or allegations that heavily imply inappropriateness and illegality into the conversation. I don't think that is in the best interest of this body, which continues as a body after all of our terms are over. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Beasley.
[Kit Collins]: I think that being behind this rail carries a lot of responsibility, collectively and individually. When I speak about allegations, part of what I mean is that the narrative that we perpetuate as individuals and as a collective, we are responsible for that. It's very powerful in the community. The allegation, I think, is the narrative that has been created to draw a link between some of these events that a councilor is mentioning in past meetings. I don't think it is responsible to further a false narrative that actions taken by this council are towards the goal of silencing an opinion. I wanna briefly walk through a few items. One, and what I mean by the narrative is I think that what we're kind of all talking around is this narrative of one Councilor is being willfully silenced by collective actions of another. That is a very compelling narrative. That's a very compelling story.
[Kit Collins]: I'm gonna keep talking. The first meeting, Rule 21 was invoked to delay the free cash paper by one meeting. I want to remind people that Rule 21 is an undebatable motion. It is not the case that this is a collective action taken to silence that idea. Frankly, not that it matters. I wasn't in favor of tabling the free cash. I didn't like that that happened. It didn't matter. It's undebatable. It happened. It wasn't a collective action. I don't know the councilor's intentions in doing it, but it doesn't fit this narrative of collective action to silence one group, one person, or a constituency. At the next meeting, yes, I suspended the rules to say that we can't do rule 21 at this meeting. In general, I am not a fan of rule 21. I don't think it's productive. I think that it's something we should discuss as a council, whether it's worth keeping inside of our council rules. My explicit reason for doing it at that meeting was not to be a part of a coordinated effort to silence one person, group, or constituency, but because It was my understanding, and I believe this is true, that if we were to delay the budget past, if we were to not vote on the budget at that meeting, that would have pushed us past the deadline of issuing pink slips to teachers. And so if rule 21 had been invoked and we had tabled the budget, a lot of teachers would have gotten pink slips. I didn't have to, because the budget wouldn't have been finalized. That was my understanding, and that was my motivation for taking Rule 21 off of the table. You can disagree with it, but it doesn't fit the narrative of just being a coordinated effort to silence one person, group, or constituency, and I won't further that narrative. One other thing I want to say while I have the floor, I think it's a perpetual thorn in our side, this issue of free cash. One, because it's called such a confusing and inaccurate term, free cash. That's right. It's the community's cash.
[Kit Collins]: I'm going to finish. I'm going to finish my point. Free cash occurs when money that was budgeted to be spent was not spent. It's true that we have allocated up until our last city council meeting when we appropriated some of that free cash, that it is amassed to a very large number. Why are some neighboring communities have a balance of four or five million in free cash at a given time and we had 34? Because we were one of the, 3% of cities and towns in Massachusetts that had never ever set up a stabilization fund, which is a savings account. And that's why ours was growing and growing and growing, essentially in a checking account, a checking account that you can't use most of the year, instead of being appropriated into funds and departments where it can actually go to work for you, the taxpayers, for us, for our city departments. That's why that number grew so large, because we never appropriated it into a stabilization fund or a capital stabilization fund, both of which are mechanisms that we set up at the last meeting in June. And I just wanna add a little bit of, I just wanted to add that context to the discussion, because I can totally understand that it sounds egregious to say we have $34 million. And again, my analogy, I'm not a finance expert, is to say we have $34 million in a checking account, Why the heck would that be? Well, now we don't. Now we've put it into funds where it can actually go to use for the city, for the schools, for the taxpayers because of votes taken at the last meeting in June. And I think that's important because now it can actually be put to use for the residents and taxpayers of Medford.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Paris. I had finished my point.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, there's just so much to talk about. You know what I mean? Thank you. You know, I think this is one of those issues where I think we really do agree in what we want. And we see it, we see what's happening differently. What really nettles me is we have so much, it's not like what we say, people in the community believe, because obviously that's not the case. But I think we, having one of these microphones is really powerful. It comes with a lot of influence. And I think every person behind this rail is in their way, in their different ways, really sensitive to the role that they occupy, the voice that they have, how people hear them, how they're framing the issues, how they're hearing the issues from the committee. I know that every Councilor behind this rail is very sensitive to the type of leader and listener and speaker and representative that they are perceived to be by the community. And that's why it is so upsetting to me when behind this rail, we further narratives and binaries that I think are both not true, but actively harmful to our ability to come together and work together. For example, setting up a binary between talking about your assumptions and opinions as though they are fact in a city council meeting versus meeting with department heads who are duplicitous to further your own agenda. That binary does not exist. And I don't think it is helpful to put that forward as your two options. That's not what happens. That's not what happens. I also don't think it's helpful to set up a binary between winning a vote and being actively silenced, we've all been on the losing side of the vote. And whether we feel maligned by that or victimized by that, I don't think it's fair to how we talk about these issues to get to pick and choose when we're going to waive that as a flag. And it's not that I want to minimize the experience of having something that you ardently believe in and getting shot down. I know that sucks. I've been there many times, my first term especially. But I think it is deeply unhelpful to the community, to this body being able to function at what it's supposed to do for us to broadcast that our two options are be a winning vote for some nefarious agenda or be a stymied, silenced constituency. Because I think that, you know, we talk about that's why we're divided. There's nothing more dividing than being told we're divided. I wish that we came into these conversations not already mad at each other, but willing to say what's happening here and being willing to listen to the answers. We had a conversation with the finance director before the budget about free cash projections, what it's been in the past, what is projected to be, why free cash accumulates the way that it does. I don't think it's fair to residents to keep having this conversation about how our accumulation of free cash, which has now been put into funds where it can be used for purposes throughout the year. I don't think it's fair to the residents to keep talking about this like it was some scheme. I don't get why it's fair to the people of this city to keep beating a drum that misinforms people. It's okay if you disagree. I just wish that we were able to talk about it. That's all.
[Kit Collins]: Hopefully this will be the last time I speak on this paper. I just wanted to note two things. I hear you that you wish there had been minutes coming out of the financial task force. You know, maybe the next time this is necessary, it'll be formed by committee instead of being a flexible ad hoc group. thing is that any decisions that came out of this task force were put to a vote in a public meeting. And I also think it's really relevant to note, I think it's a very critical distinction that any proposals came out that were discussed in the financial task force, of which I was a member, put forward to the city council, we approved them. Any residents who feel skeptical or uncomfortable or just disapproving of the proposals or of the process. What do you do? You go to the polls and you vote no. And that's the difference. You can do that. That's your right. That's your right. From now until the election, residents who happen to be in favor of the proposals we'll be making the case for them. There will be a lot of answers coming out. That's the process, because this is a thing that everybody gets to vote yes or no on. We will not be making that case from the podium because this is a matter that's going to be voted on, that would be improper. But this information, this case will be made. We will have a chance to discuss and debate the answer to those questions by we, I mean the community, in the community. Let's see if I can remember the second point I was going to make. I might have lost it. It's been a long day. We'll come back to you. Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: I agree. Okay, I agree. I'm sorry, I remember the point I was gonna make. I know, you're all thrilled. I do just want to, highlight, remind folks that the council did take a vote to have a committee of the whole, maybe sometime in the summer, early in the fall, to meet, to have a public meeting where the administration is present and we discuss the use of funds in our stabilization account. Just to let that be known, that's a vote that was already taken so that we can have a public discussion about free cash, where it went, how it's going to be used, because I know the administration has had a, ton of capital needs that a lot of that funding is already in demand for these capital projects that were already in the queue, paving, sidewalk repair, city infrastructure, and so on. I also think it's worth noting that the difference between saying, let's not even propose an override versus putting an override on the ballot and it fails, Same outcome. And lastly, I wanna note, again, I was not in favor of the Rule 21 motion to delay the vote on Councilor Scarpelli's free cash paper. The fact that we set up a stabilization fund and a capital stabilization fund and moved some of our 34 million reserves of free cash into the stabilization funds means that we can now use it Because of that, we could now use that money. And if we hadn't done that, that money would be unusable to the city. That's a fact, you can shake your head, but that's a fact. While the state is certifying free cash, we cannot touch it. And I still have not heard a compelling reason why making that surplus, that cash reserves unavailable to the community for the needs that we know we have, I fail to see why that is a better outcome than having it in funds where it is available to be used for the needs that we know we have. And I'm sorry, I really will shut up now.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole, June 26, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: And President Bears. Five present, two absent, the meeting is called.
[Kit Collins]: By present to absent, the meeting is called to order. The action and discussion item for this meeting is 24-006 offered by President Bears, review of the 2024-2025 council governing agenda. So as a brief refresher, this term, for the very first time, Medford City Council, at the beginning of the term, put together a governing agenda which lays out submissions from each councilor who chose to submit proposals, either that were already in committee from previous terms or new ideas, things that the City Council would like to work on over the course of this term. The process for putting together this document was paper 24-006 proposing the same. After that, there was a period during which councilors submitted proposals to council leadership, myself and President Bears, which were then organized into this document. We had a committee of the whole, like this one, we were discussed which committee each project ought to go into. And each project, if it didn't already have a paper number, has been, assigned a paper number as it's been proposed. So in this meeting, we are going to have our first check-in on this document. Now that's halfway through this year. It's a quarter of the way through the term. So this is a status meeting to review all of the papers currently in the governing agenda. And so the process for this meeting, we have about, 45 minutes, we're not gonna go past 7 p.m. to review the overall document. It's a long one, as people remember, that's quite a lengthy document. We're going to go section by section. We're going to have the chair of each committee, if they're present, do an overview of the papers in their committee. They can give a status update, they can give the highlight reel, just a brief overview of what's being worked on and any future plans to take up papers in that. committee your next steps for papers that have been worked on. I will ask my fellow Councilors to try not to take more than three or four minutes, five at the most, to go over the works in your committee so that we can all center around a general update across all committees and have a brief discussion at the end. Since President Bears will be joining us a little bit later on the meeting, I'm going to start three sections down with the education and culture committee, and then we can go clockwise from there. The chair of the Education and Culture Committee is Councilor Scarpelli, who I believe has to be absent tonight, reviewing the table of contents for this section. There were no major projects yet proposed in this committee, none of this draft, as with all of the other City Council committees. There are relevant city ordinances and regulations that are assigned to this committee, which it can sort of, you know, if there's free time that the committee has or it doesn't have an active legislative project, it can be reviewing those. I do not believe that the Education and Culture Committee has met yet to do any of this kind of maintenance work in order to take up any legislative projects so far. So we'll proceed to the Governance Committee, chaired by Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Councilor Tseng. We will proceed next to the planning and permitting committee of which I am the chair. So the update on this committee, I'll try to be brief. This is the committee that meets most often, been meeting twice a month since I believe February. Our major project, our most major project is zoning reform, which the Council has been working towards for longer than I have been on City Council. The City Council completed a phase one of recodification at the very beginning of my first term dealing with tweaks and cleanups to the zoning code. building code that were recommended by Attorney Bob Roski and city staff. Paper 24-033 represents phase two of our zoning reevaluation. The city council secured funding for a zoning consultant in 2022 and 2023, and that, with the help of the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Department, is manifesting in our contract with Innes Associates. We have been meeting with them at least monthly since March, on a work plan to overhaul the city zoning and bring it into alignment with the comprehensive plan, the housing production plan, and the climate action and adaptation plan, which were created collaboratively between city staff, the city council, and residents over the past several years. And we've gotten through kind of the initial tweaks, definitions, streamlining, kind of low-hanging fruit aspect of that process with the first package of zoning amendments that we passed earlier this month. And our next batch of work, I believe, is around using the mapping analysis, which was just completed by Innes Associates. We reviewed it last night. to develop a global approach to zoning changes, things that we want to see throughout the entire community and also neighborhood by neighborhood, district by district, corridor by corridor changes to bring smaller areas of the city into alignment with what residents want guided by those plans. So that is the, I think, most major project of this committee. There are other ordinance projects that go along with it. For example, transportation demand management proposed by Councilors Leming and Tseng, which also comes from the Climate Action Adaptation Plan. I know this has been brought up to city staff. There are other proposals in this committee, which have not yet been taken up at a super granular level, such as Green Score, which also has to do with the building code and making new developments more energy efficient and holding developers in Medford to a better environmental standard. This ordinance under the ordinances section, the condo conversion ordinance was recently subsumed into the zoning overhaul bucket of work. This aligns with our affordable housing goals that are very prominent in the goals of the zoning revaluation that we're doing so will be pursuing the condo conversion ordinance which was begun in 2022 within the context of the zoning overhaul. This committee is also where we have referred several housing home rule petitions, including rent stabilization we held one meeting on that. I'm the sponsor of that paper, I don't plan for us to meet on that until at least the fall. We also referred into this committee the housing home rule petition around the real estate transfer fee. The future of this local option at the State House is looking uncertain, I would say bleak, and so I think it's a discussion that I would like to have with my fellow councilors, what the fate of that home rule petition should be in this community. There are several other projects in this committee, including reviewing the fee schedule, which we have already begun, making sure that our administrative fees are brought into alignment with best practices from other neighboring committees to make sure that we're not charging way, way less than other communities are charging for things like marriage licenses, dog licenses, vehicles, just making sure that we're keeping up with best practices and updating things that haven't been updated in a very long time. The cycling safety ordinance, this has not been formally proposed yet. idea that I would like to put forward later in the term. And I know that our PDS department has already kind of included the goals of a cycling safety ordinance into our existing complete streets set of goals. Finally, some proposals that have not yet been formally introduced that have to do with energy efficiency for new and existing buildings, energy disclosure, the benchmarking ordinance, And finally the rental ice licensing ordinance also needs to be given a paper numbers. This was proposed. In March of this year we have not yet had a meeting on a specific proposal for the ordinance itself in this committee. Finally pesticide regulations and the blasting earth removal regulations these are 2 of the ordinance projects that we have not yet met on to go over language and perhaps they are things that will meet on later in the term. If our other priorities left for it. I also want to note that the Licensing, Permitting, and Signs Subcommittee exists within this committee. Councilor Scarpelli is the chair of this subcommittee, and he has held meetings with certain signs appeal applicants so far in the term. And that brings us to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee, which is chaired by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: This is the February 2024 version, so yes, it's not up to date.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Chair Lazzaro. And just to reinforce, you know, I think that was an exceptional highlight reel of some of the work done so far in this committee and reconciling those headlines with the list of topics in the governing agenda. There's even more that has been referred into that committee that we have met on. We've been holding more committee meetings this year than ever before by quite a large magnitude. I see President Bears has raised his hand. Go ahead, President Bears. or I'll unmute you, then I'm glad. I think this is my co-host.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. We're just going in order of the governing agenda right now. So I thought we could come back to those right at the end and end on a high note. Next, we come to the Public Works and Facilities Committee, chaired by Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Not in the chambers.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Councilor Callahan, really appreciate that overview. Next, we will go to Councilor Leming for an overview of the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee.
[Kit Collins]: We will go back to the beginning of our document, and we can loop back to projects in committee of the whole, and then the administration and finance committee, and I believe President Bears is going to present on both of these. President Bears, I can relinquish screen sharing if you would prefer to do it yourself, or if that's not additive.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much President Bears for presenting on projects and committee of the whole and the administration and finance committee. Before we go to general comment, I also want to extend a note of gratitude to all of my fellow Councilors, including those who couldn't be here tonight for helming such productive committees. I said it earlier in the meeting that this is far and away the busiest council that certainly that I've been on, but also that I've observed as a constituent and especially to new Councilors who are just joining this term. I really want to applaud you for diving into your first year of service and leading on major legislative projects in committee, meeting regularly, pushing things forward. And of course, these are not ideas that simply come out of the clear blue sky. These are projects that residents have been asking for, sometimes for years. These are things pulled from our comprehensive plans, our comment plans, our housing plans. These are things that have come from city staff and the constituents that we know would make Medford a better place to live, to work, to raise a family. and I'm very grateful to this council for working together to have the most productive and collaborative term that we possibly can. President Bears, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears on the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Madam Clerk, just let me know whenever you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Six in favor one absent the motion for all committee chairs to submit updates to the President and Vice President and for the President and Vice President to accordingly update the governing agenda. also pulling from the council newsletters as guides to upload to the governing agenda and include a short summary of what committees have been meeting and overall takeaways. Passes. Is there any further discussion by members of the committee? Councilor Lazzaro. Motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: There's a motion to adjourn from Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think it's one thing to take a stroll through the Brooks Park, you know, by oneself or with friends or with family. It's another to get a personal tour from Mr. Lincoln, which I was very lucky to do when I first took office. And it really is incredible hearing that kind of layers deep history of all of the work volunteer work, community work, just layers of investment that go into making this really such a jewel in the community, the outdoor space, the historic preservation that the community gets to enjoy more and more every year as the renovation continues to go on. So my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Lincoln, you know, really an incredible, an incredible legacy to leave in Medford, to leave the Brooks Park estate so improved. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Sylvia, thank you so much for so many years of service. Congratulations on your retirement. It is really hard to imagine the clerk's office without you. And I think about the moments in my life in Medford that you have been there for when I filed for a business permit, when I pulled papers for the first time, when I took my first oath of office. And I know there's so many people doing things that really contribute to the fabric of Medford, whether it's business permits or virtual licenses. you know, applying for various things in the city of Medford, they have to go through you and your colleagues. And you've been such an integral part of what that experience is like, of people trying to shape their life in various ways, shape their contributions to Medford in various ways. And what an incredible role to inhabit for so many years. So my thanks go out to you. I think 32 years of public service really tells you a lot about a person and how they choose to live their life in service to their community. I wish you only the very best for a very long and happy retirement. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: It's a happy day to get to congratulate two, you know, two civil servants with such incredible longevity and a history of so many years of contribution to our city. To be able to congratulate two on retirement in just one evening is really a happy thing. It's also a little bittersweet to say goodbye to two members, you know, two contributors to City Hall who have been so present for so many years, been of service to this council and to the community, you know, in ways personal and professional for such a long time. Janice, congratulations. Thank you so much for your many years of hard work. Thank you for, you know, bringing not only your hard work, but your personality to this city hall. We're sad to see you go, but again, best wishes for a joyful and long retirement. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. We want to thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, for putting this forward tonight. Of course, it's always a sad occasion when somebody with such a huge impact, you know, yet another public servant, when we have to mark their passing here in Medford. You know, and sad as it is, I'm glad for the opportunity to reflect on, you know, a person, a woman with a career that, who really ran right at challenge and the ability to do an outsized amount of good in our community. So I spend my deepest condolences to her family.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. On June 12th, the topic of the planning and permitting committee, which was the same one as which wrapped up right before this regular meeting, we were meeting with our zoning consultant, Innes Associates, which frequent flyers have heard me give this context before. This is the zoning consultant that the city council hired at the end of last term. And in many meetings of the planning and permitting committee this term, we have been working with them to create a work plan pulling from the comprehensive plan, the climate action adaptation plan, the housing production plan to consider proposed changes to the zoning ordinance to make manifest in our zoning the goals and topics that the community has placed into those plans. The topic of the June 12th meeting was to review the status of the mapping analysis and the topic-based work plan that will inform our future committee's work and votes over the summer and into the fall. motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I have a motion to suspend the rules to take the following papers out of order. 24-426, 24-418, 24-423, 24-424, and 24-436.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for putting this forward, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you so much for the context, Director Hunt. Thank you to so many people for joining us in the council chambers, as always. I wouldn't wanna put words in Councilor Scarpelli's mouth, but when we're on the topic about how to proceed here procedurally, in the committee meeting directly before this one, in the planning and permitting committee, we were actually just discussing the issue of Salem Street Corridor as one of our zoning priorities as we move forward. So I think that this could be just a really cohesive move to refer this paper, which as we've been discussing needs a little bit more that it needs tweaking. This is a zoning issue. We've never done a zoning issue in one meeting. I think that that aligns very closely with the work that we were just discussing doing in the zoning committee, knowing that the rezoning of re-evaluating the zoning of Salem Street is already a priority for the council. We were just speaking about that in the last committee meeting. And so I think it could be, I think it could dovetail really nicely with our existing plans to take a look at Salem Street Corridor in addition to some other priority corridors in the city and say, what does our zoning allow us to do here by right? What does it allow us to do by a special permit, which until this permit was withdrawn, applied to this permit, what do we wanna see on these corridors and how should we update our zoning so that we get what we want and we don't have to worry about what we don't want here. And I do want to note, I've been hearing this, you know, over and over for the past couple weeks, and I'm really heartened to hear it from so many people in the community saying, it's not that I think we shouldn't have this in Medford. It's just that the location has to be right. And I think that something I'm really certain we all share is that, you know, we know that this is something that people need. This is a service that people need, that people in Medford need, that our neighbors need. We want it to be successful. And in order to be successful, it needs to be in the right location. And I think that we can, I would love to prioritize this issue within our existing zoning work to make sure that as we're reevaluating our zoning already in progress, we're taking a look to say, where's the right spot for this use and how can we make sure that it can occur here and not in locations where it's going to be less successful and less supported by residents for understandable reasons. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being here to present the appointees. It's so exciting to be at the point of finally appointing trustees to the Affordable Housing Trust. This project has been in the works for a long time. This was first proposed by former Council President John Falco, I believe, and it was voted on in the Council's previous term. So I'm so glad to reach this point where we are putting some people power to this mechanism. And I, really enjoyed reading over this paper over the weekend. You know, this is a crew with such an incredible list of housing and affordable housing bona fides. It makes me really proud to know that there are so many people like this in our community, and not just with these skills and experiences, but also willing to throw their hat in the ring and say, yes, I'll step up, I'll work hard to take on this really quite technical, detailed, you know, issue of affordable housing and doing it right in our community. It's not something you to show up and volunteer for an hour and then go on your way. This requires volunteering, like real, real skill and thoughtfulness. So I'm really happy to see all these appointees coming in with kind of an incredible level of professional experience to lend to this trust. This is a really wonderful cohort to start off our Affordable Housing Trust with. Thank you so much for assembling these candidates. Thank you all for applying. And I will be so proud to vote in favor of all of these tonight.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being here. Again, it's great to see a candidate that comes to our community with a unique perspective. And I think that will bring a unique perspective to how to leverage our CPA funds to the greatest use for our community. So pending further comment by my fellow Councilors, I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Beas. I want to thank everybody who spoke. I think that this is, you know, with any issue that we don't have consensus on, you know, lately, it seems like it's pretty easy for things to get polarized. When I listen to almost, not everybody, but almost everybody who's spoken on this issue at this meeting or who's emailed or called me or spoke at our last meeting, when I listen to almost all of those comments without any exception, I really do think that we all want the same thing. I've heard Very, very few number of people say, I actually don't want this anywhere in Medford. I think this has no place in Medford. I've heard a very few number of people say that. I personally don't believe that. I think this has a place in Medford. That doesn't mean it should go any place in Medford. I agree with that. The success of the mission depends on where we put it. And I think everybody who's come forward and said, I'm really concerned about where this was proposed to go, that's totally reasonable. If anybody's felt vilified for having that opinion, I'm sorry. I would never want anybody to feel that way. I don't think that you should be made to feel bad for voicing your opinion about where this should go or where it's going to be most successful. I know some people are motivated by their neighborhood concerns and other people are motivated by, I don't think this is gonna be most successful here, this doesn't make sense. If this should go in a commercial or industrial area, why don't we have the tools currently in place to put it there? That's actually under the jurisdiction of this body. That's what we have the power to do we've been working for a very long time, more terms that I've been on the council to get to a point where we have the resources to make those changes. When it comes to medical offices when it comes to many other uses so we can start finally start making decisions. That could be answers to the question of why don't we have X here? Why don't we have Y here? Why doesn't Medford look more like XYZ the way I want it to, the way it used to? We're finally amassing the resources to make those changes. They're not fast to make. We can't make them quickly. It's too technical. It's too detailed. That's a very unglamorous, but I think well-known thing about government is if you do it fast, you might do it wrong. And this is too important to not get right. But I just want to reinforce that when I hear people talk about this, I really think that we all, with some very, very few exceptions, we know that this has a place in Medford. We know that we want to take excellent care of the people whose lives will be better off for having this available. We know that there are people in Medford who do need this available. We know that we should find the best possible place for this to go. I don't think that this shared cause is advanced by using this forum to spread disinformation, such as there being a backroom deal to bring this into or to target a residential neighborhood. Of course that didn't happen. That would never happen. That's nobody's goals here. I don't think this conversation is advanced by being resolute to be at war over this. We're all on the same team here. If we want to be at war about this, if people in this room or people in this conversation are resolved to be at war about this, we can drag this congregation down into the mud. That's optional. And I think that's completely, completely orthogonal to everybody's goals here.
[Kit Collins]: I thank the administration for their diligence in reviewing applications and I motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve pending the comment period and conditioned on the final approvals.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bearer. Sorry, I got distracted because that was very sweet. I would motion to suspend the rules to take communications from the mayor and to suspend rule 21.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being here and sticking with us. I don't have any specific questions on the appropriation requested, but I do always appreciate an overview of where CPA funding comes from, the very strict rules regulating what it may be spent on and in what proportion. I'm glad to see that the CPC voted to increase voluntarily the amount that we're spending on community housing. I think that that's a value that's shared by many in the community, and I'm sure that'll be welcome news to many. So of course, all of the uses that CPA money can be spent on are, you know, we can look all around and see the benefit that they do throughout Medford. So thank you so much for walking us through this, but I'm excited to approve this tonight.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here tonight. I know this project has been a long time in the works, and I appreciate your overview and presentation about it. I have a general understanding about what historic designation, what implication that has and doesn't have for how those properties might be affected. You've spoken a little bit about how it's not an absolute prohibition on any particular material. working with developers so that I know renovations still happen under historic designation, EDUs can still happen. Yes. Because so much of, well, speaking for myself as one councilor, because a large part of the council's goals this term are to consider proposals that do allow us to look at tools that enable different neighborhoods to evolve. I am, I have a healthy skepticism around tools that might make it more difficult for developers to do things like, I understand there's no prohibition on adding height, on affecting footprint, but I have some concerns around adding rules that will make it less likely for developers to do so. Have you noticed in historic districts already in place in Medford, is there indeed a lag with developers or owners taking advantage of things that are still technically available to them?
[Kit Collins]: It's hard to do.
[Kit Collins]: Appreciate that.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Sorry, it's getting late. Brain's slowing down. Really appreciate this discussion really appreciate this kind of formal introduction to the issue though of course we've heard glimmers of it before when this was still in process. I think that, at least for me as one Councilor I think this is a topic that you know of course there's already historic designation along South Street already, but this does mark a significant expansion in that footprint. And I think, you know, to echo some of what Councilor Scarpelli just said, I think that it seems very clear to me that for every concern or question we have, there's a ready answer. That being, notwithstanding that being the case, you know, it's pretty rare for us to take a first vote on an ordinance when it's first introduced before the Council, and I think know, in the role that we inhabit on the City Council, especially with something as longstanding as an ordinance, we can feel incredible about how a current Board of Commissioners takes up their mission and implements it, and certainly I feel great about the work that you all do and how you've been doing and how you've been collaborating with community members and developers. But this is something that marks a big enough change that I'd like to give it a bit more conversation and deliberation before we take votes on it. So I would make the motion to perhaps refer into the planning and permitting committee where we take up other building related topics for more of a discussion. to go over the details of the questions raised by councillors before we move forward, unless there's an alternative proposal raised by my fellow councillors.
[Kit Collins]: If I'm being totally candid,
[Kit Collins]: If I'm being candid, part of the reason for my desire to have more of this discussion in a separate meeting is because we have five or six major financial papers to take up after this, and I don't want to have that conversation right now. That said, if there's another motion to approve it outright, we just take the votes, and I wouldn't take that personally.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think it's always helpful to have kind of a refresher on what free cash is and where it comes from, and the instability of that as a revenue source. I was thinking about it today. I was thinking about different ways to articulate it, and I think this is probably an imperfect way of conceptualizing it, but I was thinking of free cash as money that we did not intend to save, and that's partly true. But in part, our free cash is amassed because of positions that we intended to fill and pay people salaries for that because of various reasons, we didn't. And I think the responsible thing to do with public resources when we intended to use it for one source and we for some reason couldn't spend it on, for example, a salary, is to use that as revenue for paying for a capital need. where we otherwise wouldn't be able to amass the resources to, you know, we know that we have great capital needs in the city of Medford on so many of our public buildings. I mean, I could list them, but we don't even really need to between our public buildings and our roads and sidewalks and the high school, you know, on the topic of analogies. We don't need more, we don't need more analogies tonight. I think what's what's what feels like a central fact to me in making any decision about where to appropriate a free cash is that, you know, to rephrase, it's in no way a sustainable or predictable revenue source I think that we can certainly expect to responsibly to have. less free cash certified at the end of this fiscal year than we did at the end of this one, because a lot of those areas where we weren't spending as much as we were budgeting in FY 24, I know the administration worked really hard to get those out of the budget so that we could make the most use of every dollar that we are budgeting for. And I think it's incredibly irresponsible to spend funds that have a really clear floor at the bottom of that bank account on needs that are not going away because they're part of our operating budget and they pay for the school experience and pay for teachers. Because what are we going to do when that money is gone? It's not a sustainable revenue source. But then I'm getting onto a future topic here. On the topic of the MSBA feasibility study, and we're talking about transparent government and, you know, leading in a way that manifests the will of the public. I know that a better, safer, more vibrant, more appropriate. Medford High School is something that so many people in the community have been crying out for for such a long time. And this appropriation is a necessary step in the process of maintaining our eligibility for getting the funding that could get us there. And so this vote is crucial. And I think this is an unambiguously good use for this $3 million. And I'll motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Pierce. I want to preface by saying I haven't always been fully, in the past, I haven't felt fully comfortable with the volume of free cash that the city has amassed, but I think that this type of plan really puts data to the intuition that there's things, important, unskippable projects that this money is being saved and appropriated for, things that we do not have other sustainable ways of funding. whether it's, you know, fleet replacements in the fire department, stabilization funds, which are essentially, you know, a piggy bank for the city in the same way that a person or a household has a savings bank. Communities need them for the same reasons of responding to emergencies responsibly. liabilities for pensions and insurance. I think it's really helpful to have a draft of this plan for how this, you know, you just look at the number 25 million, 34 million now, you think, wow, that's a lot of money. Like, why, what are we sitting on that for? And I think it's so important to have a draft plan for how it's going to be appropriated, because that number gets whittled down very, very quickly when we take stock of the stabilization funds that we ought to get in line with best practices in terms of how much we are saving for those rainy days and emergencies and for the major operating capital expenses that we need funding for that we're not going to fund out of our operating budget. So I think that this is a great start. I'm very happy to approve this tonight. I would also want to put forward a B paper to schedule a committee of the whole to discuss the free cash plan in more detail with the council and with the administration.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for presenting on this. I'm heartened to hear that the school committee already took a vote to approve this, not just because that's a step towards manifesting it, but also, you know, I would look to them to get the body's opinion on if this is a worthwhile endeavor. And it means a lot to me that the school committee, you know, the majority of them thought that this was worth moving forward and, you know, this does not, in my understanding, passage of this does not automatically, of course, it doesn't automatically consolidate any functions between the city and the schools department. What it does is it allows us to have those discussions about what functions might be advantageous to consolidate, might help us streamline things that both the cities and Metro Public Schools are doing might help us save money on things that we're currently doing in two places, would allow us to have those discussions and then be able to act on them if we come to decisions that some departments are worth combining. So I will be happy to approve this tonight. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for walking us through these. I don't have any questions. I know from my two previous budget years, this is a standard, you know, set of loose threads to tie up at the end of the fiscal year, just to transfer unspent funds to other departments where there were additional funds that were budgeted for and balance things out that way. So I'd be happy to, motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for the presentation. I'm happy to see this before us. I am always pleased for the opportunity to give any member of city personnel a raise, no matter whether they are union or non-union. I think that everybody deserves raises. Everybody deserves cost of living adjustments, and it's not a zero-sum situation. So I'm always happy to approve raises. I would motion to approve the amendment put forward. I would motion to exclude CAF 22, the mayor's position from the COLA afforded to non-use and personnel between 2021 and 2024. But beyond that, that is the only exclusion I would make.
[Kit Collins]: I need a correction, that excluding CAF 22 only from the raises made between 2021 and 2024. That this is only proposing January 1 and July 1, 2024?
[Kit Collins]: I think maybe I'm confused by the wording.
[Kit Collins]: This amendment makes no changes to.
[Kit Collins]: Cap changes made prior to 2024.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, I would like to amend my motion.
[Kit Collins]: I would like to approve the amendment.
[Kit Collins]: There'll be a meeting of the Planning and Permanent Committee, June 25, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: So I've never had to say before. For present, one absent, the meeting is called to order. Action and discussion items 24033 offered by President Bears and Vice President Collins, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. Thank you so much for being here again. I know the member says number five, this feels like definitely more than six or seven meetings we've had on this topic. We're gonna be meeting many more times this year. Thank you as always for being with us. At our last committee meeting with our zoning consultant on June 12th, We talked about the status of the mapping analysis, we talked about the status of the work plan, organizing the various goals and topics from our climate action and adaptation plan and our comprehensive plan, turning those into a work plan that's full of Council and city staff and community initiatives into topics that can be broken down then into actual language changes to apply to our code of zoning ordinances to bring Medford zoning more in line with what the community has been articulating that it really wants over the past few years. So the agenda for today is to review that more comprehensive work plan of all of those goals and topics into something that the Council can take action on in coming months with a focus on what we'll work on over the next couple months and view the status of the mapping analysis that we got a little preview of on the 12th. Are there any preliminary comments from my fellow Councilors before we turn it over to Innes Associates? Seeing none, take it away.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for the introduction. Paola, looking forward to seeing these a bit more in depth and mentioned this to Emily before the meeting, we are working on under a bit of a time crunch today because the regular meeting a bit after 7pm. So if we could try to keep this section of the meeting to 20 or 30 minutes, that would be ideal. So we can keep things moving. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Paola. I'll go first to President Bears and then to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'll echo that last comment specifically. I really love a Gantt chart and that's certainly the most prodigious one I've seen so far. So I really appreciate the granular level of detail because as President Bears said, I think that This data visualization, you know, it puts into sharp relief, how many issues and topics and goals we're trying to work on really in the span of exactly one fiscal year now. So knowing exactly where we are in that process will be critical to accomplishing as much of this as possible. Just some quick reactions from me. You know at this time, I'm really heartened to hear of the priority list that we've drafted and of course all of this is going to shift and evolve as projects tend to do over the next year. But it's been clear to me from our previous conversations in this committee and hearing feedback from City staff and of course from the community that, you know, that Mystic F corridor is one of the areas of the city that I hear the most about from just regular average people when it comes to why is this the way that it is and what are we going to do to make it what we really want there. Same for Salem corridor. So I think it's really right that we're thinking about how to approach that geography first. And in reviewing that kind of off the cuff list of priorities from Councilors at our previous committee meeting on the 12th, I know we all agreed that each one of these topics is urgent and critical, but that doing what we can around affordable housing, really implementing what we've already resolved to do around affordable housing absolutely has to come first. So I am, excited to address those starting in the summer. And just to interrupt myself very quickly, Councilor Callahan on Zoom requests if we could focus the Zoom on the left portion of the chart again before we take that down. And just lastly, I'm really glad that Councilor Scarpelli brought up the note about public participation. And I know with these public meetings, we're always thinking about how to make sure that there are more people in the room and more people know about them, especially when it comes to things affecting people in their own neighborhoods. I also think it could be meaningful since so many of these zoning goals came out of the community input process informing the comprehensive plan and the climate action adaptation plan. And that's where these goals come from. I think it could be meaningful if it's possible to dig up any of those old, like, public participation worksheets from those months of sessions just to kind of illustrate here's where some of these goals came from here's what residents have already in a sense voted for like here's the why behind some of these proposals and then we can add an additional testimony on top of that.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, sorry. I was thinking that there was multiple packages.
[Kit Collins]: One second, Jimmy.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Director Hunt, before I recognize President Bears. I'll note, I think that that's a great idea. There's a ton to digest from these maps. Thank you so much for that overview, Jimmy and Emily. Some of these are really quite amazing to see this data laid out visually. And I would love to see that. I think maybe we can look at a date that would work for this committee, in addition to our already scheduled July meeting for this group, so that we can continue to move ahead on proposed discussing proposals, either from the, you know, perhaps that'll, I don't think that we really want to push back our first meeting about the corridor level zoning, but I think that this would be fantastic to wrap our head around the kind of global approach. And it's been a long time since we had a meeting where we all just stand around a table together. So I think that'll be very useful. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Paris and Jimmy. I see Attorney Silverstein's hand raised on Zoom. Please go ahead and state your name.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you very much, Attorney Silverstein. So this has been, I think, a helpful overview of the main guide and the main set of tools that we'll be using over the summer and beyond to set some of these goals and topic areas in motion. Using the work plan to keep ourselves apace on the many goals called from, you know, years of community outreach into the comp plan and the climate plan. and discussing ways to make those manifest and changes to our zoning code, whether that be on the basis of topic. addressing specific corridors, specific districts or global approaches. And then to be guided by this new suite of maps, which give us many overlapping pieces of insight into what we're talking about. We're talking about different areas of Medford. And this plan for our next steps in terms of next month, sound good to me as one Councilor, we already have a meeting on the books with this committee and the zoning consultant. and it sounds like there's consensus around using that to begin our conversation around potential proposals for the Salem Street corridor and the Mystic Ave corridor, two priority areas for the community and the council. And I think it'd be really advantageous to, I don't know the July date off the top of my head, but if it's possible to even to fit in that map meeting before that, so we can have that in our heads as we go forward to think about all the other goals and topics with those layers in mind. I think that would set us off on the right foot. Any other councilor Reming?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And likewise, I know that the work plan is too physically large to put in the council packets this week, but if that could be distributed to members of this committee as well, that would be very helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paula. Well, at our previous meeting, we were reviewing the work plan just in draft before it was reformatted. I know Councilors had a chance to review everything that was included within it to make sure that, you know, all key priorities and suggestions from individual Councilors and residents via Councilors had been included. I took another pass today at the work plan that we received on Friday, and I know that all of my pet projects were in there for myself. So that was, I know that I'm sure that additional projects and topics will get added as we work through this. And certainly it doesn't need to be any longer than it already is. So I think that we are starting to get to a place where we can be picking up that pipeline that we kind of test drove with site plan review and definitions and municipal exemptions in May, where we can be working on this kind of two track approach of reviewing proposals to corridors and global strategies. figuring out a cadence to be reviewing proposed language to get at those topics and goals from NS Associates that are in line with the goals and priorities that we agree on, discussing them, voting them out of committee, and making sure that we are, you know, as best we can, going in order of priority and also going in order of actionability when we're ready to move on. And we know that it's urgent to move on so that we can make sure our zoning reflects what we want for our community. I think that takes us to the end of our formal agenda for tonight, because I know we wanted to mostly get a preview of these tools and guidelines we'll be working with for the rest of the summer and the year. Are there any last questions from Councilors on the mapping analysis, the work plan, or on what to expect from our next steps in July? Seeing none, is there any comment from city staff or any member of the public who wish to speak? If you'd like to speak and come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. That's okay, just name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Any other further comment from members of the public, city staff, councilors? Well, thank you so much for being here tonight. Thank you for all your work that's gotten us to this point. Looking forward to July and we'll work together to schedule that working meeting around the maps as well.
[Kit Collins]: Present. Four present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. At this meeting, we will again revisit paper 24033, offered by President Bears and Vice President Collins, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. The agenda says this is the fourth Zoning Updates meeting with Innes Associates, but I think the actual number is higher than that. For this meeting, we have agreed on the following agenda, to look at priority zoning recommendations from the Climate Adaptation and Action Plan, to prioritize zoning recommendations from the 2023 Comprehensive Plan, discussing completing the mapping analysis by June 30, and to discuss new topics that came up during the May 8 committee meeting that should be added to our work plan, including legal definitions and formatting and permitting and process. Given that, that's a lot to discuss. I know that NS Associates has prepared a memo with a first draft of pulling those zoning recommendations from the comp plan and the climate adaptation and action plan. So there's a lot to potentially go over in that already. speaking as one councilor, speaking as the chair, I think my ideal goals for this meeting are to do an overview of the existing recommendations that Innes Associates has already pulled from the cap and the comp plan, to have a discussion on that with councilors towards the goal of at our next committee meeting on June 26, making sure that councilors, Innis and staff all feel comfortable that all of the recommendations that should be pulled from the climate action and adaptation plan and the comp plan have been fully culled, they're all in our work plan, and that we've also talked about assigning priority levels to those zoning recommendations so that we can enter into the new fiscal year feeling like our source documents have been properly vetted and that way we can just approach things by topic and by neighborhood from there on out. I'd also love for us to have a discussion about kind of how we can codifying, putting legal definitions in format, permitting and process into the work timeline to make sure that gets baked in, and then discussing what we need to do to make sure that the mapping analysis, which I think is in a draft stage, will be completed and ready for review at the June 26th committee meeting. Before we get started with reviewing, I want to pass it off to NS Associates. Any preliminary comments from Councilors?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, president bears. I agree. I think it'd be great to publish that well in advance so that residents have lots of lead time to know when changes that might affect their neighborhood are coming. Um, and I think it would be a great segue to, I think it could be a great segue to complete this categorization pulling from the cap and the comp plan and making sure that we've been thorough and comprehensive. It seems to me that we might be able to solidify the work plan for the global and the district changes once we kind of have the full scope of what we're looking at and how those might file in. Any preliminary comments from city staff before I turn it over to Ines Associates? Well, I'll turn it over to Paola. And, um, I was thinking open to alternative ideas on this, but knowing that we have, uh, reviewing the, um, the memo that was circulated to Councilors last week with that draft of, uh, Zona recommendations pulled from the cap and the comp plan, um, there's quite a lot to discuss in there so far. And I think that we'd probably all appreciate adjourning no later than eight 30. So to me, I think that our time could be best served doing kind of a general overview, not going through things necessarily in great detail line by line. But I know that my priority is making sure that everything that ought to be on that list is and working on assigning a priority. So if we could kind of do a high level overview of what's currently in that memo. Paola, and if you could speak to, you know, if there's anything that you particularly think ought to be flagged, anything that didn't make it in, and why I think that that might be most helpful for starting us out.
[Kit Collins]: I think the plan sounds great.
[Kit Collins]: I'll go first to President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Great, Paula. Yeah, just to jump in quickly. I think that's a great place to start. And as I'm looking through this, you know, I think my priorities for the 26th is, and if we, if there's a way to have this reflected in the updated table, if we can kind of be in a process of over the next two weeks, kind of as much as possible, disaggregating the zoning goals with the specific zoning strategies, or replacing some of the goals with specific strategies to achieve them. I think how you have it laid out for today is great. And I hope that, you know, through our discussion and revision over the next couple of weeks, it can be, you know, kind of more like left column, goal that this recommendation is pointing to, column next to that, here are the specific zoning changes that would get us closer to that. And I believe the bolded headings right now are, for the most part, the goals that have specific strategies attached to them at the moment. Should we start there? And Paolo, was it your intention that we would kind of start there and we could also be talking about prioritization as we're going through those strategies? Director Hunt, I want to recognize you if you had a comment. I might have missed your hand.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you, Director Hunt. I know, I think that's, you more eloquently put the point I was trying to make just now, which is right now we have the goals and some strategies to achieve them in the same column. I think that's totally fine for a first draft. But I think that it's important for the, you know, comprehensive and updated version that we look at in a couple weeks that we separate the actual strategy that's being recommended of this body from what's the point of this? Why are we doing this? What goal does it relate to? And what topic does that goal fit within? Maybe it's a matter of just a column getting added if we have number Sarah Silver, PB): Goal and then recommended zoning related action or something along those lines. But right now, I think it's confusing to have goals and strategies aggregated together.
[Kit Collins]: So, yeah, 100%. And I think that I'm feeling similarly, you know, I think it's this is necessary runway up to getting to the point where we're taking votes on strategies that get us there. But we're here to take votes on the strategies that will allow us to actually to actually reduce the zoning barriers to multifamily and mixed use housing development, for example. Um, so, you know, just to restate as one Councilor, my priority is to make sure that every, every, every strategy that has been put into the cap and the comp plan so far as a change that we could vote on and make that would achieve these goals. I want to make sure that that's in this table or an updated version of it. Um, so that, you know, at the beginning of July, what we have is a list is essentially a to do list. Um, so I think for today, you know, I think all of this aligns with what you were talking about is making sure that discussing what's here, if there's any flags that are raised from Councilors are the things that strategies that are in here that are confusing or strategies that aren't in here that we think should be, um, and to work on, you know, assigning perhaps a priority level to the strategies that are already inside as a bears.
[Kit Collins]: Yep. Thank you. Yeah. And I think I would co-sign those priorities. Um, but in terms of our strategy for today, um, you know, I think we're all eager to get, put some, to successfully get through the part of the process we're figuring out how to fit these goals on the page in a way that makes our work easier so that we can proceed along to the point where we're actually discussing the material changes that are being recommended to achieve the goals that are being articulated in the updated version of the spreadsheet or any others. And it made me think about the flowchart or spreadsheet that's in the implementation section of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan itself, which always stuck with me because I found it so readable and useful. And maybe I think what we're talking about is like a one step more granular version of that, where right now, like that has... I think that's exactly what I was just looking at.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, no, I mean, that's what's been sticking in my brain because that implementation matrix is so useful. I can bring it up if you give me a second. There's an implementation matrix at the back of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. I can bring that up unless somebody has it at their fingertips.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I guarantee I am trying as hard as I possibly can.
[Kit Collins]: That's why it's so frustrating.
[Kit Collins]: We're going to make a supplemental appropriation for a little Barbie mic for me so that people can hear me for the first time ever. Hang on one sec. I'm going to pull up the CAP plan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. I really appreciate that.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. No, I think that's great. Just since we're talking about it really quickly, I'm going to share my screen. So this is not as useful as I thought it would be because the version of the cap that's on the city website has the way that two page view works is it's just flipped. So what's on the left should be on the right, but I think this gives an idea at least of, you know, this kind of stepping down towards granularity. What's the word I'm looking for? Visual layout that we're looking for. or at least that I'm kind of thinking of, of starting with the goal and then saying within this, you know, and maybe what I mean by making this more granular is instead of here having strategy and action is having, you know, replacing that action with the specific zoning change that's recommended to achieve that goal or that strategy. So just, I just wanted to provide a visual guide for what I was, what we were describing earlier since we were talking about it. And again, sorry that this page is flipped, but I think this gives you a better idea. Another thing that I like about this, just in terms of a template, I think it's helpful to have a snapshot of a timeline over which, as we get into strategies that will require more research, more neighborhood meetings, I think it would be great to have a snapshot of the time that we might need to take on those strategies. and like other benchmarks kind of in the same spreadsheet. And Paola, you mentioned that maybe for next time as we pursue all the updates that we've discussed so far in the updated version of the spreadsheet, I think it would be great to have a link to where specifically in the zoning that update or addition might occur as we get into specific strategies. I think that that would be really helpful. And I really appreciate you, you know, trying to pace us into this and I speaking for probably not only myself, I know that we're all really eager to get through the phase of visioning and talking about strategies and getting into the nitty gritty. So thank you for not throwing us into the deep end, but as one Councilor, I'm eager to be thrown into the deep end. Should we return to kind of a conversation of prioritization at this point, I'll make sure at the end that we're kind of all clear on the updates to the spreadsheet that we wanna see for next time. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Before I recognize President Bears, thank you. I think this is a very creative way to do this exercise. Just my first instinct is I'm kind of of two minds on this. I think this is an exercise we could do synchronously. I think this is something that Councilors could do asynchronously as well. I think that there also could be value in kind of going through a row and discussing that to kind of make sure that we're aligned on rating systems and then making sure that additional feedback is sent back to Innocence City staff on a reasonable timeline over the next week, perhaps. In any case, I do just want to acknowledge that we also want to talk about the status of the mapping analysis. Yes. tonight and it's 7.45. So if we are going to have a conversation about prioritization, I just think that we should probably try to keep that to no more than 30 minutes to make sure that we get through the rest of our agenda and have time to get solid on our plan for June 26th. I'm sorry, Councilor Leming, you are next and then President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And if I could just jump in and then I'll recognize you, President Bears. I think that because the goals and topics that we're talking about are In one sense, they're things that we're constantly talking about. I think, you know, for many of us, that's why we're in office, because we want these goals to be achieved. And I think we're all completely aligned that these are, all of these are high priority in terms of creating a prioritization system that will help NS Associates, you know, know in what orders we present things to us and to city staff. The more I think about it, I think it could be a productive thing for us to do in between committee meetings, perhaps over the next week so that NS has enough time to digest it before our next committee meeting. But I think, you know, for myself, one way I might approach this in terms of what would I really want to be high on the priority list would be either things that are most achievable. Let's get it done. I think that Councilors might have, you know, we could look at priorities at the topic level or just at the specific strategy level. And some topics might be high priority because the strategies that go along with them are high priority. But, you know, knowing that this issue of priority topics is something that we think about, you know, so constantly, I would be inclined to, you know, focus our thinking on, you know, what information and what format is in us, most need to be able to, you know, put together a functioning helpful work plan from us so that we can hasten to that part where we're kind of looking at specific zoning strategies and seeing where in the zoning court that lines up with. So, you know, eager to hear other Councilors perspectives on this, but I think it might be productive over the next week if Councilors can, you know, kind of do a look back through the topics and the goals that we're thinking about and writing about and emailing constituents about all the time and say, you know, here's my ranking or here are the strategies that I think really have to be in the first three months. I am pretty confident there'll be a lot of alignment. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry?
[Kit Collins]: No, no, no.
[Kit Collins]: No, I just, I just meant like, as a way for councillors to say, this is what feels most urgent to me.
[Kit Collins]: No. And I think that, you know, kind of by the same token, because this is topics that we're constantly immersed in. I don't think that we need a lot of time to digest these topics. So for us to be doing it.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, if I could step us back for a second, Paola, could you recenter us on what, from your perspective for your work plan after tonight, what the utility of our prioritization is? Like, is that to put that in order of what you present to us? Like, you know, say that we order it, number one, housing, number two, business development, number three, climate resiliency. What does that influence? Does that influence, okay, we're gonna package up all of the recommended zoning strategies for the committee in July, and then in August, we'll do the next one. Like what's the causal relationship between the prioritization and what we do next?
[Kit Collins]: So I'm just going to cut you off. Councilor Callahan has had her hand raised. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. Thinking about a path forward here, it strikes me that there might be a way to thread the needle here where we're giving a little bit more exposition during this committee meeting and the time that we have left. And maybe we could go round the horn and have the Councilors give a top level And again, I think like maybe the word prioritization is like was throwing us off a little bit at the beginning of the meeting. But again, it's not about like what what are we not doing, but rather like what's very important to do first and thinking about prioritization at the same time as we're thinking about pairing. What does it make sense to do first with urgency? What does it make sense to do together? knowing that we're not going to be considering any of these strategies in a vacuum. So I think we could possibly take 10 minutes. Maybe Jimmy is just working on the mirror board in the background. So we could go around and have Councilors kind of give their impressions, you know, again, and I don't really think this counts as off the top of our head because these are goals that we think about constantly as we're doing city business, you know, to give some impressions of if it's not the full one through five, but what's my one and two. We could just go around to take two minutes each and do that. councilors felt more comfortable, we could, you know, spend 15 minutes on the mapping analysis to make sure we're in good shape to have a complete version of that submitted to us ahead of the June 26 meeting, and then we can come back and do two or three minutes each per councilor on the prioritization. So that's just one proposal for me, is to go around and leave NS Associates with just a little bit of feedback from each of us before the end of this meeting. I'll recognize Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Certainly, I think that what I was proposing was a very explicitly pared down version of, I think certainly I could talk for an hour about the topics before us, but I think if we wanted to entertain the idea of saying, everybody has one minute, everybody has 90 seconds, everybody has two minutes, you don't have to say you're one through five, you can just say you're number one and number two. And then certainly, you know, Councilors are always welcome and encouraged to submit further feedback and ideas to NS Associates. So me as chair at any time, we could certainly follow up with additional context over the next week. So we kind of have, let's decide on a path forward. I think I see one vote for taking a minute or two each. Sure. I think that we should step away from this for 20 minutes and talk about the mapping analysis, because that's another very big piece that we haven't talked about yet to make sure that we have adequate time for that. And then if we're left with five minutes, we can spend five minutes talking about our priorities.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Paola, if you could circulate that by email, if you could send it to me and President Bearson, or President Bearson, the clerk,
[Kit Collins]: Just let us know when you're sorted, Paola.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, great. Great. Thank you so much, and we'll try to revisit that in 15 or 20 minutes. Let's go now to the mapping analysis. Thank you so much for preparing this memo. This is great. So my understanding is on June 26, the intent is to have these lists and bullet points manifested in an actual series of maps for us to review that, you know, demonstrate the analyses that will guide us as we do our, implement our global and district-wide zoning change strategies throughout the rest of this process. But Paola, can you just give us a idea of what is left to be done on the mapping analysis before the next committee meeting? The intent, the goal of the mapping analysis and what's needed from councillors to complete it?
[Kit Collins]: very hard for that overview. And I think that'd be really helpful in guiding us for both of the tracks that we're talking about global strategies and district strategies. And I think my, my only question at this point is, you know, what do you need from councilors or city staff to complete these by our next committee meeting? So that we can do these?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, Paola and Jimmy. It's great to hear that this is continuing apace. I know that Councilor Callahan has to depart in just a minute. Are there any additional comments on the mapping analysis or should we start our very quick bullet point prioritization to round out the meeting? President Paris?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. I'm really excited. I think that'll be a really flexible tool. Thank you. I'm excited to see that in our next committee meeting. With that, I apologize for the quick pivot. I think we should start our quick recap of priority rankings, priority call-outs, so that we can get to that before councilors have to start leaving. So again, let's do a quick one or two minutes. It can be as short as you need it to be. If there's any impressions, ranking, prioritizations, those topics, Councilor Callahan, start with you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. President Paris.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tsengin, President Paris. Of course, unsurprisingly, I agree with all of what's been said. I think that my top four would be affordable housing, courage, balanced growth, climate resiliency, and achieve slash evolve the 2022 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan with the same pieces of context that were just stated you know looking at that in the context of what does the most recently adopted building code already mandate for us but I know that. to use my full 60 seconds, I think that what's most exciting to me in this zoning project is doing, you know, implementing every strategy that we can around affordable housing, encouraging that mixed use commercial development along our corridors, and implementing, you know, the full extent of our incentives and mandates around energy efficiency for our largest developers in the community. In addition to, you know, street level climate resiliency changes.
[Kit Collins]: Paolo, we can be sure to send you my notes from this conversation, the clerk's notes to make sure that you have everything that you need to capture that. I think that if it is also useful to have Councilors do a more mural style exercise to send to you in the next couple of days or to provide additional context, I'm sure that Councilors would be amenable to that. Director Hunt?
[Kit Collins]: President Bears. Yeah. If I can say- Sorry, Paola, we're gonna go to President Bears real quick and then we'll come back to you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think those last two points are very well taken. And I'm hopeful that the 26 can be kind of our final meeting of this style where we're talking about kind of discussing how to discuss. We're workshopping how to work. And then with the product of the mapping analysis and what comes out of this work plan. I'm hopeful that in June, we can start that cadence of one meeting that's talking about global strategies. You know, personally, I would love to see us begin June with, you know, one meeting that's talking about global housing strategies, what's most actionable to get started on, knowing that any changes we advance will, you know, for the most part be bundled with other strategies that make sense and they're coherent with. And then two weeks later, a meeting that's talking about a really priority district issue. Like I think, Director Hunt, your point is really well taken, that there are some corridors that we, you know, we really have to get to, if we want them to look the way that they need to look for the future and the development that we wanna see. So let's plan for that. Paola, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola, and I think that that matrix of importance and urgency will be really helpful to us in determining exactly what to talk about when, kind of to the point of what we were just talking about and the point that Director Hunt raised with the example of the uses currently allowed by Right on Mystic Ave, or sorry, in industrial zones. with that being said, just one thing.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, agree. I'll add that as a note.
[Kit Collins]: I'm not really stepping in. Just taking a quick note. Right.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think, to my mind, kind of to wrap up to talk about our next steps for the 26th, totally hear you. I know that's an important conflict. I think what might be additive for Councilors to follow up with the consultant about ahead of our next meeting is if Councilors feel moved to kind of further embellish the priorities that we talked about just now with doing a version of that importance versus urgency matrix that Paola showed earlier. If that hasn't already, you know, if there's anything that city staff have to care to add along those lines, especially since you won't be present at our next committee meeting or actually scratch that last part because this is going to be completed by that committee meeting anyway. We'll just be reviewing it. But I think that making sure that all of those, all of those thoughts, you know, are kind of on the record ahead of our next meeting in terms of what's our priority and also what's a priority because it really needs to be done sooner rather than later. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that suggestion. I was actually thinking along similar lines earlier, and I know this committee meets a lot, but we're doing some of the most substantive work that the council is gonna do this year. So if that can help move the ball forward to a place that we're all comfortable with, that sets us up with the information and context that they need to have a really ideally functional work plan for us, I think it's time well spent. So we can work on that over the next week to make sure, you know, to assess how valuable that would be and make sure that people would be free at that time. But until then, you know, Paola, if it's possible, if you could, I think I have the, you know, importance versus urgency matrix from the memo that you sent over. I could circulate that to committee members with the invitation to fill that out. you know, within the next week, through me, I could send that back to you as some additional context for building out the work plan, just to make sure that, you know, again, all of those strongly held opinions about importance and urgency are on the record when we put forward this work plan. We're looking forward to having the completed mapping analysis to review on June 26th, and then we can also make sure that the spreadsheet of recommended zoning changes pulled from the cap and the comp plan is updated along the lines that we discussed at the beginning of the meeting. You know, adjusting that template so that it looks a little bit more similar to the implementation matrix that we're used to from the cap. You know, kind of having it flow from global to strategy so that they're not in the same column. Having it sortable by district based strategy versus global strategy versus strategies that could apply in either case.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. And we'll be in contact to make sure that you have all the information from this meeting that you need to move forward with all that. Any concluding remarks, questions from members of the committee? Or from city staff? Motion to adjourn by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Oh, right. Seconded by Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, yeah. All those in favor. Aye. All those against. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much, Paola and Jimmy. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just forgot.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: I would also like to extend my thanks and congratulations to all the organizers of this event and everybody who participated, signed up to host a band on their porch or contributed in other ways. You know, this is the type of thing that Medford residents have been wanting to see more of for a very long time, and it's great to see this event growing and flourishing more and more every year. So thank you and my congratulations to the organizers and to all of the musical acts.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for being here. Just two quick questions. When is the work plan to be done? And I noted the recommendations around sidewalk restoration. I'm just curious how much of the sidewalk is going to be restored? Is it just the area immediately around the pole or is it more of the block? If you happen to know.
[Kit Collins]: What other areas were you... Or just how far up and down the sidewalk will the restoration be extending, or is it just gonna be the area immediately around the pole?
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Thank you. And when is the work planned for?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve pending the public comment period with the conditions recommended by the city engineer.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This has come before City Council at a regular meeting once before when we procedurally had to refer it to the Community Development Board before it can come back to us for a formal vote. This is the first package of zoning change proposals to come out of the Planning and Permitting Committee. That committee has been working all year so far with the City Council's new zoning consultant on a host of zoning-related goals. And this is that first set. These are namely What I would characterize as formatting, streamlining, and procedural changes. We'll get to our discussions of more of those bigger themes and bigger changes later in the year. These are simpler. The first is to, as was stated, just to quickly restate that we all know what we're talking about, changing the format of the table of uses and parking regulations so that that table is more readable. The intent of this is to put the parking and loading requirements into a format that is more intuitive, easier to understand switching away from a code based model. And so that it's all on the same page. So people who would like to do business in the city of Medford don't have to flip through our rather long code of ordinances to find what they're looking for. The second is many definitions were amended or added into the definitional tables that these could be made useful later in the zoning process or to just update and modernize the definitions that we're currently using. All of these changes were rigorously considered with city staff as well as zoning consultants over the course of several meetings in April and May. We are also taking a vote to adopt the GIS digital version of our zoning map. There are no substantive changes being proposed to the zoning map. This is just to make it so the official on-the-book zoning map for the city of Medford is the one that is digital, is the one that has GIS letters, and is not the one that is quite literally paper and colored pencil. A good step for year 2024. Finally, the last proposal in this package is to exempt certain municipal uses from the table of use in parking regulations and the table of dimensional requirements. This is to streamline the process for the building of certain city infrastructure so that those buildings, for example, hypothetically, a new fire infrastructure, wouldn't have to go through the cumbersome zoning ordinance, zoning, sorry, zoning variance regulations that it would otherwise potentially be subjected to. I would motion to take the first vote to be ordained after a comment from my colleagues.
[Kit Collins]: Need I make a motion to adopt the recommendation from the CDB in my motion?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve with the typographical suggestion from the CDB.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I would motion to suspend the rules to take papers 24-415, 24-045, 24-410, 24-413, 24-414, out of order to join those papers for consideration and to suspend Rule 21.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Mayor. Nice to see you.
[Kit Collins]: I want to thank you for the comprehensive proposal. I also want to thank you for presenting each of these pieces in context of one another. For me, that is the theme and the precondition for this budget season is all of these pieces have to work together. This is my third budget season that I've had as a councilor. This is the least chaotic one so far. Let me put that another way. We're facing some really big difficulties here. The budget process has always been difficult. It's been difficult while I've been on the council. I know it's been difficult before. We're coming off of a really difficult period. I've always made it clear what my red lines are. This collaborative process has allowed us to reach a budget plan that I am comfortable and happy to put forward tonight. We have known for a while that Medford has a funding problem. This has been the topic of so many conversations between me and my colleagues in these chambers, outside of these chambers, the school funding problem and infrastructure funding problem, the capacity building problem, the problem of weaning off of one-time funds. These are not problems that are unique to Medford. They're problems that we have to work through. In the two and a half years that I have been on the council, we have discussed, I think, every mechanism that could contribute towards the solution. As a council, we've made zoning changes that could promote new growth, and we're working on more in our continuing zoning work that we'll put to votes later in the term. We've discussed the city's ARPA strategy. President Bears and I even proposed an override back in 2022, though it did not move forward, and that was robustly discussed in the previous term. This year, everybody is well aware that countdown clock on our strategy for the future is hitting zero. ARPA and ESSER are going offline. So since last fall, the financial task force, which was convened last year as a condition of the FY24 budget, has been meeting to talk about what's next. I've been really proud to be a part of that process, which I joined when I joined city council leadership at the beginning of this term. And I think that that has been part of that that really important critical pivot towards greater collaboration, which has also been affirmed by you and your staff's participation in the budget ordinance process, as well as this collaboration on meeting the needs of this budget season. This is the culmination of many meetings over many months discussing precisely what our needs are and how to meet them. We have rigorously considered the needs facing Medford public schools and city infrastructure. Among these branches of government, we certainly don't always agree, but the bottom line is that there's a set of facts and a set of goals that we are completely aligned on. then I also believe that the community fundamentally is aligned on. We need to maintain at least level service at MPS, we need to staff it properly, and we need to enable public education to start getting better. We need our roads and sidewalks to start getting better. We need to be in a position to pay our city and school staff competitively, and unless we take action, those things will not happen. Our schools will not be what we want them to be, what we need them to be. We will lose students to private schools, and those who cannot afford that type of expense will suffer the most. Our infrastructure will depreciate. Those costs will get passed along to individuals at even higher rates, and we will lose good city workers to other municipalities or the private sectors. There's always been a lot to discuss in how we solve these problems, but I truly believe that, for the most part, we are aligned on these facts and these goals, because we all know that those outcomes are unacceptable. And I think a hallmark of this proposal on how to pivot towards the future hinges on a combined approach of coming out of the reason that we're Sorry, can you tell I'm nervous? This is only the biggest vote that we take all year. Pardon me. Just breaking the fourth wall here for a sec.
[Kit Collins]: You know, we only had ARPA and ESSER to wean off of in the first place because we're coming off of such a hard time. And now we're adapting to that new normal, figuring out what it will require of us, and taking the affirmative steps to gain the revenue that we need to keep Medford a place that supports the people that live here. So for me, this budget is conditioned on its context. We are considering it in the context of two override proposals, one from President Bears and I, one from you, Mayor, totaling $7.5 million, which if they pass, will start stabilizing our school and city operating budgets in quarter three of this fiscal year. We're considering that in the context of a $1.75 million appropriation to stabilize the school department in quarters one and two of this year. And to me, that's critical. That is what my sense of confidence in this plan is hinged on. That gives us the breathing room to get to the override vote, which we put to residents in November without devastating effects happening to the school's department in the meantime. And then the overrides should they pass will allow us to start investing in things getting better and bringing up that baseline year over year. I know that a lot of people are frustrated that we have to be here at all contemplating overrides. I think that totally makes sense. I really do. I also wish that we were, I wish that this was something that no municipality had to contemplate. But I think it's important context to note that since 1990, 300 of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts have advanced at least one override. And many of them have done them lots of times. There have been over 4,500 individual overrides on ballots in municipalities since 1990. For debt exclusions, that number is even higher. There's been 313 cities and towns that have advanced debt exclusions since 1989. totaling over 4,000 individual debt exclusions. So I just put that out there to say, it is really serious to do this. It is really serious. And that's why I'm glad that this is a mechanism that goes on the ballot so that residents of Medford will choose by popular vote. It is serious, but it is not an aberration to do this. I think that the fact that Medford is one of those few municipalities that has never done this is part of the reason that Our budget seasons have been so hard lately. And I'm proud that we're advancing proposals to start pivoting towards a more sustainable future. So I will close by saying I am happy that this year we get to vote on not just a budget, but a plan to advance Medford out of underfunding and into a future where we can reliably provide better services for all students and all residents in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I went pretty long earlier. I'll try to keep this short, bring my average down. First thing, about the financial task force. And I think that there's some people who don't need to hear this, but when we talk about the press release that was released on Friday, that we all collaborated on, city council leadership, mayor and the mayor staff, school committee leadership, What that press release contained was the budget that was already made public, line by line, department by department, that the city council had already reviewed in budget hearings that the entire community was privy to if they cared to read those agendas or attend the meetings. those same numbers, very minor, essentially all the numbers that we already had plus one and three quarters million dollars from ARPA to the schools proposed and the two overrides and debt exclusion that everybody gets to vote on. So just to clarify what was presented on Friday and how transparent or untransparent it was, was all the numbers that the city council and the school and the public already had, plus an appropriation of one-time funds, which many people, including myself, were hoping to see and working to secure. And then three things that we get to put to the voters. So I just want to set the record straight on that, because I think there's a lot of editorializing going on. Second, we have discussed free cash a lot on this council, last term, this term. I have had, you know, it's no secret that we disagree on a lot of things. We agree on a lot of things. I've had some pretty sincere concerns about our free cash strategy in the past. I have my own wishlist for how I'd like to see some of that money appropriated, which I know is different than the strategy that the mayor has. To me, That is irrelevant here. I do not see the end game in appropriating large sums of our free cash reserves towards operating costs. What is the end game of that? We end up back here. we can wish upon a star that we're going to see new growth accelerate at such an incredible rate that we are going to be able to fill that gap exactly in 12 months. But I don't think that we should be budgeting on wishful thinking. Again, I've had sincere concerns and grievances about how we're using free cash in the past. I have my own preferences. It is not the path forward that I think the community wants and needs to allocate money towards the problem that we may never ever see again. It pushes the can down the road. I also think that finding these proposals divisive is completely a choice. That's one of the wonderful things about this being a ballot question. I think, you know, we're a room full of people who have voted differently on things in the past, we will again in the future. And that doesn't have to make us any less of a community. We can talk about it and discuss it and debate about it. And some people will campaign one way and some people will campaign another way. And it does not have to divide us. That is a choice. And I think when people are telling you that you're being divided, You should pay attention to what the motives behind that imperative might be. You don't have to be divided by this. This can actually bring us together in a city with a future that is going to be brighter and more supportive because of what we might do with these investments if we pass them. Not willing to pass a budget based on wishful thinking. We can wish that new growth was different in the past. We can wish for dramatic new growth over the next 12 months that'll solve all of our problems. That wouldn't be responsible. I don't think that what we want as duly elected leaders of the community is for the ability to point the finger and blame somebody else for our problems. I think we're all here to solve problems. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'm really glad that we've had the opportunity to consider all of these papers together. Like I said earlier, I don't think there's any other way to consider all of these pieces than in context with each other. And I'm really glad that we got to hear from so many members of the community about each of these and about these budget-related proposals together. With that, I'm gonna motion that we divide the question and consider each item in this order. 24-413, which is the debt exclusion. 24-414, which is the mayor's $3.5 million override. 24-415, which is President Bears and mine $4 million override. 24-410, which is the ARPA allocation. And then 24-045, which is the budget proposal. Second.
[Kit Collins]: I reviewed the corrections that were sent over from the mayor's office, and I just want to note. I got a lot of pages in this packet. Just to clarify, is the correction being made that in the mayor's override proposal, which 4-414, the first instance that for FY25 appears, that's being deleted?
[Kit Collins]: In the question, right.
[Kit Collins]: Just because that appears twice.
[Kit Collins]: For both, okay, great. and I'd be happy to make that motion to adopt the corrections.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, was that amendment to do a similar deletion in 24-415?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Great.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve. Second.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Sure, the rules are suspended.
[Kit Collins]: They're suspended.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilor Lazzaro. Any additional comments from Councilors on this motion? Councilor Callahan?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. We'll now move to the public perspective. Oh, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. We'll go now to Councilor Scarpelli on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And again, just to reaffirm that the city council is not the decision maker on the use of this parcel that is with the CDB and the DBA during the week of the 24th. Name and address of the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for your nuanced perspective. Really appreciate it. I'm going to go to Zoom next. Danielle, on Zoom, you have three minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. We'll go to the podium now. Name and address of the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go now to Zoom. Mariana, I'll ask you to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. We'll go now to Bill on Zoom, I'll ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll go next to Mr. Castagnetti.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, and then we'll take our vote.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Appreciate that clarification. Before we go to our final hand on Zoom, I just want to segue from that to recenter that again. The city council will not be taking a vote on where this use ought to go. We do not have the authority to take a vote on that matter. The resolution before us tonight is not a referendum on the efficacy of methadone. We know that it is a medication that is used to treat a disease. Substance use disorder is like every disease, not something that anybody chooses. And all patients should be treated with dignity and given every ability to receive care. And I thank the Councilor for recentering us on the intent of her resolution, which is to affirm that throughout the community of Medford, which is of course, and unfortunately, yet another community that has been ravaged by the opioid epidemic. And I'm glad to see us having discussions about how to best address that within our community for community members. I'll go to Tony on Zoom. Name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Any further comment from councilors? Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to receive and place on file.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to receive and place on file, offered by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Whatever it was, I'll let you say it again.
[Kit Collins]: We're taking it from the table. How's it going?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, and thank you for co-sponsoring this resolution with me. I'm very happy to recognize and celebrate Caribbean American Heritage Month. We have many community members that are part of this vibrant community here in Medford, and it's great to have an opportunity to acknowledge these folks who hail from the Caribbean and have landed in Medford. sometimes for a short time, sometimes for many generations, and to celebrate the ways that their culture and their contributions add so much to our community here in Medford. So a happy Caribbean American Heritage Month to us all.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. Just to recap, I believe we had our first substantive discussion about this ordinance in February. At that time, the committee approved a motion for me as sponsor of the paper to draft a, actually I believe we motioned to have an ordinance be drafted in February, I believe we discussed it in March. I based the draft off of wildlife feeding ordinances that are present in other of our, you know, nearby or neighboring communities in Massachusetts and beyond. To quickly recap on the intent and goals of this ordinance, this is not an ordinance to illegalize bird feeders or to prevent any sort of normal activity that we do with, you know, household animals or songbirds. This is in response to problems that residents have noted in the community with food scraps being inappropriately left out as kind of deliberate lures for wild animals or inadvertent lures for wild animals that are creating the presence of, you know, a kind of destructive presence of wildlife. In our residential neighborhoods, a couple residents have come to me and said, you know, My neighbors have this practice of leaving out XYZ unopened containers. It's really a lot of food, it's a lot of peanuts, it's a lot of seeds, what have you. And it would be one thing if the raccoons or the pigeons would stay on their side of the fence, but obviously animals do not observe private property. And our code enforcement currently does not have a mechanism for enforcing this type of nuisance. So the intent of this ordinance is not to legalize any sort of harmless animal related activity, but just to be able to provide a recourse for Code Enforcement or Board of Health to issue warnings or tickets in the case of inappropriate animal feeding that really is creating a nuisance for other people. So at our last meeting on this topic in March, we passed several motions to receive feedback on the ordinance from department heads, code enforcement, from the Board of Health, from the animal control officer, and to receive a legal review. So we have received some feedback from department heads on the ordinance. I don't know if any of them are on the call tonight. I have some comments in my email from department heads. We also did receive a legal review from KP Law yesterday midday. So this is the first chance that the council has to consider legal opinion on the ordinance as well. So that's the recap of where we are so far and I have comments that I can offer about where I think we should go next with this, but I'll pause there.
[Kit Collins]: No, I was just gonna make a comment, but I wanted to wait for you to recognize me. Oh, go ahead, please. Thank you. I just wanted to, I think that, so this is the first time that we're seeing the legal review and just to recenter on, you know. possible avenues for this committee. We have the feedback from department heads that we could review on the draft ordinance, and most of that has been positive and affirming. There's been some suggestions for how to just firm up the language a little bit, but no contesting of the goals. There are some comments from residents that I've received that I'd like to at least put on the record. And then this is our first opportunity to review the legal review together. So I think that it's possible that there might be some language changes that this committee might want to consider before we report this out to committee of the whole, just because we haven't had a chance to consider this legal opinion until doing it live. Great. So I am happy to, because we don't have council with us here tonight, I'm happy to kind of run through. Um, this overview of the legal review of the ordinance. And then I would also at the end, I would motion to circulate the legal review to committee members that we can, um, review. Yes. Uh, one second.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Excellent. So I'm gonna go over this kind of, I'm gonna try to go over this briefly. There was a recommendation to, I think, disaggregate intent from purpose and intent, or there was a recommendation that Here, Attorney Braun says, some municipalities seek to add an intent element to distinguish between accidental feedings and intentional misconduct. As written, the section A just reads, the intent of this ordinance is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. That does seem to me like a good suggestion in the intent section to say the point of this is to target intentional inappropriate feeding, so that it's very clear that I've received some questions from residents around What does this mean for the garden in my backyard? What does this mean for my beehive? What does this mean for my bird feeder? And I do think it's important to make it clear that this is really targeting inappropriate feeding and not accidental feeding that does not result in nuisance. Though I think it is also true that this is an ordinance that will only be enforced when a problem actually occurs. And so I think that's an important part of that remedy as well. So there's a suggestion, i.e., whenever the animal control officer becomes aware the wildlife has been found feeding on any substance, dot dot dot, and the resident or person responsible has been notified of the occurrence thereof, any subsequent feeding shall be evidence that the feeding was with the knowledge or intent. So that's, again, to focus on when somebody was given the opportunity to know better and kept doing it anyway. We have a comment about if, you know, garbage or compost centers unintentionally being the source of wildlife feeding. Again, this is kind of around making sure that nuisances don't accidentally arise. I think that there's a section later in this ordinance that kind of takes care of this in other language that essentially says, you know, the first penalty for violating this ordinance should it pass is never simply getting a fine, but rather you know, the enforcing officer saying, it looks like this is a source of a problem on your property, please remedy it. And then failure to remedy it, of course, might require a further remedy. There's a recommendation to define what a bird feeder is, just so there's no ambiguity there. always count on attorneys to point out to us what seems specific that might actually not be. Likewise, a recommendation to define pets, and this brings up a comment that was made earlier in this process, where do feral cats or stray cats fall? Consider whether we want to specifically address cats, such as no person shall feed any feral or stray cat, or this section shall not apply to persons feeding feral or stray cats with the express purpose of adopting and domesticating them within a certain set number of days. And I think that might be something of interest to this committee based on comments that were made in earlier meetings. Going further down to enforcement and penalties. Attorney Braun says, in my opinion, the non-criminal disposition statute requires that an ordinance must specify the enforcing authority to place residents on notice and may not delegate a designee to do so. I have a question about this because this seems dissimilar from how some of our other ordinances are written. We often put X department head or their designee into our ordinances. So I think this is certainly something that I'd want to double check. So to summarize, it appears to me that many of the comments are around defining with more specificity those terms around bird feeder pets. So it's very clear, you know, what is an allowable use in the case of bird feeders, which I think is a very common allowable use. Making sure that it's clear what I'm going to put in air quotes, what sanctioned animals, you know, are and are not included. And I think the exception for feral cats where there's the intent to domesticate and vaccinate them is one that might be relevant to Medford residents. And I think that there's a way to perhaps synthesize the suggestion around clarifying, you know, unintentional Nuisance creation via compost containers or garbage. I think there's a way to just like dovetail that more specifically with the language that's already in the ordinance. And perhaps shoring up the intent section. I have Most of the comments from residents that I have gotten apart from those who tell me that we really need this ordinance because they really need a remedy for the nuisances that are finding their way onto their property because of foodstuffs that are adjacent to their homes. A lot of those center around, you know, what does this mean about, again, what does this mean about my vegetable plot? What does this mean about my outdoor barbecue? What does this mean about my bird feeder? What does this mean about my beehive? Should I ever get one? And I think that the intent section could help to clarify, or sorry, excuse me, could help to clarify one, that This is an ordinance that seeks to correct for nuisances when they occur. We're not trying to outlaw any, we're not trying to regulate something that isn't causing a problem, but also to give more clarity around this is not, This is not something that's trying to eradicate any possible source of foodstuffs from somebody's backyard. It's just simply trying to create the mechanism by which when there's a problem, code enforcement actually has an ordinance to point to so that they can enforce about it. Because right now residents don't really have a recourse. So I'll pause there.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. And just to add on to what you're already saying, and I can say this with some authority because I was on a has a number of. the former Solid Waste Task Force when we spoke quite at length about the role of the composting program and understandable resident concerns about the composting containers. They're actually harder for animals to get into than the trash and recycling residential containers that residents are used to because most of them are actually locking. They're a thick plastic, they're locking, they have lids, and they have been shown in other communities to actually reduce the extent to which waste receptacles are an attraction to wildlife. So I certainly wouldn't want to give off the impression that composting is expected to be a greater attraction for wildlife. And I think this again gets into not specific to trash and compost receptacles in particular, but rather, if anything, anything mundane happens to become an attraction for a nuisance, what then? And I think I think this is in line with how the ordinance is currently written, and perhaps there's a clarification we can make. But just to shore up that, if something is attracting a nuisance, the first step is to, for if neighbors can't work it out amongst themselves, for a city designee to say, this is attracting a nuisance, it's time to fix it. And then if a remedy doesn't occur, then we have the same recourse that we do for any other nuisance that's going unremitied, which is a warning, a ticket, and then a fine.
[Kit Collins]: I think my recommendation, and if there's assent for this, I'm happy to offer it as a form of a motion. I think that I personally would benefit from some time offline to digest the legal review, which again, I apologize, I haven't had time to look deeply at it before it came in yesterday midday. As ordnance sponsor, like I created the first draft, I'm happy to create a revised draft that incorporates those suggestions around the bird feeder language from Director O'Connor and Animal Control Officer Hogan around the bird feeder to incorporate those suggestions from the legal review, provided that the rest of the committee agrees. And to include, that would be adding the intent section, adding that language around the definitions of bird feeders and pets, you know, contemplating the exception for feral cats, depending on the will of the committee, and just making sure that all of the comments from the legal review that the committee agrees with are incorporated. Personally, I think I'd do that more effectively offline than during this committee. My motion would be to authorize myself as lead sponsor to do that work. And then I would really prefer to bring a revised draft back before this committee as early as possible in July. Just because I know that I really appreciate the support on this ordinance that that has been expressed by Director O'Connor and Animal Control Officer Hogan and our code enforcement officers. And I know there's a lot of eagerness for this enforcement ability in the community from folks who are currently suffering nuisances, so I would love to be able to incorporate those and then expedite that in a July committee meeting. Okay, understood.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Chair Lazzaro? Yes. If we could, I don't know if we're getting to the end of our discussion, but if we are, I just would like to hear opinions from my fellow councilors and any city staff or interested residents who are On the call on the feral cat exception specifically just to make sure that I am editing in the right direction for our revised draft that will contemplate in July. When I read over the legal review, I thought that the exceptions mentioned seem reasonable to me, sort of that it's fine to do that sort of like very limited baiting for the express purpose of capturing feral cats where the full intent is to domesticate, spay, neuter, and vaccinate them. I think there's nothing wrong with leaving food out for wildlife in that case when the intent is to make them cared for pets and no longer wildlife. Clearly that's a very different issue than leaving, you know, lots of peanuts out that are attracting a horde of pigeons. But I just wanted to make sure that there was remit around that before I incorporate that exception into the next draft.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I apologize for speaking over your council member. Yeah, I think those points are well taken. I also appreciate your perspective around not wanting to over litigate this because, of course, and I think that this is an important thing to remind ourselves and the public of when we're considering any ordinance with an enforcement mechanism, which is theoretically all of them, is enforcement kicks in when something is noticed to be in violation of the ordinance or creating a problem. So I do think it's true what you say that If baiting for wild cats so that they can be domesticated is going on and it's not creating a nuisance, then the ordinance is not being violated and the ordinance does, you know, then it's not creating a nuisance, it's a non-issue. And that is true whether or not the ordinance says so. So I think it might be kind of a wash whether we put it into this language or not. I would maybe propose that we, since this suggestion is new as of the legal review, I would maybe suggest that we run this exception by the animal control officer who I don't think could be on the call tonight just to get his two cents. And then that could be something that we, dispense with one way or another at our follow-up meeting in July when we hopefully finalize the ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I appreciate that. And I think it's always a good point to make that ordinances for setting policy or creating a remedy for problems, but it's also important to take the time to make sure that the language doesn't have unintended consequences. I don't think that that is an issue here, but I certainly appreciate the feedback that we've gotten from residents on this and just clarifying notes raised in the legal review to make sure that the language is really clear in what this ordinance is about and what it isn't about so that we have a recourse for solving problems when they arise and when there is a problem that people can feed birds and keep bees in peace. So I want to thank our department heads for their comments on the ordinance and for their support of this ordinance. And I appreciate all the residents that have advocated for this and weighed in on it from any direction.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to congratulate you again. Rick, in my culture, we have a name for a person like you. It's a mensch. And, you know, this past week was, you know, we all talked about your service and making sure that this elderly tenant had a safe landing spot. But I know that for you, this is just, you know, that was just a regular Tuesday. And it's that kind of service that makes this honor so well earned. So thank you for doing what you do all the time.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, for co-sponsoring this resolution with me. Jewish American History Month. Heritage Month, excuse me, is a relatively new commemoration. It was first proclaimed in 2006. It was a collaboration between the American federal government and Jewish museums throughout the nation. And I think that this is a wonderful opportunity to thank Jewish culture bearers in Medford, not just for their contributions, but for continuing to tell the stories of this community. And it's a good reminder to thank all culture bearers of all communities within Medford for continuing to tell their stories and share their culture and their history with the entire community.
[Kit Collins]: We met again with the city council zoning consultant, and we reported out several items which are all on the city council agenda tonight. The table of use and parking regulations, updating some definitions, updating just the digital version of the existing zoning map, and municipal exemptions, no substantive changes, just some tweaks to streamline the city's zoning procedures while we work with the zoning consultant on more thematic changes. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Kit Collins]: Aye.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to suspend the rules and take 24-366 out of order.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This council has for a long time been a forum for residents when they are in a time of need. I think it's fitting that former Councilor Caraviello is here tonight because in my first term, you know, he was the liaison that bridge that made that connection with a whole group of tenants that were in a time of need and I think early 2022 with the Bradley Road tenants and made sure that Councilors were informed of what was happening in their building and could offer whatever support we could as they sought their next safe haven in Medford. And I'm glad that this council can be a forum to hear from residents in any occasion of need. Over the past several months, tenants at the Brooks Park apartments have been keeping councilors informed of their situation, which includes, you know, the property changing hands, and unfortunately, a wave of displacement and evictions. I understand that they've been seeking to converse and discuss and negotiate with their property owners that they can remain in this community, and I am grateful to them for appearing tonight so that we can hear an update directly from the source about the status of their tenancies. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to thank again everybody who's spoken so far, everybody who's spoken as a member of the Tenants Association, and to the people who have come here to stand in solidarity with them, or the people who found themselves here and are supporting them nonetheless. I think that That seems like a really Medford thing to me to say, you're my neighbor and I want you to be able to stay here and I want you to stay a part of this community. I wanted to keep it brief at the beginning to pass the mic to the folks who are really going through this, but I just want to give a little bit more context about how I came to know about this issue that these tenants are facing. I think it's been almost a year since I heard about the sale of the Brooks Park Apartments for the first time. It was actually somebody who lived, who owns a condo up the road who first reached out to me and said they had seen the for sale sign and they were really worried because they knew that this was naturally occurring affordable housing and they were worried about what would happen to the tenants after it was sold. It was shortly after that that myself and President Bears, together with the planning department, started spending a few days just on the phone, all the time talking to an interested affordable housing developer and trying to see what we could do to make sure that this building would be competitive to sell to an affordable housing developer instead of to a for-profit housing developer. And that didn't happen, unfortunately. The offer just wasn't competitive with what the corporate property owner could offer. And I remember thinking, it's going to happen again. What happened on Bradley Road is just going to happen again. And we're just waiting for it to happen. You know, and then several months later, it happened. And we saw that wave of notice to quit notices go out to these two, we're hearing about that wave of evictions. And you know that just it, it breaks my heart as a representative of neighbors in this community. When people from up the street or people who are going through this come to me as a city councilor and say, what are you doing about this? How can you stop this? How can you how can you keep these people in our community? How can you help me to stay in this community? And it breaks my heart because There's not a lot we can do. We had this conversation when Bradley Road was happening, we said we can stand with you, we can support you, and we can platform what you're going through, we can platform your testimony, we can stand with you when you rally outside the building, when you try and try and try to get your property owner just to talk with you, just to try and recognize you as a a group of residents that are trying to collectively bargain. But the state doesn't give us any other tools for keeping our residents who want to stay here in our community. We don't have those tools that other states have. You know, I think that I'm so glad that we're talking about what it will take to put the city in a position where we can in the future buy a building like this and say, We got this. We'll protect you. That building's up for sale. We're going to buy it so that Medford residents can stay there in perpetuity. We're not at that place. I think they're growing an affordable housing trust fund. The analogy that comes to mind is it's like planting a tree. Right now we're planting that tree. That sapling is in the ground. It's been in the ground for three months. It's going to be decades before we can turn that into purchasing buildings that will be affordable housing for members of this community, unless we start planting immediately. And that's what's so sad. We're behind the eight ball. So we need to be thinking about growing that forest so that this doesn't keep happening again in the future. But in the short term, we need more tools to help people like the tenants that are before us this evening, whose problem is right here and right now. It can't wait 20 years. So I want to thank you so much for being here. And every time that a tenant speaks out for themselves and their neighbors, they're speaking out for all tenants who don't want to be moved around the region like pawns. They want to stay here in their community where they work and have friends and have family and have invested and want to keep investing. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: I just want to note that I think we've gotten pretty far off of the topic of the resolution. I would like to respond to the misinformative spin put on actions that I've made. However, I'd prefer that we get back on topic and get on with the meeting because talking about the transfer fee was not on the agenda for tonight. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'm gonna make a quick comment, and then I'm gonna make a motion. Actually, I'll make the motion first. The motion is to receive and place on file, I guess.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, that's a better idea.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This is the first package small package of updates to come out of the planning and permitting committee and its work with the zoning consultant that the city council hired at the beginning of this term. So we're starting it off with. some proposals that I think will be, you know, relatively minor procedural compared to the scope of work that we will be continuing on for the rest of this term, which will be, you know, kind of encountering those bigger questions that constituents have been coming to us with for years around residential development and commercial development and mixed use development and incorporating the goals and themes of our comprehensive plan, climate plan, housing production plan. These are less sexy. We've been working with the zoning consultant and planning staff and the new building commissioner to make What's the word I'm looking for kind of some like formatting changes to the table of use and parking regulations, so that all of the relevant information is on the same page and updated so that it's more readable, so that when city staff and potential developers are looking for this information, they don't have to go flipping through our very low court ordinances to find it. We have also added and made some adjustments to the definitions in the zoning code to bring that up to best practice and to include some definitions that we might need to include later when we do tweak the zoning. We would like to adopt the new digital GIS zoning map. There's been no material changes to the zoning map proposed. We'd just like to move away from the literally colored pencil version and have the official version be the digital version instead, which I think is a great step. And finally, the proposal also includes certain municipal exemptions from the zoning code ordinances so that major city projects, for example, a new fire headquarters will be able to proceed in a more efficient, streamlined manner. So procedurally, this has to be referred to the Community Development Board before this council can take a vote to codify it. So I'd motion to send it to the CDB.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: I'll let George go and then I'll speak.
[Kit Collins]: All right, I believe Councilor Callaghan will be on with us in just a couple of minutes when she's able to get online. Since we have a quorum present, I'm going to call the meeting to order. There will be a meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee, May 22nd, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6pm via Zoom only. To submit written comments, please email ahertabse at medfordma.gov. Mr. Kirk, please call the roll. Mr. Clark, I can't hear you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, I believe that she'll be joining online just a few minutes late. For present one absent, the meeting is called to order. The action and discussion item for tonight is again paper 24033, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. We've been meeting with the Innes Associates team together with other key stakeholders and supporters in the zoning overhaul process very frequently in this committee over the past few months. Our last meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee was also on this topic. I'll just briefly recap what we talked about in that meeting, talk about our specific goals for this meeting, which we talked about on the 8th. We have some items to report out and then hopefully at the end of the meeting, we can briefly tee up what else we plan to do in June to accomplish with this team by the end of the fiscal year. And I'm hoping that we can, since we had such a robust discussion on May 8th, I'm hoping that we can get everybody out of here by pretty close to 7, if not before 7.30. I know there is another committee meeting after this one tonight. On the 8th, we had a long and robust discussion about some of the definitions in the current code of ordinances that are to be updated. And that informs that kind of piggybacks and other conversations that we've had with this team about necessary updates to the table of uses and to site plan review, changes to the zoning ordinances that will make administrative work on the city side more streamlined before we get into the work of substantively changing the zoning. So building off of those conversations tonight, I'm hoping that we can touch on the following topics. Going over the general plan for the review of Medford zoning ordinance. Reviewing the recommended updates to the definitions and use table. Reviewing the site plan review options. Discussing our plan for reviewing the climate action and adaptation plan. and then we'll touch on our plan for the schedule for meetings in June and what zoning update topics we will review when in June and further out. Just checking my notes to make sure I didn't leave anything off of that list. overall the goal for tonight is to review recommendations for table of uses, definitions and use table, site plan review options, and make sure that we can report those out to local city council so that they can be referred to the CBP so that we can get those changes moving along efficiently by the end of the year. With that I want to, if there's no If there's no preliminary comments by my fellow councilors or by city staff, I'm happy to kick it over to Paola to introduce what is on tonight.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. I wasn't sure we landed on that. Thank you. So the other item to review tonight and make sure it gets reported out is the GIS zoning map. And Mr. Clerk, I see that Councilor Callahan is present. All right, unless Director Hunt or other city staff have anything to add, Paola, please feel free to go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: I think it might probably cost.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paula. I'll just jump in to paraphrase and summarize from our conversation about this on May 8th. The recommended change to this table of uses is that we're switching from... Can you just spell it out for folks who might not have been at our previous committee meeting, the flag changes in gold?
[Kit Collins]: this is to make sure that the relevant information is all on the same page for when city staff or developers are looking for this information. Thank you. Are there any other questions on this slide from councillors or city staff members of the public? Director Hunt, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Okay, great. So let's make sure that, um, a footnote to this effect is incorporated in whatever version is reported out tonight. You can make all motions at the end.
[Kit Collins]: Any comments or questions from counsellors on that first set of definitions? Paula, could you just quickly go through the slides again of the definitions that you just showed us? Or even just that title slide. Yeah, that's fine. Doggy daycare, institutional use, mixed use, motor vehicles, and accessory use. These were among the many that we discussed on the 8th, and I think these were the ones where it was most clear. And I think that was the direction to go in. Not seeing any questions from fellow councillors, let's go along to the next set. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I think personally, I think that if our goal is to report all of these out tonight, we should deal with the thorns as we encounter them. Questions or comments or suggestions from counsellors on the need for reconciliation that Paola just mentioned?
[Kit Collins]: I would say that for myself as well. My priority is making sure that we don't, I think the phrase we were using last time is we don't want to break the zoning by implementing new terms before the rest of the zoning code is ready for them. I like the approach of making new terms available and then implementing them when we're ready. So Paola, if it's the professional opinion of Innes Associates that this is the definition that accomplishes that, then I think that's how we should go forward.
[Kit Collins]: Any other comments from councillors or city staff on this one? No? Great. Let's go forward.
[Kit Collins]: I'll recognize Pointer Evans.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. And I think, you know, this process is bringing to the fore certain present or future uses that we don't have definitions for yet. And since we know that this is a use that exists in neighboring communities, but less so in Medford, I think this is one that we should put on the list of things to revisit. in future packages of changes if that seems like an okay cadence to city staff and to your team. Personally, I think that these proposals look good. I also think that, you know, the I think that there's a lot of good reasons to adopt the, you know, dwelling one unit attached aka row house or, you know, the aka duplex that seems useful. So that would be, I would be happy to go forward with those tonight. Any other comments, questions from councillors, city staff on this one?
[Kit Collins]: I'll recognize Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. And yeah, I think some definitions are updated or so that it's more clear to people who do work and what uses are encouraged and allowed or permitted. And so that if the building commissioner feels that that's something that would be helped by including this definition for the first time, that sounds good to me. Let's keep it moving.
[Kit Collins]: So these are- Thank you, Paola, I appreciate that. Having reviewed these two, and I just want to, I think for these, oh, and thank you, Commissioner, we'll get to you in just a sec. I think for arranging these definitions, since we had such a substantial conversation about these in our previous committee meeting, I want to pivot and see if there are questions on these two that we just went over, and maybe even for the definitions. Rounding out this batch, you know, let's gloss over all the headlines. Let's, you know, you or I can read the definitions. And then I think, based on our substantive conversation last time, I think we could be at the point where we can raise red flags where there are. But I think we left this off in a really great place at our last meeting. Commissioner van der Waal, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, we can make sure to check on that before these come before the council and report it to the CBB. Thank you so much, Paola, for introducing these last two. Are there any questions or comments from councillors or city staff before we proceed on to the next terms? Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We'll go to President Bears and then Planner Evans.
[Kit Collins]: Sure, many bites at the apple. All right, Paola, if we could proceed, and then we'll just, I think let's, in the interest of time and our full agenda for this meeting, let's read off, you know, this term will be defined, junkyards, take a beat, and if council or city staff have concerns or questions, we can stay on those. If not, we can proceed. How's that sound?
[Kit Collins]: So, those are the questions or comments from counsellors on junkyards. Seeing none, okay.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. And I think we had a really, for me, a helpful conversation about this on the 8th, Commissioner Venable.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Any questions or flags other than that one on accessory use? Let's proceed.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for introducing this. And I think that the clarification of when is it becoming an establishment is very clear. Councilor Callaghan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I think that's a good point. I'm not sure that that type of constraint would occur in the definition, but I think it's something for us to consider elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. President Bears and then Planner Evans.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Any other questions or concerns with eating establishments cafe slash coffee shop neighborhood cafe? Is that a new hand, present bearish, or an old one? Great. Let's go forward.
[Kit Collins]: And I think, Paula, if you could kind of summarize these as a unit, I think that would be the most comprehensible, at least to this counsellor, rather than going through the definitions individually.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. I think this does an admirable job of putting verbal language to a very visual concept. Commissioner van der Waal.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you Commissioner van der Waal. I think that my M.O. for the definitions at this stage is to make sure that we're advancing the ones that T.S. up for future good decisions, even if those future good decisions are necessary to keep improving the zoning. I wouldn't want to advance a definition that further confuses the issue, but if an exception or kind of like a fringe case can be added on top of this foundational definition. If we feel that's the case with advancing these tonight, then I think that we should. And then, you know, again, before implementing these in the zoning code, figure out what other fringe cases or exemptions need to be added in so that we are covering all of our bases. Before we move on, Planner Evans?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paola. I appreciate that. And I do recognize this is one of the ones that was a bit in a less formed state in our last community meeting about definitions. I just want to pause there for any questions from councillors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I know for myself as one councillor, I think that having more visual definitions to accompany the verbal ones will make these even more clear for everybody who's using them. And certainly knowing that these are in the queue makes me comfortable with advancing these tonight as well. Before we get any last comments on these definitions from councillors and move on, Commissioner Redville.
[Kit Collins]: Right, thank you, Commissioner. I can definitely see how that would be really useful. Great. Were these the last two definitions that we had to review, Paola?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paula. And I think, I think, yeah, my confusion with this is what Sorry, hang on a second, Commissioner Van Der Waal. I think my question here is right. What about those right angle situations where, how do you determine which one is the front where the property line divides the street against, oh, hang on, when there's two rights away that it's abutting? And I'll recognize you, Commissioner Van Der Waal and then Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Callaghan.
[Kit Collins]: Great. So this is a preview. Thank you. I always appreciate that. Great. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: We have a motion from President Bears to refer up these definitions and we did have a flag to include that footnote around parking code exemptions into the use table.
[Kit Collins]: Great. To report out the table of use and changes, seconded by Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Shall we vote on that now or save it all? Let's save all the motions for the end.
[Kit Collins]: There is a second from Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, and I just want to thank you, President Bears, and I just want to restate that the zoning map, there are zero substantive changes to the map. It's just that we're, you know, officially codifying the GIS digital version. There are no changes to the zoning map. So I think, you know, yeah, we can spend one or two minutes on that. that's just procedural. And then if we can try to go over municipal exemption, this is again a topic that we've talked about in previous meetings, that this is kind of the culmination of those conversations. And if we, let's see if we can get through that by 7 30. All right, Paola, if you want to. Paola, are you comfortable talking about the GIS zoning map, or is that something that a PBS staff member would like to just quickly go over?
[Kit Collins]: Anything to add, veterans?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So this is essentially, this is something that we have to do procedurally, and this way covers our basis in case anything very, very minor has incidentally changed. So there's already a motion to report out the GIS digital zoning map to our next regular meeting. Thank you so much for just bringing us up to date on how that's come to be. So let's tackle our next and last item that has to be reported out tonight, municipal use. Again, let's try to, let's see if we can recap that process by 7.30 and I'll quickly tee up our proposed agenda items for our next couple of meetings in June. and let councillors get along to their next committee meeting. All right, Paola or Tony Silverstein, if you'd like to just briefly summarize the conversations that we've had around municipal exemption.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Attorney Silverstein. I really appreciate the overview of the why of this, why this is meaningful on the city side and walking through the changes to put this into effect. Do I have any questions, concerns from our fellow Councilors or a motion to report this out to the next regular meeting? President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Perfect. Understood.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments from the fellow councillors on municipal site review? Seeing none, do I have a motion to refer this out to the next meeting?
[Kit Collins]: Do I have a second on the motion?
[Kit Collins]: Great, Mr. Clerk, is it now two motions, one to refer out the table of use, definitions, municipal site plan review changes, and then to refer the GIS digital zoning map out? I put them all in one motion, I'll have to read it back. All in one motion, perfect. Nope, that's great. Okay. Seeing no hands raised, you can take the vote on that motion. Okay. Offered by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in fair, zero opposed. Motion passes and these four items are reported out to the city council regular meeting. So just to recap, And I'm just going to stop your screen share for the last five minutes of the meeting. Thank you so much. So just to recap these four items, the changes to the table of uses, the definitions that we discussed, the municipal site plan review and the GIS slash digital version of the zoning map. These will all appear on the city council agenda next Tuesday. Procedurally, they must then be referred to the CDB for their review, and then they will come back to the City Council for a final vote. So that's several more opportunities for discussion should any concerns or questions arise, or should, of course, the CDB have any recommendations or changes that they would like to flag for the Council. Before we adjourn, I just wanted to preview our draft topics for our two committee meetings with Innes Associates in June. We have been having conversations about site plan review other than municipal site plan review. I know that Innes Associates has been working hard on that. I think that we've also been talking about reviewing the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which Innes Associates has begun to do to mine that for those zoning policies that ought to be incorporated into our comprehensive look at the zoning code. I think our June 8th meeting would be a good time to touch on both of those topics and drill down a little deeper and make sure that We're having a comprehensive update on site plan review, and that we're making sure that everything from the climate action adaptation plan that ought to be incorporated into our work plan is inside of the work plan. And then on our June 22nd committee meeting, this will be our, I believe this will be our final meeting with the zoning team in this committee before the end of the fiscal year. I think that we can tie off that milestone by having a last meeting to make sure that any climate-related policies from the comprehensive plan or other ideas from councillors are tied up in a bow in our work plan for our kind of more theme-based approach to the zoning overhaul throughout the summer and into the fall. So that would be site plan review and the cap on the 8th, and then tying off any additional climate-related pieces on the 22nd, and I'm sure that we'll have a couple other, perhaps more minor topics for the 22nd as well. Any additional comments, questions from fellow councillors or city staff or things that I neglected to mention?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much. Yes, we've spoken about that. Yes, and Director Hunter.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Director Hunt. I wish I could say this is the first time you've caught an egregious date error on my part, but it's not. So that would be site plan review, the cap, a first view of the mapping analysis on June 12th, which is a Wednesday, and then that second committee meeting in June is on the 26th.
[Kit Collins]: And that is on the 26th, so it will be a constant because of the 19th. Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. Well, thank you so much, Paula and the NS Associates team for all of the prep work for this presentation tonight. It's exciting to get our first batch of changes out to the council where they can be sent to the CBB and then back to us. Our first package of many. Is there any additional comments by my fellow councillors, city staff, or members of the public? Seeing none, do I hear a motion?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Second by President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. All in favor? None opposed? Meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here as always, and for walking us through the budget. It's always great to hear about how certain positions and capacity in the city are being funded by grant funding I know that your office always does a really great job of leveraging that. Just a quick clarification on some of the personnel. You walked us through the community social worker and the administrative support that's being funded through some of the grants that you just mentioned. I saw that one of the part-time nurses looks like it's coming offline, or maybe that was just reallocated. Could you speak to that?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. And just to clarify, so is that monies that are available for a seasonal nurse or is that it's it's more appropriate to use that funding for the community social worker at this time? I'm sorry. Just to make sure I understood you correctly, is it that the being for are being put towards a seasonal nurse like during the like the flu season or is it that it's being reallocated to the social worker?
[Kit Collins]: Yes, it does. Thank you. I'm sorry. I think the AC makes it even harder to hear the normal. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for the presentation. I always appreciate the very thorough walkthrough that you give us into the school committee's recommendation. Of course, as has been stated, you know, the City Council has no jurisdiction when it comes to line items, when it comes to how the Schools Department chooses to spend whatever appropriation that's given each year. That is beyond our scope, but still I find it really helpful context for understanding the number that comes before us, so thank you so much for that. Um, speaking of individual line items, you know, for myself as an individual Councilor, like anybody else in the city, I hold individual opinions about particular positions or programs that to me seem really vital and important, that seem like they must be protected. But as a Councilor in this role, it is deeply important to me that we advance a budget, advance a budget plan that gives our school's administration the latitude to do right by students, families, educators, all school staff. And it's my understanding that that's the number that was just explained to us. This year, I am optimistically expected to cast a yes vote for a budget that includes this school's appropriation for the 79 million that puts students and families' minds at ease, that's fair to teachers and school workers, and that gives our public schools the ability to start doing more rather than less. And that isn't a reflection whatsoever on the district, I don't think. We're coming off of a pandemic. We know we're in a really difficult fiscal situation. But based on what I hear, from the community. I think that there's this widespread consensus that we have to start improving, and we have to be really serious about what that takes. Personally, I think that education is one of the most important services that a city provides, and our budget should reflect that by meeting the school committee request. President Bears spoke a little bit about the need for additional revenues to make that manifest and about the work that the financial task force has been doing around that question for months. That's still being worked out. We've been having some really you know, some tough conversations, some good, some productive conversations, but I believe that this community is ready to do what it takes to say, you know, this is the fiscal year and we're going to pivot towards making public education better in Medford and better for everybody who interacts with that system and competitive with the other options that are out there. You know, when it comes to talking about, you know, the prop two and a half override that is probably, well not, I don't think it's probably likely, I think it's definitely needed to maintain level service in the city and start making strides towards not just level service but improved service. This is something that I have been, you know, publicly advocating for, for, you know, the last two budget cycles, because we need to start preventing exactly the type of cuts that are being talked about that are in the realm of possibility if we don't change course. And I think that many people in the community are at the point of saying this chronic underfunding can't go on any longer. I don't want to turn this into a conversation about increased revenues, but with the number that's before us and knowing that the, you know, it's not an invisible asterisk. I think it's a very obvious asterisk next to that number is what will it take to get there? I know that the conversation about that should be comprehensive. It should take as long as it needs to. I know that something that will come up in that question is what will it cost? to do that, to fulfill this request and all that it will mean for students and teachers and families? What will it cost people to do that? And what I think about when I think about that question, what I think about with the various versions of the school department budget that have been put before the community is, what does it cost the community when we don't do that? What does it cost in tutoring fees? What does it cost in private school tuition? And the people who simply can't afford to augment the public school experience, it costs them most of all. So I thank you very much for this presentation. As one Councilor, you know, President Bears has, I was planning to start my spiel with, again, hammering home what role we do have in this process and what role we don't have at this point. I think that's already been well taken care of. But as myself as one Councilor tonight, I'm very supportive of this version of the school's department budget. I'm looking forward to continuing to work with the mayor's office with my fellow colleagues, both behind the rail and as a member of the financial task force to come up with a plan to pass a budget that meets this request and maintains level service across all of our critical areas in the city. Thank you again.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, President Pierce. Thank you again for being here and for patiently answering all of our questions. I think I speak for all my fellow Councilors when I say we really appreciate it. And we recognize how hard, how hard this job is on everybody. And I'm not a number crunching person so to me it seems even harder. Thank you. I think it's very true that we went into this fiscal year knowing that it would be really, really difficult. And that's because we knew that one-time funding was coming offline. Everybody knew that. We talked about that. That was out in the open. We knew that we were coming into a year. We would have to transition from a lot of really important, often critical positions being funded by this one-time funding, which is now going away because of how this national act, national grant funding worked. And now we're doing the work of figuring out how to transition away from that. And I feel really confident that every player in this dynamic shares the same goal of coming out of this budget season with a budget that includes a school department appropriation that gives the school department the latitude, the ability to put that money where it is going to best support students and teachers and all school staff and families. And I really do think that that is a value that everybody behind this realm, school committee, mayor's office, your team, administration, I think that is really shared. What I get out of that for me is saying, great, I support this $79.4 million recommendation. And that sounds to me like a number that will help us achieve our shared goal of doing right by Medford Public Schools. Budget seasons are hard work. This is what that hard work looks like. Making recommendations and reconciling them with what's possible. We don't get there by fighting with each other. We get there by working together. And I am, I think like everybody in the community, knowing for not just one year, but for several years, that there is going to be an Esser cliff. There being a lot of transparency around that. Knowing that, coming into this budget season, feeling really anxious, feeling really worried, because this is too important. But I think if we continue to collaborate and say, what can we all do so that we get as close to that number as possible, so that we don't have to cut things that we don't want to cut, that's how this should work. I for myself, I don't have any further questions, and I also want to reiterate, I want to leave the discussion of the line item positions and programs to the forum where those questions can be most thoroughly answered. And I think that's what the school committee. So for myself, I don't have any further discussion points. I don't have any further questions. We have a couple other departments to hear from tonight. And I'll defer to my other Councilors, but I'll prefer that we we move on to our next departments at this point, after this very thorough, very appreciated presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just wanted to say, I think that as representatives, we hear some of what people in the community are feeling. I would never purport to hear what everybody is feeling or to know what everybody is feeling, but we all receive different trends and patterns in that. And I think that we can, as representatives, convey what we're hearing from members of the community, i.e. about an override, without going so far as to say that we know how everybody is feeling. I know who I've heard from. I know that based on who I've heard from, there's strong will to do what's necessary to fully fund the schools and maintain level service. What we're talking about is level service, not level funding. And I know that other people have concerns and other Councilors have heard those as well, and both things can be true at the same time. And I also do just want to note, because I know that some of these concepts are new to many residents, because it's true that we haven't done an override in 45 years, that if we do an override and or a debt exclusion for both to what degree, these are questions that will go before The residents, everybody will be included in this process. This will go on the ballot. We will have five months for everybody to be included in this process to learn about an override or debt exclusion if one is proposed and for everybody to form their own opinion about if they're going to vote for it or against it. And I just wanted to make that really clear that this is something that will be decided by popular vote. That's it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Leming had his hand up first, if that was a direct response.
[Kit Collins]: OK. Thank you. Appreciate this introductory conversation on this topic. I'm sorry. I arrived a little late. I was coming from a work meeting, so there might have been some details that I missed at the beginning.
[Kit Collins]: I think I'm feeling similarly to some of my fellow Councilors and that I have a number of questions on kind of where this proposal is coming from that I would like to get some answers to before we move forward. I think that's certainly the impetus for having this kind of broader conversation about what to do about vacant storefronts is really important. And my preference would be to continue this conversation kind of in a broader context of what in general are we doing about vacant storefronts. I think for me. I would like to take the time for myself to have a little bit more context of how do we quantify how many vacant storefronts are in the city? What type are they? Where are they? Is there any trends in terms of ownership or type or neighborhood? Is this a thing that cities typically mention by number or by density or percentage? How long do they tend to be vacant for? I think I'd like to enhance my understanding about what exactly the problem is. And I also would love to get an expert opinion or an expert analysis of the tax incentive that we've heard of that there is to remain vacant. I would love to get some more details about that. I think where I'm landing is that, you know, we know that vacant storefronts are an issue in the community because when we have them, people talk about it and people don't like seeing vacant storefronts where there ought to be interesting or useful businesses. But I agree that there are some, I have some concerns about the unintended consequences because another thing that we hear about is when people come to Councilors and they say, why is it that we have five X style businesses in Medford Square and no, there isn't a third bar or something like that. And we have to say, well, it's not up to us. But I think that the issue of why don't our squares have the character that we might want for them is a question that we should consider alongside this. In terms of what we're kind of doing here in general with the issue of vacant storefronts, I would really like to have a conversation about what, I'd like to continue the conversation that the director started about what really helps when it comes to the business community with filling vacant storefronts, figuring out what business owners need, and kind of assessing where is this mechanism kind of our list of most useful tactics and priorities? And also assessing, you know, when's the right moment for something like this? Um, is this on our list of top five things to do to get storefronts filled? Um, or should we be investigating, you know, kind of, or should we be fast tracking, um, you know, some other measures, um, you know, and continuing to prioritize the conversation of how do we as a council support getting storefronts filled, um, but perhaps spend some more time with this home rule petition and put this forward as part of a more, uh, coordinated strategy. I'm also curious to know, and I apologize, Councilor Leming, if you spoke to this earlier, if there's any sort of groundswell of cities passing this type of home rule petition, if we're kind of in that moment of motion on it, or if this is more of a gradual coming together. because I think in general, I think the director's point is well taken that we have to consider not just what this would potentially do, but how it will be perceived. And I do think it would be advantageous for us to put this forward in the context of more measures or at least underlying measures that the city is already doing, because I am concerned about it. I'm concerned about how it will be perceived if we put it forward in kind of a conversational vacuum. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to keep the paper in committee and to submit the draft of the formal petition for legal review. And I think I missed a part of that. So somebody jump in if I'm forgetting.
[Kit Collins]: this is your first budget hearing as chief. So thank you so much for your service. Thank you for stepping up. Thank you for being here. We appreciate the overview. Just a couple quick questions for you on my end. The 123 positions budgeted for in this proposal, does that include the five firefighters that are heading to the academy in July?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for that clarification. So hearing you talk about what's currently in the works and what, you know, the future forecasting for how to make the department stronger over time. I feel like you're talking really a lot about pipeline, like what's our pipeline for making sure that we can work more firefighters into the operating budget going forward? What's our pipeline for working more of those infrastructure and fire truck costs into the operating budget going forward with parallel tracks?
[Kit Collins]: Right. There's like a lag time to all of this. There's a lag time between appropriating for increasing hires and increasing recruitment and that actually coming to fruition. There's a lag time between finally, you know, 800 days later receiving that truck and then being able to put it into use. Obviously, in the future, you know, I think this council shares the priority of wanting to be able to move more additional positions into the operating budget over time when our fiscal picture isn't quite so austere. On the truck side, that seems to me like something that really straddles operating budget and capital plan. Has that been a conversation so far of kind of ramping up, you know, kind of this being an ongoing investment, working that into the city's capital improvement plans that we can be purchasing and repairing trucks
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for being here and I want to also offer my congratulations.
[Kit Collins]: It's the product of a lot of hard work and I think it really shouldn't go unsaid. It is pretty remarkable to go from having this like very, very normal municipal service be completely out of house completely contracted to bring that in house. That's something I was always excited about. And it's really quite amazing to see that become self-sufficient so quickly. So thank you for your leadership. I know it. I know like any major transition, it's been a rocky road at times. Yeah, it is. Just really one quick question. I know you spoke already to transitioning from some software and technological vendors to others. I noticed the biggest line item change was the decrease of 70,000 under professional services, financial. Is that what you're talking about?
[Kit Collins]: Well, I think that's a really exciting idea. And I think the parking department, you know, how expensive it was to use an outside contractor, you know, that we're keeping that in house now that the city is, you know, these are city employees now and kind of, in a lot of ways, it's talking about return on investment. And wow, when you talk about getting like 12 trees donated, I think one of the many shocking things you learn behind the rail, how expensive it is to plant a single tree is one of them. So I really, I'm really excited by that creative idea. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: That's a great idea. And one more thing, I just didn't quite catch, you were talking about We've only got a new type of permit for vendors that are parking temporarily while they're doing work. Is that like for contractors?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. And that makes sense. I appreciate that explanation. And last thing I will say as a longtime resident of the GLX zone and a person who lives on a very short street, really excited for July.
[Kit Collins]: No, it's been in the works for a long time.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Not a question, just thank you for the presentation. And as you are both as well aware as anybody, you're carrying the load for the stuff in the community that constituents notice and complain about and look forward to improvements on, as much as anybody in the city. Same goes for your staff, everybody who's working on improving water, sewer, roads, sidewalks. I know that alongside the year-to-year operational budget planning, there's also the long-term forecasting like you were just speaking about, Commissioner. So thank you for your hard work, and we really appreciate it. And I think here we get just a glimmer of the magnitudes of planning that have to go into what actually results in improvements that we get to see around the city. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Not a question. Appreciate this very straightforward budget, but just thanks for the work that you do year round, obviously. lighting is really important to residents when they're walking around driving. So we see the fruits of your hard work every day. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here. It's great to meet you. Thank you so much for joining the team and I know you've heard a lot from staff I'm sure and your colleagues the city hall. How happy we are to have you on board. full-time job, probably more like one and a half at least most of the time, but we're really happy to have you and to have you bring so much experience and enthusiasm to this role. So we're excited to work with you and support you however we can this election year and going forward. I have just one clarifying question on the budget before us, which I think is probably more for Nina. I think you spoke to this, but if you could just run me through, I see the the decrease in salaries part-time, I see the increase in salaries seasonal. If there's a short way to just explain how that all shakes out.
[Kit Collins]: Would that be for the seasonals, for the part-time?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate the straightforward, very legible budget. questions that I had on the utilities and the contractor services you already explained.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, I just missed part of what you're saying about the house doctor. Is that essentially like an on-call?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for all of your proactive work.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, I'm sorry. You said half is funded casino mitigation. That's $32,000?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Go on up here.
[Kit Collins]: No, no, no.
[Kit Collins]: Have you already been made a co-host? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Oh, yeah. Cancel. Oh, you are a co-host, I see. I am, yeah. So I'll shoot you a video. I'll share it.
[Kit Collins]: Share screen. Solid start to an IT presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being so forthcoming about that. I did notice on some other budgets, so thank you for speaking to it. Thank you as well for the most visual presentation of the night.
[Kit Collins]: And no specific question for you, just it's great to hear some of the details about, in addition to the whole scope of what you're doing, a lot of the consolidation of systems. This is great to hear. Happy that we're doing that. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for the presentation. Appreciate it. I don't have any specific questions for you. I just want to go on the record and state some impressions given in good faith. Obviously, it's no secret to anybody that the Council has for a couple of terms been advocating for increased capacity within our in-house legal department, and I do hear you on the breadth of experience and expertise that KP Law brings to the table. In many occasions, we benefited from having them as available resource. I also think it's still true that they serve a different function than what we're hoping to expand in the in-house law department. Obviously, keeping and maintaining the role of city solicitor and assistant city solicitor over the long term is something that's really important to me. We know that this budget season, or I would say, speaking for myself, I'm also aware that this budget season is an extenuating circumstance. You know, I think I'm still, as with the rest of the budget, you know, most of the budgets that we've received, the departmental budgets we've received, don't have any big changes, like there isn't a great change in headcount. This is one where there is, and I think it's gonna take me more than a day and a half to kind of absorb that and, you know, see how I feel about it. I think that that's going to come down to, you know, the context of the overall budget proposal that we receive. Because of course, you know, these changes this year are all about context and making sure that we're putting resources where they're really needed. Of course, I'm talking about, you know, the schools and making sure that we are maintaining our baseline, you know, across the city and schools as an organization this year. But at the same time, you know, this feels like a big change. You know, I know this earlier this spring, the council advocated for actually increasing the salary allocated to both city solicitor and city solicitor. So I do understand that if the premise is, why don't we nix both? This is a compromise from that starting position, but from the starting position of we want to be competitive with other cities to fill both positions, this is a pretty big change. Just wanted to put that out there for the record. You know, that's how I'm absorbing this proposed change. and I also, you know, like I said, just to reiterate, I think that as with anything this year, it's gonna come down to the context of the overall budget that we're passing this year and our plans for how we're going to fill gaps citywide. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And again, not to belabor any points, but just I think this is obviously an ongoing conversation. conversations about any changes to any departmental budget, don't open and close and leave preliminary budget hearing. I think that's one advantage of this new structure. We have many more opportunities to talk about this, to discuss and negotiate. But I think one, I think something that's come up for me even just in this one meeting, which I think has been useful and clear in the way that many department heads are thinking about their budgets and the way that we're thinking about the organizational budget overall is What are we investing in and what's the return that we get from those investments? And I know in a year where there's a really emergent need, that conversation gets a lot harder. And we're trying to fill a multi-million gap for the schools and contemplate all possible solutions for doing that. And I think that we have to be talking about all of them. But I wouldn't want, you know, what a well-resourced city council is able to do for the city in the short and long term to fall out of that discussion. Even just thinking about the plans that we have for this year and where I think we're fairly well supported right now on one of our three major, one of our major projects being the zoning overhaul because of the zoning consultant that we do have the resources for for the rest of this fiscal year and the next one. But we also are going to be working on a city charter especially we're talking about the context of a major budget shortfall. One of the few things that this council has direct influence over is making the zoning decisions that affect business development. That could be one of the pieces of solving our budget deficit for the longer term so we don't keep coming back and having budget discussions like these when we're trying to fill gaps and trying to cut things that really shouldn't be cut. And so I hope that, I think this is one of the first, apart from the schools, this is one of the first really major consequential, in my opinion, cuts that has been proposed this budget season. But I don't think that we should, I think that as we contemplate it, we need to consider what we're leaving on the table by not continuing to try to empower the city council with this piece of the puzzle when it comes to our legal representation. And again, I feel that me and my fellow Councilors who have been on for more than one term have a different perspective on this than folks who have been here for less time. But I understand that there's a difference, and this doesn't take it all away from what KP Law provides, because everything that you said I think is totally true. And I think it's also true that having legal representation that is really for the council is different. and is responsible to the council in a way that is different, that is accountable to the council's goals, in a way that is distinct from the type of service that KP law provides, and not to say that that in any way diminishes what they do, but just to flesh out the points that I was making previously, because I know sometimes I can be a little abstract, and I just, you know, since this is the first time where Councilman Singh, this proposed change in public, I just wanted to put that out there for the record of some of what's on my mind as we consider this cut as part of the package that we try to make to cut our way to resolving that deficit. And what gives me hope is knowing that there are a lot of other solutions that we can, and I know that people are contemplating for how to arrive at a solution that at least all of the critical functions that the city provides, continuing to provide great service for residents and students and teachers. So I look forward to continuing that work. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Present
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you other board members and trustees for being here as well. Appreciate this presentation. I also know me and several other Councilors were able to take you up on the invitation to attend. a public trustees meeting several weeks ago, maybe last month. Really appreciate the dialogue about where the library is at and the budgeting process. I say this about a lot of departments, but I really like these hearings for being able to just shine an extra spotlight on the work that the library is doing, that the work that the department is doing year round. I know during budget time, conversation is often like, what do we have to take to get what is on offer to the community? And the library is such an excellent example of what the community is getting out of the work that we're investing in, especially when you're talking about the programming that isn't even inside of the operating budget, but offers so much to, in many cases, the people in Medford who really need the most. Something like ESL classes, I know that was such a need to be within Medford City boundaries for such a long time. So it's just very special to hear of this and other programming going on in the building now that we do have the new building. And I know that moving into the new building has been kind of one of the central pieces of the library narrative over the past few years, going from that sort of artificially smaller budget during the interim space to now try to, you know, funding for the big, beautiful, modern, contemporary building that the library is now in. I know that was certainly a conversation last year and something that we'll be continuing to work through over the next few years to make sure that the library is supported to really be operating. at full capacity and bring that full capacity into the operating budget. So that's just a note of acknowledgement and thanks to you and all the work that's going on behind the scenes all year round to make this such a useful space for the community.
[Kit Collins]: Well, that's great to hear. Thank you. I know it's been put to really good use. I have just one small question. I know we've talked about this in the past. I know that there was some of the part-time workers at the library, there was kind of a talk of a raise. There hadn't been a raise in several years. The under-fixed costs, the increase that was mentioned, the part-time pay increase for hourly part-time, does that cover the proposed raise, or is that
[Kit Collins]: That's great.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'm so glad that we're bringing up that baseline this year. Do you know off the top of your head, what is the amount of the raise per hour?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for everybody. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: I don't have any questions. Very straightforward. Really appreciate it. But thank you so much for coming here every year and walking us through it.
[Kit Collins]: Just wanted to say between things like the Post Commission and now FlexPost, you truly are working in an evolving field. So thank you again for your service.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: We met with the council zoning consultant and our discussion centered on updating some of the critical definitions that have been flagged for updating. We also discussed the timeline of the project over the next several months. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Aye.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to suspend the rules to take 24-355 and then 24-100.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, President Bears. Thank you also, Attorney Austin, for being with us tonight and also for your work on this matter. I have reviewed this complaint with Attorney Austin prior to this meeting, being the party that was named specifically in the complaint. And I know that she and her colleagues have reviewed this and reviewed my Reddit post in question very thoroughly. I was pleased to read their very thoroughly researched response and their They're finding that that does not constitute an OML violation. I myself have, you know, looked over the draft response. I've given it some time. I'm comfortable submitting this. I think the response is thorough. It's adequate. It backs up all the relevant points, which are that the Reddit post in question contained no open meeting law violation. I will indulge myself to say that as an elected, as the named party in the complaint, I am fully aware and respectful of the fact that the things that I say might not always be popular, but I know that always doesn't necessarily equate with a rule or regulation being broken, and I appreciate having legal clarity around the difference between those two things and the attorney's attention to detail in helping us articulate what the Reddit posts, what my Reddit posts did and did not include. forward a motion to acknowledge the complaint and approve this draft response after my fellow Councilors have had time to review and ask any questions that they might have. And I have more I could say on the topic, but I think that the top lines are, you know, for myself as an elected, when I first gained office, I immediately researched the open meeting law to make sure that I understood it, understood the parameters, the point of open meeting law. is to ensure that all issues of public import that are before a public body only ever take place among a quorum of that body in public session. And that's so that the community can be there whenever a quorum of that body is debating things that are important to the community, things that are public matters. I take that really seriously. I think it's a really important rule. We have open meetings for a reason, and those conversations should happen in open meetings. I do these Reddit posts to be informative. Community members have asked me to do them because I think it is understandably really hard to keep up with the nuts and bolts of what's going on in City Council and elsewhere in City Hall. And that was the intent of these Reddit posts, continues to be to just be informative, to share these on a popular online platform that people use. not to be a forum for debate amongst members of the body. And, you know, of course, I appreciate, you know, the opportunity for a legal mind to take a look and say, I confirm there is no deliberation. That's never my intent. And that has never been the case in the post that I have been sharing on Reddit. So thank you, Attorney Austin and my fellow Councilors for their time in considering this.
[Kit Collins]: I was going to make a similar motion to table or convene in planning and permitting to determine.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. Thank you, Laurel, for being on the call tonight. Last Wednesday in Committee of the Whole, we had a more detailed presentation about all of the proposals for how to allocate our block grant funding for the year. And it's great to see that that number has increased a little bit. None of the final figures have been released. I know for myself as one councilor, I really appreciated the detail into what that grant funding is doing in our community this year and hearing about some of the previous grantees just building on and continuing the work that they do in our community. And most of that work is directed at serving the neediest and most marginalized members of our community. It's always great to hear about how those funds are getting spent. So I know we have to open the hearing, but I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I don't have a question. I just wanted to say I appreciate the flexibility on this. I think that this is a very reasonable proposal, and I appreciate that the petitioner was willing to have conversations with Councilor Scarpelli, Throat Enforcement, and the neighbors to come back with something that I hope will indeed help your business. Also, maybe some of those neighbor concerns just because of the behavior of delivery drivers as we're in the city. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being here today. Appreciate you reaching out to members of the council last week to let us know this was coming. Just to paraphrase a lot of what you just presented. It's great to see a petition come before us, and we know that the building has already been renovated from, and as people know, I was a Tufts University student back in the day, so I've seen a lot of hovels on or near campus. It's great to see this one rehabilitated and densified, and that it's already gone through all the necessary procedures. I think that's, as one Councilor, that's what I like to see. We appreciate Tufts investing in housing more tough students near or even better on campus. So thank you so much for this bona fide good project. Thank you. Motion to approve after we open the hearing.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. This was tabled from our last regular meeting because the report in the packet missed the crucial first two pages, which differentiated this report from a separate report, which was the annual surveillance report submitted by city agencies that use surveillance technology. In contrast, this is the City Council's reporting requirement under the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance, which passed in. the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is the city of Newark, which is We passed this somewhat proactively and that there isn't a lot of surveillance technology currently being used by the city. Um, at the time of the passage of the C cops ordinance, there's only one surveillance technology being used by the city. It was by the police department. It's body worn cameras. Um in hashing out the details of the ordinance in, um, We exempted body-worn cameras from some of the reporting requirements and oversight requirements and approval requirements to which all new surveillance technologies will be subject. Other main things to know about the ordinance under it, if a new surveillance technology comes before the council, or if a new technology is proposed to be used, it will come before the council. the council will discuss it, hold public meetings, ask questions about how much it will cost, what are the pros, what are the cons, what is the use for which this is being proposed, and then make a determination, do we approve this use, or do we deny it, or do we ask for changes to the proposed policy in order to approve it? This annual public report is something that the city council owes to the community to say, in the preceding calendar year, These are all the requests for new surveillance technology that were approved. These are all the new requests for surveillance technology that were denied. These are all the requests that we made changes to. And here are all of the annual surveillance reports that we received from the departments that actually use them. And that is why this report is so short. because we made no approval in 2023. We made no approvals. We made no rejections. We made no changes, and that is because the only surveillance technology being used in the city in 2023, which, in fact, was only for, I think, about three weeks in December, was the body-worn cameras. And per the ordinance that we passed earlier that year, body-worn cameras are exempted from City Council approval process until 2028. So This report just sums all of that up, and it also includes a copy of the annual surveillance report on body-worn cameras that the Medford Police Department submitted to us, and we discussed in a meeting of the Public Health and Community Safety Committee. So that's the brief report that we're looking at.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, May 8th, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertabase at edfordma.gov. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. The action and discussion item for this meeting is paper 24-033 zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. Um, so I will just quickly summarize our agenda for this meeting, and then I'll turn it over to our zoning consultant. Per the plan that we agreed upon at the last time we met with our zoning consultant in the planning and permitting committee, which I believe was just two weeks ago, we decided that we would use this next meeting to review the updated zoning memo. I understand that we have some draft text for updating the definitions in our zoning ordinance, and I want to just take that opportunity to restate at this point I don't think that we're talking about making any substantial changes to the definitions or the use table, but rather taking this opportunity to modernize, incorporate suggestions for city staff for making these definitions more legible, more useful. So we can review that, as well as the updated table of uses, which again, no substantive changes, just changing the formatting to be more useful, more readable. We're then going to switch over into discussing some zoning strategies that are recommended in the climate action and adaptation plan and seeing how those fit into our kind of work plan for the zoning overhaul overall. And go into what we are planning to do in our next meeting two weeks from now to move all of these projects forward. So with that, Barring any introductory comments from Councilors, I would love to hand it over to Paula. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: If you could just, sorry, if you could put the microphone a little bit closer to your face.
[Kit Collins]: There you go. Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. On the use table, just while we're looking at it, if you want, I'm going back to that slide. Thank you for flagging that the multiple dwelling class A and multiple dwelling class B. So it's my understanding that definition might change, and that's why it's highlighted. On the right-hand side, highlighted in yellow, we have the column PC and the column LC. Would you mind just quickly defining the column headers, what PC and LC stand for? It's parking code and then
[Kit Collins]: So it's just putting it all in the same table so you don't have to be flipping through and trying to match. Exactly. Great. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Paul. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming, and then I think I saw a hand from Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, did I see a hand up from you? Nope. Great. Any other comments on councilors on? Sorry, did we even let you get into really the meat of the discussion on dwelling multifamily or cut you off at the beginning there?
[Kit Collins]: I would say, if I may, just to reinforce, I think that we have a lot of definitions to update. I know that some of these are still under review. I know that on some, there was a recommendation to run them by the building department for further input. I also know that we're trying to move things along efficiently. We're also trying to bundle things so that it's not a constant stream of zoning updates through the city council to the CDB. But that being said, we have a lot to work through. Any thoughts that can be at least preliminarily aired at this meeting, the sooner we can get out all of our discussion topics and work through them towards a resolution, the better. And I think I'm really glad that you flagged that, Planner Evans. I think that if we're, I'd like for us to be contemplating something like dwelling multi-household, even if there is an asterisk somewhere in the definition, because towards the goal of consistency, if we're trying to eradicate that elsewhere in our zoning language, I think we should be doing that from the top. President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: While we're looking, I just want to recognize Attorney Silverstein who might be able to chime in on this topic.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I also just want to note, you know, I know that there's many other definitions on this document today that have research outstanding that your team is still looking into that we're waiting for feedback on. Before we move on to the next one, I just want to pause, I know that we might have been like hot on the trail of a couple thoughts to follow up on, I'm happy to give this a couple more minutes. I do feel fairly confident this is one of the more complicated ones on our document today. I think that this discussion will take up the bulk of our time, regardless of if it's at the beginning or the end, but I'm happy to defer to the enthusiasm of this body. If we come back to it, go for it.
[Kit Collins]: I am coming into the meeting with kind of framing a similar question in my mind, because it's my impression that we have parts of this first bucket that are easily reportable and then others that are still not pending, but there's like one or two small steps that still need to be made. Like it's my understanding, for example, that the table of uses is updated, things have been swapped in, that's good to go. The definitions, I think some of these are easy, some of them are not, some of them are just waiting for feedback on, so that's kind of half and half. The GIS zoning map is something that I think could possibly also be part of that first packet, and I'm not sure the status on that, so I think it's a question of do we want to, do we wanna pass something through the council, CD back to the council, that then kind of has a second half that's a couple weeks behind it, or should we? have this discussion and wait until we can package all of the definitions together with the table of uses, maybe with site plan review, if that's ready in a couple of weeks, and the GIS zoning map. I think one of our earlier conversations was around CDB capacity for not trying to load the schedule with multiple meetings. And that is kind of, to me, that's part of the decision on my mind.
[Kit Collins]: Packager? Yeah. I agree. I mean, I certainly am very sympathetic to not wanting to deliver a gigantic packet for review all in one meeting. At the same time, I think, also thinking about keeping this coherent for residents that are following along in this process, I like the idea of getting through the definitions, even if it takes a couple of meetings, and then updating the definitions. I think it'd be an overreach to say in one fell swoop, but doing that in one meeting as opposed to two, along with the use, the GIS, the site plan review. And that keeps us with our goal of getting those pieces dispensed with prior to the end of the fiscal year. And I think it would be a great start to hit that, to do that as one package. Councilor Callahan, I think I saw your hand go up. In that case, I would recommend that maybe we rest on the, for now, dwelling multifamily definition, since we're going to, I think, it'd be advantageous to get some proposals back from Innes Associates in two weeks based on this discussion. I think we should come back to this at the end of the meeting, but for now, I would recommend that we put a pin in this, work our way through some of these other definitions, enjoy the ones that are a little bit simpler and then maybe come back at the end of the meeting to this and any other definitions that are a little bit stickier and figure out exactly what we want to request of the consultant in terms of our next steps for reviewing this in two weeks. How's that sound? Great. Let's go to doggie daycare. Yes. I'm sorry before. I'm sorry to cut you off. Attorney Silverstein, is your hand up for before or do you have a comment?
[Kit Collins]: Any questions? Thank you. Any additional context before we go to comments from councillors? Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: It's not the definition. Never mind. But we could change that tonight. President Bears, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: I certainly don't have a position.
[Kit Collins]: And I understand that this is one of those terms that did not have a definition, so we're imposing one for the first time. Yes. Great, thank you. I don't have any questions on this one. Any further questions from fellow councilors? Great, and this will remain dog daycare unless there is a motion to change it to doggy daycare, because dog daycare is what is in the suggestion. So I leave it to you, my colleagues. Moving on, quickly.
[Kit Collins]: Or I guess I'm sorry, that doesn't need to be a motion. I don't believe that has to be a motion. Okay, great.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Let's move along to number three. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I mean, it also strikes me, and I apologize for cutting you off, but on the same thread, I think one way to look into this is like, when is the question coming up? And I know what I often hear is people having a legitimate concern about, safety when it comes to number of people in a house. You know, there were those very high profile tragedies like maybe a decade ago at this point about overcrowded housing in student areas. Obviously, we don't want to, I don't think that these rules are widely abused, but we don't want to create loopholes where people feel there is an invitation to as many people as want can live in this house and people are sleeping in attics. Obviously, that's not the intent. But I think like maybe one way of asking this question, it's like, where is this coming up in City Hall? Like, when is this question coming to us? And from there, is it the number of occupants that we ought to try to define and then regulate because that regulation is being negotiated or is it the size of the building?
[Kit Collins]: I think that's a really helpful illustration of some of what we're talking around here. What's on my mind after that kind of example, and I'm trying to think of how to phrase this, because I think it's It's widely known, I care a lot about tenant protections. But I'm wondering if there's some parallel between overcrowding not being what we're solving for in zoning and that type, obviously we're trying not to create zoning definitions that invite in bad behavior or things to take advantage of. But in the same way, I don't want to overcorrect for problems that are also shouldn't be adjudicated through zoning, but should be adjudicated through a supportive service that City Hall offers, whether it's Board of Health or the Housing Planner or the multilingual support line. Do you know what I mean?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: I think that approach could make sense. I was thinking along similar lines that it strikes me that some of the concerns that were talking about here. And I think just to lay the foundation first, I think it's, I feel pretty comfortable with the current definition as is for the moment while we're contemplating this bigger question, because I think that does still reflect the intent of the council and city staff in allowing people to define for themselves what their household is. And I do have some, I will admit I have some skepticism about our ability to frame zoning language in a way that helps us get at the enforcement piece of when that is taken advantage of. I do think it gets into that, It gets into that issue that we have been talking about mainly with the short-term rentals, where this is more an enforcement issue and building up our capacity to run down those complaints when property owners are doing things with their property that they're not allowed to do, and making sure that tenants or boarders are okay and get the support that they need in those cases where that is happening. And so I think that in terms of the definition, it makes sense to consider this alongside other more similar definitions like the boarding house, the dormitory, and I think the rest of it might get into a conversation that's slightly outside of the scope of zoning, or at least blurs outside of the scope of zoning, such as with, of course, the complaints about, the fears about overcrowding of parking on residential streets, and when homes are becoming busier. I think it's familiar to all of us, and for example, one way the city has been thinking about addressing that is through mechanisms like zoned parking. So I think there's some latitude that we have in zoning and there's others that we have through other mechanisms that kind of go alongside it.
[Kit Collins]: Right. Also worth noting that occasionally individual rooms are rented out, and that's wanted and desired and unproblematic. older brother was a Medford resident for a long time in a situation like that, so just to state that for the record as well. I think it makes sense to consider, you know, what's the language that captured, I think that this language captures our current intent comfortably. And maybe there's a new definition to add to the roster to capture this one. Any additional comments on household. This has been a fruitful conversation, I think. No? I'll suggest we move on unless there's any additional comments from Councilors on household.
[Kit Collins]: I think this is to ask an obvious question. So this is specifically for incorporated nonprofits use of land and lots. Any comments or questions by Councilors? And again, this was an existing use that simply did not have a definition previously. Great. All right, not seeing any comments from fellow councillors, we can move on.
[Kit Collins]: for me, this one looks good. I think that this follows with our principle of letting definitions be definitions and not imposing additional standards that might get us into the weeds where it's not helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Initial questions from councillors. And so just to clarify, I noticed suggested definitions for sort of differentiating manufactured homes versus tiny houses and keeping the current definition for mobile home.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you. So there's a new definition for manufactured, a new definition for tiny and movable, new definition for tiny and stationary, and then the existing definition for mobile home.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. What was, I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch it. You mentioned suggesting a deletion in tiny homes that are movable. Was that just removing the standards for use out of the definition? Yes. Thank you. And is that reflected in the suggested definition? All of the standards for use already encapsulates what was taken out of the suggested definition? Or are there more details that you suggest to remove from the suggested definition for a movable tiny house?
[Kit Collins]: Certainly. And before we cap off the discussion of this definition, I would say I think it dovetails nicely because I think one of our many motivations for getting through, maybe we're stretching the definition of all this being low-hanging fruit. But one of the motivations for getting through the low-hanging fruit by the end of this fiscal year so that we can get into those themes of great substance outlined in the climate action adaptation plan, the housing production plan, after we dispense with this kind of update round. So it would be great to, in this process, pass some definitions that we can then consider in the context of implementing the HPP, infill, zoning, and many other mechanisms when we're getting into those kind of topic areas later in the year. So I think this is very proactive. Any additional comments on manufactured, mobile, and teeny tiny homes before we move on? Councilor Loewen?
[Kit Collins]: I think that we can talk about this at the end of the meeting. I believe that on the draft agenda was to propose to have an initial discussion about the proposed ADU ordinance in two weeks. So certainly none of these definitions will be codified by then, but I certainly don't see why we can't be having these discussions in parallel since, of course, the ADU ordinance is not something that we're going to report out in one meeting anyway.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that clarity. Great. Yeah, let's see what's next.
[Kit Collins]: Seeing none, appreciate the collaboration with the building commissioner on this. Of course, as we've stated before, part of the goal of this is to just clear up areas of known confusion and roadblocks in how the zoning ordinance is currently used. So it's great to be able to incorporate his feedback that this is causing problems. The definition would help smooth things out. Shall we move on?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I think you mentioned on the previous slide that one defining this was mainly to be able to prohibit them. Could you speak more to that?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that's helpful context for this change here. Any additional comments at this time on junkyards or automobile graveyards? Seeing none, let's move on.
[Kit Collins]: And so the suggestion here, just to paraphrase what you just said, is to keep our current definition but pull out those dimensional standards.
[Kit Collins]: Any comments or questions? President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: Wait, I am so sorry. I'm going to need you to repeat that one more time.
[Kit Collins]: We have accessory structure, accessory use, and accessory, which are being kept and which are moving.
[Kit Collins]: That is new.
[Kit Collins]: The existing definition of accessory is becoming the definition for accessory use.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. That will help clarify. Any additional comments on accessory structure and accessory use? Director Hunt, did you have something?
[Kit Collins]: I think that takes us from our discussion of various accessories to actually move on to the replacement of coverage of lot with lot coverage and adding accessory buildings.
[Kit Collins]: The question is whether to have it exclude unenclosed porches and bay windows or to have those be included? Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: So it seems like the question is we could refer this up and correct me if I've misheard, perhaps refer out to building for their assessment on if this change would reduce buildability or if it wouldn't make a difference in the interim based on how they're currently interpreting. I'm open to other approaches.
[Kit Collins]: It would make sense to lump by scene if we revisit this with dimensionals. Would it be possible to make a note of that somewhere in our work plan so that we don't
[Kit Collins]: I will make a note of that as well for updating our work plan and memo.
[Kit Collins]: Great, well that takes us to the end of our review of the definitions. I know I was trying to flag as we went through the ones that were clarified at the outset that this is still under review, there's still research being done. I flagged a few items where we want to add a piece of homework for NS Associates. For example, we want to try to capture our conversation about the multifamily dwellings to come back with kind of a more comprehensive proposal. Ditto, I think, for our discussion of household, though I don't I don't know if we arrived at a resolution in our conversation about household, if we are trying to advance something in two weeks, or if that's a conversation that we're going to put aside, I think, when we're developing new uses and are kind of more... I think that I liked a lot what President Zuckerberg said, to have a bunch of all these definitions together and all the...
[Kit Collins]: I think our organizing principle here, which I think is a really good one, is to be bundling things by category. And in this case, sometimes that category is what's just an easy definition that we know how it should be improved and let's improve it. And I think that we have some kind of outstanding items from this list where it just needs a little more feedback. It just needs a little more research. Let's bundle those. Let's get all of the ones that we kind of flagged this week is still under review, or there's like a little bit more that we need to think about here, but it's mostly bite-sized. Let's plan to come back on the 22nd, review that language, have it ready to go, and be able to refer it out to the council so we can begin that process. household conversation, the thing where it's more of an interrogation of what do we really want here, and a lot of coverage. I am very happy to support, you know, making that its own mini package for later in the process and not coming up the works on the easier definitions with those more substantive conversations.
[Kit Collins]: So any last comments on that? Great. So we have our next steps on the definitions. We know that when we vote out the definitions, we will also vote out the table of uses, because that is essentially ready to go. And just to kind of tie up on the things that we're expecting for next time, also site plan review. I would love a status update on inclusionary zoning. kind of a first look at ADUs, possibly the mapping analysis work plan. Does that, just before we move on to kind of a first review of the policies from the Climate Action Plan, does that encapsulate what we're expecting for the 22nd definitions, table review, site plan review? Do we feel that the GIS zoning map is possible to have two weeks?
[Kit Collins]: I think it's like, that's the package that we're... That's the package that we're hoping to have in hand on the 22nd. full comprehensive draft language or visuals, as the case may be, so that we can vote it out on the 22nd. And then I think there's some additional topics that we're going to be talking about for perhaps the first time, but not voting out.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Sorry, I didn't catch that.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Is it feeling... Is it still realistic to expect proposable language for site plan review in Dover on the 22nd?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Certainly. Thank you. And I think, in general, there's clearly a compelling reason for moving that forward quickly. And I feel that my role in this process is to be trying to, everything that we know what our intent is, we know what our goals are, we have a reasonable expectation of what our stumbling blocks are, I would like to see move through as quickly as possible because we have such an ambitious work plan. So for things like site plan review, the use table, the definitions where we kind of know what we're after. You know, it's great to be able to see that, you know, kind of complete proposed language in two weeks' time so that we can get the ball rolling on that and then proceed on towards our many large and more complicated projects under this ordinance. So just to recap for next meeting, that's the use table, all definitions except for the two that we decided to separate out. existing map digitized site plan review, including Dover, adding the definition or, you know, including the definition of government use. I know for this meeting we also intended to review strategies from the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. I also know that it's 8.15 and Councilor Callahan has had to depart and I know that this is an area of interest for her. What was that? So maybe there is a... I wonder if there's a middle path here. I know that thinking about what we're hoping to report out at our next meeting and the topics that we were hoping to raise for the first time between this meeting and next meeting, that being the climate action policies and inclusionary zoning, ADUs, the mapping analysis work plan. That's kind of like four new buckets that we were hoping to propose between tonight next time. I love an ambitious timeline, but I'm not sure what we would get out of it. Having looked through the packet, there are a lot of climate-related policies suggested in the Climate Action Adaptation Plan. Obviously that's what it is, and I think maybe it's worth rethinking when to have that conversation so that we can report out some actionable items given that we've been meeting for a couple of hours already. I think that a priority for me, I want to make sure that we do start having that conversation of what from the cap are we prioritizing and what's going where certainly in May so that that can be informing our discussion of like what big topics are we diving into after our kind of June 30th deadline for our first bucket. So if we're actually, Paola, I took you off of screen sharing because we were just discussing, but if you wouldn't mind pulling up that, I think it was just one of the very first slides again that lays out our timeline for the rest of May and June. Is that possible?
[Kit Collins]: What in zoning is already in our memo? And then comparing that to the large list of policies suggested in the cap,
[Kit Collins]: Certainly. Thank you. Appreciate that overview. Given that, I'm looking at an even earlier slide, the timeline for our upcoming collaborations in this committee with you and the team, and just thinking about where it makes sense to have that discussion. it makes sense. I think we'll have a more productive conversation coming and having sifted what's already in the work plan, what's already in the works, and what's left out that should be added to the list of priorities. So would you mind pulling up the timeline so we're... I think it's like slide number two. Just in terms of where to have this discussion most effectively. So We're at May 8 right now. May 22, we're going to look at and report out definitions, use table, digital map, site plan review, including Dover language. And we have, I think, three new topics to surface at that meeting as well, between mapping analysis, inclusionary zoning, and ADUs. I wonder if it makes sense to give all these topics a little bit of breathing room, maybe Our June 12th committee meeting can be revisiting those three topics brought up for the first time, May 22nd, after we report out everything that we've already spoken about tonight. And June 12th can be kind of a first attempt, our first conversation about surfacing priorities from the climate policies and making sure that those are added to the work plan. Just in terms of sort of revising our next steps in the flow of these meetings.
[Kit Collins]: Absolutely. And I think in these meetings, we've been kind of trending there organically. And I think, you know, to the extent that we can absolutely, I think to see the extent that we can plan for that, we'll just, we're already picking up momentum as we go along. And I think planning for that will help. I think ideally, you know, we obviously from the outset, we've been aligned in the goal of passing like things at the same time. And so I think Right now, that's kind of procedural. We're talking about definitions, we're talking about tables. And then as we get past June, that'll be around goals. And so aligning things by goal. And we can have a couple meetings in June, I think, to go through the climate plan and the comp plan to build on the work that you've already been doing with the memos to make sure that those are aligned by outcome and goal. And then we can just meet by topic over the summer and into the fall.
[Kit Collins]: Inclusionary, ADUs, and I think the mapping analysis is the other piece.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, no, I completely agree. And I think maybe between, uh, we know what we're doing in terms of the things we're going to report out at our next meeting and maybe between now and then, um, we and staff and NS can be talking about for the second half of that meeting. What makes sense? Should we keep inclusionary ADUs, mapping analysis? Are we teed up for that? Is that easy? Or should we shift to going over one of the, like having the climate plan conversation that we didn't have tonight, the second half of that meeting instead, or the comp plan. And then so that we are moving things into those sequences, into those folders. But that's not, I'm not putting, you don't have to answer the question right now. I think that's just maybe something for us to consider as we're developing the agenda for two weeks from now. We already have a great sled of work though. We are going to be reporting out of that meeting and that's a great start. And then we can just be thinking about as we're sort of closing a door and opening a door in every meeting, what's the door that we want to open at that meeting?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, no, I think that that, um, I think that will work well. Thank you so much for truly co-creating this process with us as you are helping us with our zoning process and the outcomes. I think that leaves us with a great plan for next time, certainly a decent amount of work. So thank you in advance. Excited to get the ball rolling on our first zoning votes to come in this process. I think that's pretty exciting. I think we're pretty well set on our next steps and pieces that we're looking to Innis for, for our next meeting. Are there any final comments or motions from Councilors other than what we've already discussed? Seeing none, just want to thank you again. Thank you so much, Paola. Thank you, Director Hunt, for being here and to the Innis team. I know there's a lot of work being done behind the scenes. on the city side and the inner side all the time. Very much appreciated. Is there a motion to adjourn?
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by President Bears. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Meeting is adjourned. Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here. I always appreciate hearing the rundown of the services that you provide in the community for our excellent partners at the Council on Aging and the MIJ. I noticed that this funding would mostly go towards supporting your existing services through the first quarter of FY25. I was just wondering... The first quarter, you said? Is it just that the CDBG funding would enable continued service through the first quarter of FY25, or would it be year-round?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you, that's helpful. And I know that a lot of minds in this room, including Councilor Tsenghap and working on those ongoing conversations about kind of filling out the transit network. Right, right, yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. And I know we're eager to support that extension. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Not a question, just a comment. I know for myself and many other councilors and city staff members. You know, we hear month in and month out how meaningful it is to have these service providers operating in our community. And it's kind of interesting to talk about this topic and many others in sort of a numerical way, but you know that blowing past that 155 community members goal into 200, you know, 200 people served and supported and coached and housed. is so meaningful when you think about that on the basis of individual people, individual households. So no question, just thank you for the good work that you do on behalf of our community and working to fill and expand our supportive safety net here in Medford.
[Kit Collins]: There certainly is. Just thank you so much for coming for us, providing this update, this information. It's great to hear that the change made to the overall allocation after this meeting will be in the positive direction. But always appreciate these overviews. It's a great chance to just revisit all of the good work that is being done in the community by CDBG grantees. And I would motion to report the paper out favorably.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Most of my specific questions have been spoken to already, but just gosh, that last point really brings home the, you know, looking at efficiencies with what we're already working with before rolling out new systems. So really appreciate your attention to making sure we're not leaving money on the table by just tweaking that process. I'm making sure people are following up on paying their fair share for the permits that we already put out. And just to congratulate you on the launch of the new public It looks great. I hope that that'll make that process easier for residents, developers, for your staff.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Director Nwaje, for being with us tonight. I don't have any specific questions about your budget. It is, you know, predictably, admirably straightforward. I think it really drives home the point, your department in particular, you know, how much this city is doing with the resources that we currently have available. You know, whenever I hear about the work that your one-person department is doing. I'm pretty amazed at the breadth of your scope. I know it's everything from helping community members, liaisons, and representatives plan community events to making sure that City Hall is ADA accessible to trainings, working with multiple commissions, everything in between. Budget season is a great time to recap the work of our city departments and hearing the update from the DEI department to me just always brings home how much our city staff are carrying with limited resources. So thank you for your work. And certainly as we get through this tough fiscal spot that we've been in these past few years for the next couple of years, I'm certainly looking forward to seeing how this department might further expand and blossom as the city gains in resources and latitude overall. So thank you so much for your work.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Just a general comment. You know, as one Councilor who's been through this just a couple times before, it's really helpful to be able to start this process this early to be able to have these conversations, you know, kind of with more time on our side with department heads, rather than trying to squeeze everybody into a few weeks in late May and June. So just a lot of thanks to all the department heads for coming prepared, starting in April and early May. Many thanks to the administration for accommodating and working with us on this earlier timeline. I think it's been really valuable to be having these discussions about what's in, what's not in, what's changed, what are you looking forward to. you know, six months, one year, five years out at this point in the year is adding a lot to this process for me compared to prior years. Um, so I just want to thank all of our city staff for participating in this new timeline and to the administration for supporting it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I thank you very much and Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this forward. Former Councilor Caraviello was clearly a man for whom, you know, showing up for his community and doing right by other people was simply a way of life. It was simply his instinct, you know, regardless of, you know, politics. And I know people put a lot of that, you know, especially onto this council and these chambers. But from knowing Rick for a couple of years, you know, I think anybody who meets him knows him. you know, you see his heart on his sleeve. And I think it's just wonderful to see that recognized in the community, you know, the spirit of service by which he's truly lived his entire life in many roles. I'm glad to see him acknowledged. And I will say I miss seeing him every Tuesday and Wednesday in the chamber. So congratulations.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. On April 24th, we discussed with our zoning consultant the following topics. Some suggested forthcoming proposals to improve the site plan review process, updating the use and dimensional tables, as well as There's one other thing, and I just forgot it. We had an update from our zoning consultant, and our next meeting with the zoning consultant in planning and permitting is next Wednesday, May 8th. And then after that, we had a affordable housing presentation from Metro Housing Partnership.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And I actually want to start with an apology because I didn't notice until just this moment that the, oh, thank you. I didn't notice until just this moment that the first two pages of the annual surveillance report that I submitted are actually missing from our agenda packet. They don't add anything particularly substantive, but what is included is just the surveillance report from the Medford Police Department and not the city council surveillance report that actually summarizes the data. That's what our obligation is to submit at this point. It doesn't add anything substantive. It tallies up the number of approvals and denials of surveillance technology that we did in the preceding calendar year, which in this report is zero. That being said, I still don't feel comfortable putting forward a motion for my fellow councilors to vote upon, having not seen the document in its entirety. So I would motion to table this until our next regular meeting, and I will make sure that those first two pages that contextualize the data are included on the agenda at that time.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. So this is a motion to support the aforementioned bills that are currently in the State House. I received outreach about this from several people that work with the Massachusetts Action for Pilot group. This comprises workers and representatives of various social service and educational, et cetera, workers from across the state, all in support of this legislation, which kind of comes up year after year. The context for this is that currently in Massachusetts, large nonprofits that meet certain criteria are exempt from property tax. We have several of those here in Medford, most notably Tufts, my alma mater. As an alumnus of Tufts, I've always felt my particular responsibility to advocate for changing that rule so that cities such as ours can implement more fair, essentially compensation systems with these institutions that take up such a large footprint in our communities, but don't have to pay property taxes like everybody else does. So this bill would enable a local option that communities can choose to adopt. that would require that these large nonprofit organizations pay really only 25% of the tax obligation that they would otherwise have to submit if they weren't tax exempt. So it's really, in my opinion, it's not even going as far as it should, but so many of our conversations behind this rail are talking about the various infrastructural projects and personnel and services that we ought to be able to provide to our residents that we can't because of a lack of funds. So any action that this council can take to level the playing field, I think is a worthwhile one. And I ask my fellow Councilors for their consideration in lobbying the state house to allow us to give us one more leverage when we're looking for fair compensation from these large, well-endowed institutions that we host in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. President Bears a motion to suspend the rules and take two four zero nine two at order on the motion to spend the rules.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Just want to quickly thank, uh, manager manager DuPont Ryan Roberta for your work on this. I think this is one of those projects in the community, um, where the CPC is really successfully. Leveraged funding over several rounds to get us to this phase of the park improvements. I know this is something that community members, um, that abutters have really been looking forward to. Um, so I would motion for approval after further questions and comment from my fellow councilors, but I'm really excited to see this progressing. Thank you for your hard work.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think we should take the temperature down. Just going to pause for a second. Let's take the temperature down. I'll start through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli. I appreciate you're bringing up the process for the newsletter coming out of the resident services and public engagement. Obviously this is our, that committee of which I am not a part is just piloting this process going forward. I agree it would also be more comfortable if that was brought to the floor and disposed of from there. I think that's a great note for going forward. this is a resolution about discussing the city council subcommittee process. And I just want to note that I don't really think it's in the service of giving people proper notice to weigh in on an issue that they care about, or transparency for us to be re-litigating a topic that is in committee, the committee that I chair, under a paper for which it was not brought up. So I don't think that- I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.
[Kit Collins]: I'm going to finish my point. I don't think that we should let this turn into relitigating the transfer fee. We are going to talk about that in committee so that residents and Councilors can be properly noticed about when the substance of that discussion is going to occur and come prepared, having thought about it and speaking about it. Through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli, I hope you know that I sincerely respect you very much. I've always enjoyed working with you, and I respect you enough to want to correct the record when things are being said that I think are a bad faith attack on my character. I think that anybody who's willing to engage in this in good faith knows that there is a difference between me as an individual, using my name and my title to speak as an individual, using my petition, signing a letter in support of something, being crystal clear, it's me as an individual endorsing something. I do that all of the time, on many platforms, on letters, on social media, and individual phone calls with various administrations saying I'm speaking as myself. Every councillor here Every Councilor here has the opportunity to do that. Some exercise it more than others. Everybody in any role has an opportunity to say that, to say, this is the experience that I'm speaking from. I'm not speaking for my constituency, necessarily, when I'm signing a letter saying, I endorse this as a public official. This is concurrent with our public process. We are going to have publicly noticed committee meetings about the real estate transfer fee. At the same time, just like everybody here, I retain the right to say, I as an individual endorse that process. I also want to bring up, well, there's a lot to say about this. I think it's really regrettable that there has been so much consternation about, you know, this is a polarizing issue, and I get that. And maybe that's not even worth regretting, because polarizing issues are always going to be polarizing. And it's how we move on from that that's really important. I really take umbrage with the assertion that having some people in office who are supportive of one thing and other people also in office and also out of office who don't agree and going through that process of friction and tension and talking about it and arguing about it in public session I disagree that that's harmful. And I take umbrage with the fact that being in support of something that doesn't have consensus is harming this community. We are going to talk about this in public session, as we have been doing, until it gets to the time we're going to put it to a vote. And when we put it to a vote, I want to remind everybody, what we put to a vote is simply asking the state for the authority to again meet in public session to deliberate on what we should do as a community. I don't believe that perception is reality, actually. And I think that when people are telling us how something should make us feel, we should follow the money. And I hope that, I know we're gonna continue to talk about these issues in committee, these polarizing issues, these issues that leave many of us feeling extremely passionate. but I think we should all come with our own opinions and a mutual respect and an unwillingness to believe that anybody in the room is out to get the other person. And whoever's telling you that somebody in the room is out to get the other person, they're probably wrong, because we all live here. Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: Wait, can I interject really quickly?
[Kit Collins]: No, Councilor Scarpelli, I didn't mean that you were being deceitful. Yeah, well, I can read the full text.
[Kit Collins]: We should go to public participation or call to question.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears and Gaston. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I do think I was just gonna I think that's more relevant to a resolution that is coming up. I also have a clarification to offer that I think speaks directly to your question about the difference between what's talked about in the letter and the process of the home rule, but we can get to that under the next paper. So, sorry. Yeah, I'm happy to. Thank you for indulging me.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I apologize. I made a motion to call the question, but I just want to interject with one more thing. Like I mentioned, I exercise my right and privilege to add my name to sign on letters at my discretion. Another topic that we talked about earlier in the agenda, the payment in lieu of tax legislation that's being considered by the State House. Last week, I also added my name to a list of signatories separate from the paper that we discussed and dispensed with tonight, I also signed that letter. acting as myself as an individual, signing on as Kit Collins, Vice President of the Medford City Council. And like all the other times that I've done that, the letter was not phrased in such a way as to purport that I was speaking for this council, because I wasn't. I made no assertion of speaking for this council, because I wasn't. I was endorsing it as an individual. Tonight, when we passed that resolution, we chose, through our votes, to endorse it as a council. And I don't disparage anybody for feeling angry or disappointed in me for choosing to advocate for issues that you would rather I not. That is your right. I know that there are many people in the community who disagree with me on that issue and many others, and many who do. And that is your right, and it is absolutely your right and your privilege to say so in these public meetings, however you want to. However, I really do think that we need to correct the record and draw a distinction between an individual official endorsing a policy using their own individual name and saying that this is in some way a breach of our process. They are two separate things. You are well within your rights to say, I disagree with you and I wish you wouldn't advocate for that, but that's not the same thing as us breaking a regulation. And I really will stop speaking on the topic now.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for speaking to this. And again, this is similar to what I said before, but I again want to reinforce, I know that you disagree with, I'm sorry, through the chair, I know that many constituents disagree with me about my opinion on the transfer fee, the Home Rule petition, the Affordable Homes Act, which are again, two separate, totally separate processes about the same topic. That's your right, completely respect that. I know that there's a lot that we disagree on and a lot that we agree on. But the thing that I really think is important to reinforce is that we are talking about two different things. We are all endowed with the right to endorse a piece of state-level legislation. I think we've probably all done that at different times. And there's a separate process. Or oppose. Or oppose. And there is a separate process by which we come together as a city council in committee meetings to collectively, in public session, craft what we are actually putting forward to the state house to say, the majority of city councilors voted for this, that we would like for you to put forward as state legislation. And I hope that, I'm trying to find the words to make this more clear, because I understand that it's confusing for a lot of people, that the Affordable Homes Act, which is a massive housing bond bill that also includes a proposal for a local option for real estate transfer fee, encounters the same topic as our proposed real estate transfer fee home rule petition that is currently in the permitting and planning committee. I understand that those are easy to conflate because there's that Venn diagram overlap. And I just want to reinforce for people who are not as deeply intimate with this issue as all of us behind the rail are and the people who most frequently show up to the public meetings, I just want to make it crystal clear that these are two separate processes. They're related by topic. They're two separate processes, and I just think that's really important to make clear. And if I may, while I have the floor, as we're talking about the processes with possible home rule petitions, I think the most important part of this conversation already happened, which is how do these actually happen? What's the process? City Council goes to the mayor. They could full stop at the mayor. If they don't, they go to the delegation. They get put forward as a legislation. I don't like to talk about this often because I think that we should do them anyway, but yeah, I have no optimism that the Home Rule petition that we may or may not craft here in Medford City Council will become law because traditionally they don't. I've been a member of home, I've been a participant in home rule petition efforts in my first term on the Medford City Council. Did any of them become law or get even close? No, absolutely not. But, you know, to use the words of somebody who spoke just earlier, I don't think that this is a slight issue at all, the housing crisis. I think that it's a major issue. And that's why I think that's it. That's why I think it's so important that we have the conversation with every mechanism possible, including lobbying for state-level legislation, as well as having the conversation about if we should lobby for this, essentially, with a home rule petition, because the issue of displacement and housing unaffordability is so large and so rampant in Medford that I really think it's worth having that conversation anyway. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears and Councilor Callahan. I appreciate you refocusing us on the actual text of our discussion. So I just want to make one further comment, and then I will the question again, I guess, though I feel more confused about the meaning of that motion than I did a half hour ago. But I think that we've had a robust discussion on this topic. But in terms of the, I think, the most important part of our discussion about the processes of dealing with possible home rule petitions is just the technical process, like the universe of what can happen with home rule petitions, which we already talked about. But just as speaking about these home rule petitions in particular, as the chair of the planning and permitting committee, which they are both assigned to, in terms of what residents can expect from these home rule petitions in particular, and because the issue of, and because the concept of what else are we doing about affordable housing just got brought up. I agree, I certainly would never assume that people who don't happen to endorse the idea of a real estate transfer fee are not proponents of increasing affordable housing. Most of politics is just disagreeing over the tactics and not the outcomes or goals. And to that end, my expectation as chair of the committee in which a lot of these affordable housing conversations are going on is that we have, this is also the committee in which we are discussing our slate of major comprehensive amendments to our zoning code. And that gets brought up a lot. People talk about making it easier for developers to build in Medford both to increase our commercial tax base, to make it easier to add new high quality residential units. We are going to lay the conditions for that to happen through updating our zoning code. Speaking as the chair of the committee, that is my priority. This is something that this council has been working on, I know, for at least two terms, which means one term longer than I've been a part of the council. pivotal work that we are going to be doing on this committee, that's my priority. I don't expect to take up these formal petitions until the fall because we have a budget to pass in May and in June, and we have a lot of work to get through with our zoning consultant, which this council fought for, for, I'm gonna say, at least three calendar years. I think we're so serious about the issue of housing affordability that when we say every tool in the toolbox, we really mean it. We're going to talk about zoning that will make it easier to develop commercially and residentially in Medford. We're going to talk about ADUs, which I know are really important, you know, kind of on the minds of many Medford residents. And we're also going to talk about home rule petitions, but the work that is squarely within our jurisdiction, zoning, as chair, I'm always going to prioritize that. And so in terms of the process, in terms of the timeline that people can expect, I just want to, I want, I feel like, I thought this was a, a topical time to bring that up, both in terms of the timing that people can expect these to go over and also to just kind of recontextualize these formal petitions with everything else that this council is prioritizing to do with the outcome of increasing affordable housing in Medford and also increasing the commercial development that will expand our resources to support our residents and all manner of other infrastructural and constituent services project.
[Kit Collins]: Just on the motion to receive and place on file.
[Kit Collins]: I would make a motion to join and approve the food truck permits. That's papers 24-086 through 24-091. I heard that, George. Now I'm mad. It's all over now.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take from the table 22494, the budget ordinance for third reading, and to take from the table 24080, the supervisor of water and sewer personnel ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward to this forum. Along with President Bears, I've also been made aware of the situation by protesters on Tufts campus and people working with them, supportive of their cause. Just community members who have noticed this going on over the past few days. I've tried to remain in contact with those organizers. Also been in contact with our mayor, chief of police, and the government affairs liaison on Tufts campus about this. I've been very clear with all of those leaders and decision makers that my opinion is that This is, it would be a insupportable use of city resources to deploy Medford police to break up what has been a peaceful and unproblematic student demonstration. This is not germane to the use of our city resources, but as a Tufts alumnus, I'm very proud to see the students there joining into this cascade of peaceful demonstrations across the nation. And speaking as a community representative, I am deeply concerned about the safety of students and other community members on campus should the Tufts administration decide that a forcible removal of protesters is the objective that they are going to accomplish by use of force and by use of Tufts University Police. I hope that it doesn't come to that. I pray that it doesn't come to that. I think that that would end badly. I think that we've seen on other campuses that this is an extenuating event that should be allowed to remain a peaceful demonstration, a gathering place, a place for students and community members to process what's going on, to gather together and to show their solidarity. I think that it would be, I would hate to see something so benign speaking here as an individual community member, and again, speaking as a Jewish person, I would hate to see something so benign be escalated because of the use of police force in breaking up a peaceful protest. And so I'll reiterate my message to our administration and Tufts administration that I unequivocally would condemn the use of police force, whether Tufts or Medfords, especially Medfords, to forcibly decamp the protesters from where they have been camping out, gathering, making food, celebrating Passover on the Tufts University academic quad. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, just one thing to add. I know a couple people have reached out to me saying, what can the city council do about this to make sure that the people demonstrating on Tufts campus are kept safe? As we often say, the city council instructs and commands no city staff. There's very little that we can, there's nothing that we can do to interfere formally, or sorry, I shouldn't say interfere. There's nothing that we can do directly. to affect what happens on Tufts campus, but I would say to constituents that are observing this meeting, if you are of the opinion one way or the other on how Medford police resources should be deployed, if you feel that they should not be used to disperse a peaceful encampment on the grounds of a private university, if you feel that's inappropriate, now would be a good time to let the administration know. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: There'll be a meeting of the planning and permitting committee April 24th 2024. This meeting will take place at six p.m. In the city council chamber, second floor Medford City Hall, 85 George P has to drive and on zoom. Mr. Clerk, would you please call the role?
[Kit Collins]: Vice President Collins. Present. Five present, zero absent. This meeting is called to order. Thank you all very much for being here. We have several city staff in the room and on Zoom, in addition to the committee members and our zoning consultants. The action and discussion items for tonight's meeting is 24033 which is the paper number for the zoning ordinance updates that we are working through with the Innes Associates team beginning a couple months ago and that will continue through most likely September of next year. We also have an affordable housing training run by Mass Housing Partnership. This will occur later in the meeting We will reconvene after the public works committee, so stay tuned for that we will take the zoning ordinance updates first and before I pass it over to city staff and our zoning consultant. just to quickly run through the top lines of what we'll be discussing tonight. Um, at our last planning and permitting committee meeting where we were discussing the zoning ordinance updates, we looked at the memo that is kind of an evolving document seeking to capture everything that we are trying to do in this zoning amendment process, pulling together recommendations from city councilors and from city staff and pulling in discrete policy recommendations from comprehensive plan, housing production plan, climate action and adaptation plan from the ZBA and the CDB and trying to put that into a document and schedule out over the course of the next 18 months how to group these various policies and projects into kind of topically batched projects. So we took a look at that we're still adding to that menu to that memo and that will continue to evolve and change in the statuses for the various policies. We'll get updated as we go along. What we have on deck for tonight is reviewing definitions and definitional changes recommended by city staff. And as associates, we're going to look at site plan review, as well as mapping framework. And at the end of the meeting, I think we can also just do a quick overview of kind of what we're currently planning for, you know, the next step after this one. This process has been one of trying to plan a couple steps out even as we're working through current steps. With that, I'm happy to pass it right over to Emily Innes unless city councilors or city staff have anything they'd like to say first. Seeing none and no hands raised on Zoom, Emily, please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Emily. Really appreciate that overview. I know I have a few questions based off the presentation, but we'll go first to city councilors. I see Councilor Leming. Go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Emily. Thank you for the question. Director Hunt, anything more from yourselves at this point?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Commissioner. President Pierce?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much, President Bears. Thank you, Emily. Really appreciate this discussion. Just a couple clarifying questions from me. I just want to confirm we're talking about this committee reviewing proposed changes to the definitions at our next convening in this committee. That includes the table of uses proposals as well, is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. And just to, my preferred way of taking in information is just to paraphrase and make sure that I'm getting it right. So my understanding is that Um, for example, with the table of use and parking regulations, nothing is actually changing. No regulations requirements are changing. We're just updating the nomenclature to make it consistent. Is that correct?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for confirming. And I think that that will be a welcome change, as we've mentioned before. you know, part of our work, you know, in the later half or three quarters of this process, we'll be looking at more substantive, we'll be considering more substantive changes to the neighborhood maps, incorporating stuff from our various plans. And in other cases, we're just trying to make these documents more legible and more useful so that the uses and the development that we already allow and that we want to encourage will just be easier to do from both the business side and from the city side. And I think that certainly falls under this category. Just jumping ahead really quickly back to the site plan review proposed changes. If you wouldn't mind returning quickly to the recommendations for potentially considering minor plan review, administrative review, municipal. I'm curious, what's the difference between minor and administrative? Are you considering both? That sounds to me like it might be an either or, but I'm curious the distinction there.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for clarifying. I think that makes sense. And again, towards the end of streamlining the processes and making the language really intuitive, I think what we're talking about here is creating a review process for minor plans. So that recommendation makes sense to me. Any further questions from councilors? President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We were speculating last night. It makes me think of Jaws every time. Thank you, Commissioner. Recognizing Attorney Silverstein.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. I think that point is well taken. And important to keep in mind as we do progress towards the squares, corridors, and neighborhoods part of this process in phase two and phase three, how we can essentially, I think that a lot of our shared goal here is to how to create the zoning that aligns with the uses that city, the resident wants, and that makes it easier for us to take developers up on the development that we really want them to be doing in the city. Thank you. Seeing no other further comments on this time, I'm just going to shift towards kind of summarize. Oh, Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Attorney servicing. Appreciate that. And I think that, um, we should certainly add that to our list of items to check and double back to either at the May 8th meeting or at the appropriate time to make sure that if this is being addressed through language changes to municipal review, then it's consistent elsewhere throughout our zoning ordinances. Thank you for taking a first approach at that. So we have about five minutes until we should take a recess of this committee so that the Public Works Committee can use this space until around 7.30, and then we will reconvene in this committee. So I just want to try and quickly summarize us towards the end of this topic.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I do see that I'll get to him in just a second. Thank you so much for flagging that. I just want to make sure that we're all clear on what we're preparing for for our next meeting, anticipating the proposed definition change language, as well as table of use proposals, recommended language on site plan review, and then the proposal for mapping and the GIS zoning map. Emily, are we expecting that for next time or just an update to the status memo bringing us closer to those proposals?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. So we'll go quickly to Gaston. Just name and address for the record, please. And I've asked you to unmute on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for that comment. We appreciate you bringing it up early in the process so that we can make sure that that is something that we do discuss with our zoning consultant, and we'll certainly have a conversation about that and see where it might be deliberated and discussed. I know this is in the interest of Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Are there any further comments, questions from this time from members of the public, councilors, city staff, and associates before we take a approximately 30-minute recess?
[Kit Collins]: Yep. And just to restate, we will reconvene after the public works committee, um, has net, um, same zoom, same channel. We're taking a brief recess to allow for that committee. Um, thank you so much, Emily and associates, uh, city staff for being with us tonight. And again, for members of the public, um, we will reconvene after the public works committee to have an affordable housing training from the mass housing partnership. Do I have a motion to recess? Do I have a second on the motion to recess? Second. On the motion to recess by Councilor Callahan, seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, zero opposed. The meeting is recessed and will reconvene. All right, the Planning and Permitting Committee is hereby reconvened. Thank you so much for bearing with us during our quick, short recess to take a meeting of the Public Works Committee, and now we're back. We are going to be hearing from the Mass Housing Partnership and housing planner, Aditi, on 24083 and affordable housing training. I will hand it over to Aditi to introduce our guests, and please feel free to take it away.
[Kit Collins]: Quick question on this slide, if you don't mind an interruption. The recipients for these funding streams under the QAP, can that be communities, local housing authorities, other quality of?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, I have a really small clarifying question. For the RADS slash section 18, you mentioned that there isn't new federally funded public housing being built. So is that when a unit is just moved to a new location?
[Kit Collins]: So there's no net increase in the number of units. It's a change in the voucher method?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you both so much. I personally found this very helpful. I'm already thinking this is something we should do every term, because this is such a table-setting overview of the local context of why trainings like this work, like this is so relevant to our work here in Medford, in that regional context. And I think it provides a lot of color for a lot of the work that we're doing here in Medford. And not just the city council, of course, but our local housing authority are fledgling Affordable Housing Trust city staff, a lot of the decision points and situations that come across the various groups in our city that are contending with these questions at various phases in the process of going from the acknowledgement of our local status of affordable housing and everything that is proposed to do about it. So thank you so much. I see Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Do you want to take on that?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Councilor Leming. Any further questions from members of the Council, members of the public? President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Any further questions from members of the council? Members of the public? Seeing none, I want to thank you again. So this meeting, like all of our meetings, will be recorded. It's on Medford Community Media. I don't know if this was already planned or if it's possible, but I think these slides could be really useful for us to have to put on our city council website as an ongoing resource, if it's possible to convey those. I'd really love to have them be published and shareable and preferable. As this does come up over and over again.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate your time. We appreciate your expertise. And I'm sure that this information will continue to guide us as we we're going to work through a term full of housing priorities of zoning and determine which are very quite new. Affordable Housing Trust is really just getting its legs under it for the first time. So this information will continue to stay relevant top of mind.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. Any further comments from councilors? Oh, before we do that, I also want to thank the planning department for setting up this presentation tonight. Really appreciate it. I think this is very valuable. Thank you so much, Housing Planner Aditi, and thank you, Director Hunt.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by President Bears. I think we can do a voice vote at this point.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. On the motion of President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lundin. Second.
[Kit Collins]: Sure. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by President Bears. All those in favor? Aye. And this is the vote to receive and place in file and adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Is that okay? So it's Leming's motion to receive and place in file and adjourn. 8.15. Do we need to recheck that? Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to thank my colleagues for putting this resolution forward and join with you in extending my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to the entire Caraviello family.
[Kit Collins]: Present
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, I think Councilor Callahan had her hand up first. Just a general comment, I really appreciate the communication so far as our budget season gets off to its start. I know that it's been, busy start to this kind of forecasting, assessing, and planning season. I appreciate the communication so far, and I think this presentation is really helpful as we head into and get further into the weeds together. I haven't heard a lot of specific questions from me tonight because I think sort of the scope that we're looking at that President Bears just summed up are kind of the concerns and questions that are on all of our minds, which is, you know, as we, as the work gets on, it continues on your side to try to bring the two numbers in reconciliation with each other. You know, obviously the question that we are all, you know, continuing to discuss is reconciling what we have with our fixed non-negotiable costs, especially in our first budgeting year after ARPA, which, you know, this will be my first budget after ARPA. It feels like a seismic change. And I know that, you know, essentially we have our rock solid non-negotiables And I think for this council, we have other non-negotiables that are technically negotiable, but from the value that they bring to the community, you know, often come into this conversation. We're having a budget conversation here that we know is fiscally really difficult. I think that we're all, you know, all eagerly and with a little bit of anxiety anticipating, you know, when we get to that reconciliation phase, how many of those programs that are, you know, programming staff, you know, working together to make sure that we are, keeping as much in this budget during this very difficult year as we can. So I'm glad that we're doing that together. I'm glad that we're starting early and I appreciate all of the early communication around what kind of scenario we find ourselves in. And it is great to hear about all of the coordination efforts, which I know are not new, but get a little bit more finessed every year with trying to lump together those costs that occur in different places around the building, around the institution to make sure that we are not duplicating expenses where we can. Because in this type of budget year, I know that every little bit does make a difference, especially when we are talking about some of those grant-funded positions that we're trying to keep within the operating budget, which might be, you know, under $100,000. Like, some of those cost-saving measures could really make the difference for positions like that. So all of that is really meaningful. It's appreciated. And I know we'll probably have some tough decision points and discussions ahead of us. But, you know, the early information is very appreciated. Appreciate all the effort that you're putting into this. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Just a quick clarifying question on the same topic. You said nine months on the RFPs. Is that, do you expect to get proposals back from vendors or just what's the step in the timeline?
[Kit Collins]: Understood. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, it doesn't have to be a motion, but will the slides from today's presentation be emailed around for the councillors who want it? Yes. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Just want to again thank Director Dickinson, Chief of Staff for being here tonight and for preparing us for this meeting, all the documents you've prepared for this. Second. And thank you as well to the clerk for the budget presentation. I don't think we need to thank ourselves for ours. Motion to adjourn. Second.
[Kit Collins]: Great, something like that, yeah. I would also suggest a, I tried to suggest language for the rent stabilization home repetition that we might be able to create a template that works for both. Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming, while you're hearing from non-voting members. I just wanted to, before I leave you to your deliberations, I think that this is a really great start, a really great framework. I'm excited about this. I think what I hear from people all the time, like in my first term as well as recently, is it's so hard to know what the city council is doing. And this is of course not a perfect solution, but I think anything that we add And the beauty of essentially an e-list is that people can always be added to it, and that content can be used in other channels as well. So I think that this is a worthwhile endeavor that is only additive. It doesn't really take away from anything except for our time. I think that in general, it could be helpful for us to just have standard language for how we talk about certain things. In my email that I sent over to you earlier today, just kind of a standard sentence structure for at our XYZ meeting, we passed a resolution commemorating I just want to run through these really quickly. A lot of my comments did just kind of trying to get into the trying to get into the mindset of the average resident who doesn't know what we do. So one of the comments that I sent to you, um. Around the passage of the leaf blower ordinance. I suggested as opposed to we approved completely the new leaf blower ordinance, sending it to the mayor for the final approval. This ordinance will phase out gas-powered leaf blowers in favor of electric ones over a four-year period. And I just want to emphasize, I think it's helpful to not assume that people know what it means to pass an ordinance completely or incompletely, just to sort of use kind of specific language for what we mean by that, to kind of imply that there's two votes, rather than to use general language. And a lot of our ordinances are, of course, are very complicated. They're hard to boil down into one or two sentences. So I think that I think it'd be great for us to include hyperlinks wherever we can so that, you know, to sort of help people with their inevitable questions of what do you mean, what do you mean specifically, where can I read more about this, so that people can click to immediately get their specific questions answered to read more about it. But wherever possible, I would love to use language like giving the final vote of approval so that it's more clear what we mean by that. Similarly, in the planning and permitting committee section, I've been trying to use language of this committee began the process of updating and amending our zoning ordinances. I just think that's a little bit more specific than I know I've been using the word overhaul a lot. I think that it's like a little more precise when we say we're amending the ordinances. We're updating the ordinances. I hope that that will better signal for more people what that process actually looks like. And then I do think it might be helpful for people to include that second line that I suggested. NS Associates has worked with the city of Medford previously, including on our comprehensive plan, just to give that context that this is a known contractor that we've collaborated with before. Um, and last thing, sorry, um, if this hasn't already been mentioned, um, under the administration finance committee section, I thought it would be helpful to add some context to the draft budget ordinance. I suggested, and this I emailed to you earlier, this committee is finalizing the draft budget ordinance, which for the first time creates a timeline and meeting schedules for updates and communications between the city council and mayor's office during the annual budget development. process, and I just wanted to include some sort of implication there that we're at the final stage of this, something that was begun in the previous term, and more specifically what that means.
[Kit Collins]: What I was just referencing was the email that I sent to you before. Okay. So I did, so I did, I did include everything in that in the meantime, but you also sent, um, I was just noticing some language discrepancies from what I sent you and what I saw on the doc. So I just wanted to make sure that you have the specific language.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. I always appreciate your presentations come budget time. My fellow Councilors have covered a lot of my questions at this point, which are pretty basic. I know your department's budget is pretty straightforward, and this is pretty early in budget season, so it's great to be having the conversation now. But just want to take a moment to recognize you for the hard work that you and your department do. All year, we know that senior centers institutionally wear so many hats. You're providing basic services. You're also providing fun and community. It's a lot of balls to keep in the air and on a pretty tight budget as well. So just thank you so much for your resourcefulness and for all that you provide.
[Kit Collins]: I hope that this council can remain supportive as senior centers programming and offerings continue to grow. Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks so much for being here. I don't know, the whole soft speakers, loud speakers, I don't think it's an issue, I never hear about that. But you know we're reaping the benefits of some of the improvements that's been made over the past year with these additional monitors. That's really helpful for Councilors I hope that there's been some benefits for folks in the audience as well and it's. Great to hear some of the things that are in the percolator for continuing to expand access for making the meetings more accessible, even within the chambers. I know, not because of anything that has to do with your department, because of this room and its acoustics, we frequently hear from folks, you know, gosh, it's really hard to hear kind of no matter what. So it's awesome to hear that those headsets are on the eventual to-do list. I think that could help out a lot of folks who have a hard time reading the subtitles and hearing in the chambers. Thanks for letting us know that that is in the hopper. I know that it's a tough year across the board for those blue sky items, but I think it is helpful for us to get a benchmark on what needs are coming down the pike. I know that even like 30K for the video switcher is pretty small in terms of capital investments go, but I hope that we can kind of stay in conversation about what those needs are so we can make sure that they get allocated and budgeted for in a way that we can make movement on them when the time is right. I think you touched on this quickly before, but just a question about one of the funding streams. I know that the cable company fee, a portion of that is earmarked towards community media. I don't know a lot about this. I learned about this relatively recently from a community media station in another city, actually. Does that earmark from the cable companies that they pay to the city, does all of that funding go to MCM or does part of that go to the general fund as well? Just curious the streams that funnel into.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here and welcome again. I know it's been several months, but we're so happy to have you on board, and I think it's such an advantage for our community to have somebody who brings so many perspectives to this role. So thanks for being here. Welcome to your first budget season. Thank you. I think part of the reason that it's really great to have a presentation from department heads during budget season is it's not just an opportunity to share with the community, what you're up to 365 days a year. But I think it's really important context for us and all the work that we do, like what is the other work that we're trying to do in the community that has those direct and indirect shared goals with what your office is working so hard to accomplish. So thank you for that, for being here to provide that context and that perspective. It sounds like it's been a really busy first several months. So busy. On the job, which is very impressive to hear. It's fantastic to hear about the ADA upgrades for the office. That seems like a really important, really overdue thing. So thank you for getting right on that. I don't have any specific questions for you at this point. The departmental budget is pretty straightforward, but just thank you so much for being here. And I hope that we can be partners in the work of your office. Please do feel free to be in touch with us any time of the year with how we can support you and what your office is working on.
[Kit Collins]: To be clear, my only objection is being the one to pick it out.
[Kit Collins]: I don't want that to happen.
[Kit Collins]: We at this meeting we reviewed a draft work plan of the city council's that was prepared by the city's zoning consultant, Innes Associates. The draft work plan will continue to be updated to reflect the input of city staff and Councilors, the ZBA, the CBB, and it will evolve to track progress on different zoning policy goals as this project continues over the next year and a half. Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: 24082 resolution to acknowledge April 30, 2024 as National Animal Therapy Day in the city of Medford. Whereas there are thousands of pet partners therapy animal teams serving communities across the United States. And whereas pet partners has designated April 30 as National Therapy Animal Day. And whereas scientific research shows that interacting with therapy animals can reduce stress, relieve depression, slow the heart rate, lower blood pressure and strengthen the immune system. And whereas therapy animal teams in the city of Medford play an essential role in improving human health and well-being through the human animal bond. And whereas therapy animal teams interact with a variety of people in our community, including veterans, seniors, patients, students, and those approaching end of life. And whereas these exceptional therapy animals who partner with their human companions bring comfort and healing to those in need. And whereas we encourage more pet owners to consider becoming pet partners, volunteers, to help our community by creating greater access to meaningful therapy animal visits. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we acknowledge April 30th, 2024 as National Animal Therapy Day and encourage our citizens to celebrate our therapy animals and their human handlers. Be it further resolved that we publicly salute the service of therapy animal teams in our community and in communities across the nation. be it further resolved that we request that Mayor Lungo-Koehn issue a formal proclamation of National Animal Therapy Day in the city of Medford. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Any further comment from councilors? Any public comment on this topic? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Paul, could you come up to the microphone? Just give your name and address for the record, please. Watch it, Lily. Just your name and address for the record, please, Paul.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Paul. It's a pleasure to see Lily getting so comfortable in our chambers today. Thank you. Madam Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: 7 in favor, none opposed, the motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears and Councilor Scarpelli. I think it's a good idea for us to have this discussion, you know, to use the word from your resolution. We know we're coming up on budget.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I frequently need a reminder to talk louder. I appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: but I know I'm not loud enough to talk over people. Councilor Scarpelli, I appreciate the resolution to discuss the water and sewer department, especially as we're coming right up on budget season. This is a conversation that we're going to have anyway, and as other councilors have noted, this is a conversation that we've had every year in the past two budget cycles that I have been a part of. you know, this is a, this has been raised as a multi-million dollar issue. We know that it will take multi-millions of dollars to make good on this investment, to bring ourselves out of the rear of all cities and towns in Massachusetts when it comes to our water infrastructure. I believe that Commissioner McGibbon told us during our budget hearing last year that we're one of the The three cities with the oldest water infrastructure in the state. That's that's not a end of the ladder that any of us want to be on. And we know that this is multi-millions of dollars in the fixing. This is many decades in the making. One thing that I do find heartening from the letters from the administration, from letters from current and former members of DPW leadership that I think is heartening, is that there's a clear mutual respect from Commissioner McGivern and former Superintendent Stoneking. That mutual respect within the DPW leadership you know, and knowing that this is a shared priority between the DPW, between the City Council, between the administration, we know that we need to look for We need to look for assets wherever we can find them with this big of an infrastructural project ahead of us. As was stated earlier, we were the first council to vote to keep retained earnings within the Water and Sewer Department so that it could go towards funding infrastructure repairs and improvements. Obviously that is a small first step. we have a ways to go. I am glad for any steps in the right direction that were taken by ARPA, that were taken by Superintendent Stone King during his tenure, and that I know that Commissioner McGivern is working hard on every day. And I think it is one of the things that rang most loudly for me from Commissioner McGivern's letter to the city council was that all of these major infrastructural efforts between bringing our water infrastructure up to par and our roads infrastructure up to par. You know, we got at least 500 million on the water side. I believe it's maybe even at least 200 million if we really wanna get every road where we know residents want them. These things have to be done in concert, be done efficiently to make sure that we're making the best use of every dollar because we have to use so many of them. Last point I wanna make for now, I did, Commissioner given noted the most recent report from the M. W. R. A. On the state of Medford sweater, which is from 2021 in his letter to the City Council. I did follow that read through it. I think that it's worth noting that when it comes to when it comes to our water infrastructure. We know, because everybody has cited, that some of our pipes are 120 years old. We also know that the most recent report from the MWRA is that our drinking water is safe. And we also know that we have a lot of work ahead of us to make sure that it stays that way without interruption for all future generations. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I apologize for interrupting. I would like to motion to take public participation out of order. I understand we have a member of the audience who can't stay very late, but would like to speak during public participation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I was informed that there's a former member of the council who would like to speak. Sure.
[Kit Collins]: So moved.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Scarpelli, we've known each other for a term. You know, there's a lot I agree with you about. There's some I disagree with you about. That's not news to anybody. What I do think that we all share is that we're looking for the holistic picture. and I do think that as a city council under our current charter, we're kind of always at a disadvantage because we do have the final vote on the budget. We don't craft it. We can't add to it. We can only make line item subtractions. We are in a difficult and disadvantaged position to have that 30,000 foot view on the budget when we receive all of our information through intermediaries, through departments, through the administration, essentially second hand. And I think all of us have found that challenging. I know that I have found it challenging. There's a lot that I think is really critical as we move forward. We already had a conversation tonight on two major pieces of infrastructure that we know will take years to bring up to the level of condition that residents deserve. And we barely even touched on the new high school, and that's another one. Residents deserve a new, better high school. And I think it is both true that we need to make sure we have a clear picture of why our budget is the way it is, in fairness to everybody, and we have to hold that it's equally crucial that we do what needs to happen so that residents have the environment and the resources and the public sector and the public staff and the city infrastructure that they deserve. And I know for me, we cannot afford to wait on any avenues that can get us closer to that. I also do want to note, you know, we speak about what our jurisdiction is and what our jurisdiction isn't for, you know, what city resources look like and what our budget looks like. I also want to add, since we mentioned Mystic Avenue, it's a constant source of frustration for me that we don't have a more direct hand in the spending of city resources so that we, you know, when that. City staff and residents come to us bringing up particular projects and departments that we can't more directly intervene. But I am really proud that this council has, you know, for several terms now made it a shared goal to do what we can on the zoning ordinances side so that we can lay the foundation for rapidly improving new growth commercial it's not direct because developments come from developers, but we have a direct hand in laying the foundation where our commercial tax base, where new growth can flourish in the city. And so I'm proud that that's one piece that we do have jurisdiction over. This council is making a priority for several terms now, and we are already starting to see developers take advantage and start to take that's going to benefit. Um everything that we talk about in these chambers that deserve more investment than what we're currently getting. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you again for being here. And I know from my other line of work, just a glimmer of how much work writing these grant applications is. And I know this was a whole, truly a whole crew effort. So thank you for that. It is really interesting to get a glimpse into. This other side of the work of administrating the fire department and just to echo what Councilors and Councilors are probably put out there you know this council is no stranger to putting together. that we can do to bolster the application. I think, of course, I'm sure that in a perfect world, we'd all like to see, you know, overshooting, getting up to that, you know, maximum recommended number and using those three years to figure out how to stay there. But in lieu of that, you know, it's my hope that hopefully we get great news at the end of July and in that intervening three years is when we're, you know, getting to a place of better resilience with the city's budget so that we can further escalate in a reliable way. So thank you again.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. you know, we had a robust discussion about the water and sewer department earlier in the evening. I think the compensation and classification study was brought up. Personally, as one Councilor, I'm very much looking forward to the season whenever that arrives, when we can take a holistic look and see the analysis that we know is being worked on with the Collins Center in consultation with the city staff. to get that overall picture of. We know that some of these roles have salaries that are no longer competitive with our neighboring communities, maybe have not been for a long time. The point of this, the ultimate point of making sure that our positions are kind of accurately and up-to-date compensation-wise salaried, is to make sure that we are as competitive as any other municipality at attracting the best talent. because of the downstream effects that that has on our residents. All that to say, it's not my preference to do these CAF changes one at a time, but we also know that this position is incredibly critical. This is a point of inflection for our water infrastructure, and I don't want us to lose any time at all. Even if it's just a couple of weeks, that could make the difference. If making this position more competitive will bring somebody on faster, I think we should do that. So I'm gonna motion to approve for first reading.
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to defer to other suggestions at this time, but what's on my mind is, I said earlier, I feel a sense of urgency around this. I would prefer not to wait two weeks to take the first vote. I feel like an advantage here is that we can ask for information and if it's relevant, we We have the third reading to take an additional vote on.
[Kit Collins]: I'd be happy to, I actually don't know if there's a way to attach a B paper to an ordinance, but I would like the information on this union issue attached to the, sorry, I don't actually know if there's a way to attach a B paper to this particular vote, like we do with resolutions. I would like the answer to Councilor Scarpellioli's question. I would prefer to vote on this tonight, but I'd be happy to put your question as a B paper to the vote, if that is an option.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take paper 21057 off the table for third reading. That's the leaf floor ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'd like to put forward a motion to receive and place on file the following papers that are under reports due slash deadlines. I can read them off. It's 17-606. 20-086, 22-007, 22-009, and 22-039. That motion is to receive and place all of those on file.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Paris, and yes just to underline that point. That was the one of the motions from our last committee meeting on this topic was for Councilors to send any preliminary suggestions that they wanted to see included in this kind of bird's eye view demo of what we're going to do over the next year and a half. But this is certainly going to be an evolving document and I think that we can, President Bears and I, together with NS Associates Director Hunt and her staff, can work together to keep information flowing, you know, from individual Councilors through myself and Director Hunt to the zoning consultant to make sure that as new ideas are raised, that's getting added and, you know, looking out at this project, This is a we have an ambitious slate of topics and themes to work through between now and next summer and fall. And so I really appreciate having this benchmark for kind of the, the version number zero of this memo and looking forward to seeing how it's going to be. Updated in coming months I think it'd be really helpful for this committee, you know, with its five different viewpoints for the council with it seven different viewpoints for the residents for city staff to be able to say hey I raised this as a priority. A month ago six months ago where we at with this I think this will be really helpful for tracking progress. And just to just to color in that picture a little bit, you know, to, to adhere to my. our last committee meeting, I did send ahead some of my own priorities and suggestions to Director Hunt and Innes Associates for ideas that I'd like to see included at the juncture. It's exciting to see Innes Associates is already beginning to incorporate some of the really specific policies and goals from the comp plan, the housing production plan, the climate action and adaptation plan. into this memo, I know that that'll probably be fleshed out more we fleshing out that more with ideas from the governing agenda to make sure that everything that ought to be in here is in here and is on the to do list for myself and I already conveyed this to our zoning consultant, the email but just to mention it in the setting. Three of the role. projects that I want to make sure that we're aligning with as we get through this is making sure that the areas of the draft tree ordinance that touch zoning, want to make sure that we're working on those at the appropriate time, ditto the draft condo conversion ordinance, and as with a lot of our other things that are more on the level of like themes and goals as opposed to discrete projects and policies, making sure that we are, you know, prioritizing our complete streets and Vision Zero goals as we're working through the map and the districting processes and a lot of these layout, you know, kind of at the district court or a neighborhood level, I think, whether it's transit related use related. you know, where those goals, resiliency, housing, commercial development hit the road. We'll be looking at those in abstract and also at kind of at the neighborhood level. So all that to say, I think this is a structure that will greatly advantage us as we try to touch on all of this in the coming months. Thank you, Paula, for being here today.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This is a comment, not a motion, but I just wanted to reflect that I think this stage of the process kind of encapsulates a lot of what we're trying to do here which is both taking the visions and goals of the plans that we've the city is, you know, collaboratively created over the past three to five years, and putting those into a zoning code where they can actually be implemented and residents can start to see changes like the type they've been requesting for. you know, in some cases, decades, depending on the topic at hand. And at the same time, it's also a process that is meant to streamline how, you know, the work of the city gets done and how development gets done and make this a city where the type of development that we do want to be happening can happen more efficiently, more easily with less burden on city staff and also the people that are trying to build and work and contribute to our community. So it's great to see you know, both facets of many represented in this meeting. And thank everybody for their participation. This is going to be a long project, but it's exciting to be formulating how exactly, you know, we're going to try to roll out as much of this as possible. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: So moved.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to Councilor Tseng for co-sponsoring this with me. Just wanted to take a quick moment during this special time of the year for many people in Medford to acknowledge our Muslim community and wish all celebrants a happy Ramadan during this special time for their faiths. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. At this meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee, we discussed two resolutions, one from the previous term about amending the short-term rental ordinance. to include a monthly report from the short-term rental platforms such as Vrbo or Airbnb so that we can better reconcile the post-reported and platform-reported number of short-term rentals in the community and make sure that we're in compliance with the short-term rental ordinance. We also discussed a resolution from this term to review the fee schedule for like across city departments and boards to make sure that we go through the process of asking city departments for feedback on which of those fees are updated or out of step with our neighboring communities so that we can make sure those fees are covering the relevant administrative costs and brought into the modern age. Motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: I'll defer to that.
[Kit Collins]: I'll second your motion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. As I said last week in committee, I appreciate Councilor Leming for bringing this forward. I think that even if all we were doing was updating the technical aspects of this ordinance that are out of step with how it's actually utilized, that would be a productive thing to do. And I think it's in keeping with where we're at as a community and this modern moment. to be adding, as we discussed at length last week, the point of the linkage fees is to associate certain costs from developers for the things that they affect in our community when they come in and build here. Things like parks, things like roads, sewer. I think it's appropriate to be adding an affordable housing bucket at this time. And I look forward to reviewing the recommendations that the city board comes back to us with. So I'd motion to refer to the community development board
[Kit Collins]: Council. 24059 offered by Councilor Callahan resolution to create a rental registry. Whereas the city of Medford has climate sustainability, affordable housing and other goals that would be easier to accomplish if we could reach either renters or landlords or both in our city, and whereas a lack of a registry of rental properties means that we currently miss opportunities to reach either our renters or our landlords or both. Be it so with energy efficiency standards as described in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, Section 2.2.D. Be it further resolved that this ordinance be referred to committee for further discussion in the Planning and Permitting Committee. Be it further resolved that members of the Planning and Permitting Committee submit questions to the chair, clerk, and city staff ahead of the committee meeting scheduled for the subject. and be it further resolved that the council work with the building department and the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability on the drafting of this ordinance to ensure that it best serves the city of Medford and our climate and affordable housing goals. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: We're gonna go to President Bears, Councilor Leming, and then Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Callahan, if you have a direct response.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Excuse me, we're not going to interrupt people. Councilor Callahan, please go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a chance for everybody to participate on this item. Please do not interrupt speakers. Councilor Callahan, are you finished? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate the discussion from my fellow Councilors. I appreciate everybody who's come to the podium to speak on this. I am aware that hearing people tonight, people feel like they're not being heard. I'm also aware that there's probably not a lot that I can say that people believe, such as when I say that everything that people have spoken to, I'm listening to. I won't speak for my fellow Councilors, but I know it's true for them as well. We're listening. I'm taking notes. We hear you. I'll echo what Councilor Callahan said. I think that engaging in every part of this process is important, taking note of things that really concern people with this proposal. For example, people are wondering, does this include compromising information? I don't think it does, but I think that's something for us to talk about in committee and make crystal clear. People are saying, why is this necessary when I know that you have info about property owners already?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that's... I think that's a great question and we should look at okay, what really needs to be added to augment already already have, I think the most salient thing for me, all the folks in this room that are property owners. I think Councilor Callahan made it really clear at the beginning, that's not who we're talking about. people said, we know that there are property owners in this community that are hurting neighbors as well as tenants. They're not the folks who are here talking about how much work they're putting into their properties. Those are the folks that we can't reach. And those are the folks that we need to be able to reach that we make sure that they are contributing to the community the way that all of you are. I think this is, I know we're coming up on my time limit. That's why I think this is worth considering further so that we can get into the concerns that were raised tonight. and elucidate them and get that clarity and have those discussions with everybody who we already know is interested in this conversation and all the people that we didn't hear from tonight, because those perspectives need to be- Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate my fellow Councilors for bringing this forward. I also appreciate the motion on the floor to amend it from two minutes to three minutes. I think that's welcome change. Two minutes feels a bit too much of a cut right off the bat. I think three minutes is more reasonable. I think that for myself is supportable. My reasons are the following. I think that this is a tweak that will help more people to participate in our meetings. I can hear the response in my head and also slightly from the chambers of another way of looking at this, which is, you know, gosh, those jerks are really tired of long meetings. We know the job that we signed up for. Sorry, I'll speak for myself. I know the job that I signed up for. We have a lot of long nights. I know how to prep for it. I drink coffee in the afternoon. I eat before the meetings. I'm paid to listen to you. I'm gonna do that if we have to be here till 1 a.m. every night. That's the job, committed to it. What I think is not okay is we're experiencing a tension between wanting to optimize for the number for people being able to speak at the length that they choose and wanting to make it possible for more people to speak at all. And I think for a lot of meetings in a row, we've experienced people not being able to say their piece, people showing up and tending to speak and having to leave early because they have to get up for work. They have to go put their child to bed. any other reason, they can't stay up until midnight with us all. I just saw it happen. I know there are some folks here to speak on a later resolution who said, I could speak if it comes up before 9.30, it's 9.40, they can't be heard. And I think that that is, I think that that leaves people out of the process. I think that this is a way that we can make a small tweak to finesse this one avenue for participation that could have the result of allowing more people to participate. concurrently, I think that we can always do a better job of publicizing the various ways, other ways that residents can let their feelings be known with Councilors, which as Councilor Tseng noted, we still have the public participation section at the end of every agenda. Our information is public on the city website all the time, and I'm always really grateful to people who make use of that and always encourage more people to do so. People can submit comments to the president, to the city clerk to have them entered into the minutes or to be read aloud into the record. I also do want to note that like all of our other rules that are governing this body, this is enforced at the discretion of the chair, whoever that may be, which gives us the option to make exceptions where the need arises or where the space arises. For example, when we have a short agenda and aren't under time pressures, we can give everybody a little bit more breathing room in the event of, you know, I've heard from other communities, you know, using that discretion to allow more time for people with speech disabilities who do need more time to say their piece. And I think this gives us a tool to allow more people to come to the podium, if that's the avenue that they want to share their feelings with the council, while still giving us the flexibility and doubling down on our other ways for having residents communicate with the council. So I'll support the motion to move this forward tonight. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Any further comment from councilors? Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll try to keep this brief, but I think that we are touching on what seems to me to be an important topic kind of underwriting this council right now. I think that You know, as we have stated tonight and many other times, we're doing things a little bit differently this term. We have more in different committees where meeting in committee is way more often. We put out a governing agenda, which we'll continue to revise and update, which we've never done before. The council is going through growing pains. I think the committee is, the community is going through growing pains and seeing our evolution as a council and our workflow and trying to get used to that and trying to participate and understand, you know, what that looks like and how to plug into it. And I just want to acknowledge that as a thing that I think is going on and that it makes sense to be going on. I think that this is an important topic because I think that a lot of what people are wanting, we are trying to do. And I know that there's some breakdowns in trust because I think that there's some messaging about what we're here to do, that is unfair and untrue, but has legs. And I think, I hope we're going to work through that. I think that that makes it hard to communicate when we say, you know, I hear folks say, you know, we feel like we should be a part of the process and we're not a part of the process. I think that this council is trying to, for example, make committees a place where people really do come together and get into the weeds with us. Historically, they haven't been that. The fellow Councilors are right. Usually attendance is super low. I think we all really want to change that. Are we there right now? No, absolutely not. Does it need to get better? Absolutely. I really appreciate people calling that out and also making suggestions to say, you know, here's how we need to do this differently so that the energy and the input that we get at these meetings, what can we do differently and what just needs time so that that energy and that level of input is occurring in the place where it is on the schedule for us to get into the weeds together. I think we have some co-evolving to do to get to that place. And I hope that we'll get there. And for myself as one Councilor for this group, I think that's an honest effort in good faith and to anybody from the community who is willing to bring that energy and that frustration and that irritation to help us get there, that's welcome. And just as an illustrative example, because for me as one Councilor, it is frustrating to hear people say, we know this is a done deal or see what is sometimes a consensus and call it a conspiracy I think it's fairly intuitive that people running, committing to do similar things, similar people voted for similar ideas. And so now there's plurality of that opinion on the council. I don't think that's a conspiracy. I think that's statistics. So it's frustrating to me to hear, this is a done deal, this is something shady, for an example of, I think what we're trying to, I wish that we got more, attention all the times when we're stuck in the weeds. Council President Bears mentioned earlier at the very beginning of the meeting 10 years ago, the report on the food trucks ordinance. There's been one particular constituent that's been hounding me for months about the food trucks ordinance. Where is it? Where is it? When's it going to get done? We're still working on it. We're still hearing from people. We're still hearing from staff. We're going to give that the space that it needs. I'm sorry, I've gone on longer than I meant to, but I think that what we're talking about tonight, I think that we're circling around a topic that we are really earnestly trying to work through on the council, which is trying to get to a place where we can do this work together, we can bring in more people, we can put in the places where more people can be involved. So thank you for indulging me.
[Kit Collins]: You have no right. No, no, I think we should just move on.
[Kit Collins]: We'll go to Councilor Shang and then Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Any further comment from councilors on the B paper? Hearing none, I will relinquish the chair.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate you reading out the full text of the resolution. I am really proud to have put this on the agenda today. The reason that this resolution is before us is because we have a really strong, robust, energetic climate and environment community here in Medford. A couple of those groups have formed a coalition that came to me with the idea for this resolution, which is one of advocacy to say, we as a community, We see how climate change is already affecting our community. We see how it is going to affect our community in the future. We look around, we see reality for what it is. We know that we need resources greater than we can muster in a city's operating budget to adequately contend with how climate change is going to affect our community here on the banks of the Mystic River in a way that will protect residents of all backgrounds who live in all neighborhoods, of all the various geographies of Medford in a way that we can all continue to enjoy quality of life and safety here in Medford, both right now and a year in 50 years because of what we know about how our local environment is going to change because of the global weather trends that we are all experiencing and all projecting in different ways. This is a bill that was proposed this legislative session. And again, to sort of reiterate what was stated in the text of the resolution, this is a bill that would enable the state of Massachusetts to create a fund that the largest corporate polluters would pay into, that money would then be earmarked for local climate change resiliency projects. for cities like ours, who are on the banks of rivers, who are already suffering from heat islands, extreme weather, so that we can do the work that we already know we need to do, that people already need and actually don't have the access that they need quite already in our community, so that we can do those projects adequately. I don't think that eight-hour heating and cooling centers in the coldest and hottest days of the month in Medford are cutting it already, let alone what we're going to be feeling in five or 10 or 20 years. This state level legislation would try to create a stream of money to combat that at the local level in communities like ours from the corporations that are responsible for creating these conditions in communities like ours. So to be super, super clear, this is a tax on no consumer. This is a tax on no resident. This is going to your Exxon mobiles and saying, We can't undo history, but now you have to help us. You have to help us stay alive. You have to help us stay safe. You have to help us preserve our communities with what we know is to come. As was noted in the text of the resolution, this was given a study order in this legislative session, which means that most likely the legislature will not take action on this section. They won't be able to. They've decided to consider it for the rest of the year instead, which means slower action. And this is, you know, in some cases, this is a way of taking the wind out of the sails of a legislative project or slowing the momentum. But I think that this presents, you know, a really urgent opportunity for communities like ours to step in and say, you know, it's all the more important to be advocating because we know the clock is ticking. It was ticking before, it's certainly ticking now that the legislature has declined to take action on it in this session. And I'm really proud to stand with many Medford residents who reached out to me to say, we can't afford to add any more years to this timeline. We need to start funding climate resiliency now. So I'd like to thank the coalition that brought this before me and thank my Councilors as I asked them for their support.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much for being here, especially for waiting such a long time. And it's really helpful to hear it straight from MTA representatives, people who work in the schools like yourself. So just thank you as always for being here, especially when it takes a really long time to take a turn. Just wanna echo a lot of what my fellow Councilors have said, and also just, you know, acknowledge, like I know it's been, I know it's always hard. I know it's been an especially alarming couple of weeks with numbers coming out and then quickly saying, Sorry, there was an error. This is the number now, because that affects your day-to-day. So I just want to acknowledge that. My fellow Councilors have spoken to our role in this process, which I know for folks pretty intimately familiar with the budget process, is already familiar. It is tough being so invested in the outcome in the school department budget specifically and having such an abstract role in the budget process at the same time. I think it really is important to state for the record that while I think, speaking only for myself, we never have as direct of a hand as we want to have in the school department budget or really any city department's budget. I think it's important to state for the record what we are trying to do within our city council jurisdiction year round and indeed over the past term into this term to try to lay the conditions where we can get away from this model where around every time this year, it's a scary time and it's an uncertain time and everybody is feeling concern or just feeling disappointment that we're not able to guarantee the things that we all know should be guaranteed. Really recently on the council side, we approved another PDD we're already doing on the zoning side to bring up that baseline in terms of our permitting, in terms of our commercial tax base. One of the three major projects that we're gonna be working on the city council this term is that total zoning reevaluation overhaul. I feel like I bring this up all the time, but that undergirds everything that we can directly do to get to a city budget where we can reliably fund the things that students deserve, families deserve, teachers deserve, This is stuff that we have been working on as a council for advocating for that, fighting for that, for longer than I have been on the council. Now we're at a stage where we are going to start actually making the literal amendments that will allow us to do what we can within our jurisdiction to increase that pie. And that's not to say that things are the way that they are and that's okay. They're not okay. And I think I've made it really clear that I think it's not okay. Nobody thinks that it's okay. I am also, I think that it is our responsibility to do everything we can with what's currently on the table to get the best outcomes this year and next year with the tools that we have. That's why I voted for the budget last year after negotiating procedural improvements that would allow us to, this year, hit the ground running with the financial task force that we did announce last June so that we can have these conversations about stability measures for how we're going to get away from this kind of crisis model of budgeting. It's why I'll never hold potential funding opportunities hostage to administration change, because I think that our students deserve more than that, and our teachers deserve more than that, and I think that all of the budgeting improvements that we need to see are already so overdue, and I think that every single person agrees with that, but we just have to do everything that we can at every single opportunity. And that's how we have to approach this year. And I really appreciate everybody from the MTA bringing their perspective to the city council and to the school committee, which of course is always able to answer these questions probably in more granular detail, though I think President Pierce does a great job for a non-school committee member. And I think that it's up to this council to, in these meetings, talk the talk, and hold our administration to account, like we said, level service. That's got to be the floor every year that we have to improve from there. And then we have to walk the walk in terms of doing what's within our power to increase the pie. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: 24061 resolution to oppose landfill that endangers MWRA water supply. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we join with neighboring communities, environmental protection activists, and the residents of Hardwick MA in opposing the proposed construction of a landfill by Casella Corporation near the Quabbin Reservoir watershed due to the incredible danger it poses to our regional water supply. Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority leadership and the Medford State Legislative Delegation. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Any further comment by members of Council? Any members of the public who would like to speak? Hearing none, on the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: On the motion of President Bears to suspend the reading of 2-4-0-6-5 in favor of summary. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? This is the resolution to support the CHERISH Act and our public colleges. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: On the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee, March 27, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hess Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, would you please call the roll?
[Kit Collins]: Vice President Collins? Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is commenced. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss two papers. 23-427. This is proposed by President Bears in the previous council term. It is a resolution to amend short-term rental ordinance to include a monthly report from short-term rental platforms. And by that, we're talking about platforms such as Airbnb. The second action item for tonight is paper 24-008, also offered by President Bears. That is a resolution to review the fee schedule I will read out the description of each resolution, then I will pass it over to President Bears to further describe these projects. 23427, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the former Zoning Planning and Development Subcommittee need to discuss amendments to Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding short-term rentals to require a monthly report from all short-term rental platforms to ensure that short-term rental units in Medford meet all requirements of this section. And then resolution 24-008, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the fee schedule of the city of Medford, appendix A to the city ordinances be reviewed and updated. I will now pass it off to President Bears as soon as he is ready to further orient us to these two topics.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, I appreciate that overview, and I, as one Councilor, certainly I've been at meetings where the nuisance issue that occasionally comes up with short-term rentals has been discussed, and others in which, you know, the effect of taking rentals off of the housing market to turn them into, you know, for example, Airbnb units, or HomeAway units, or Burbo units, We feel that effect in the availability of rentals citywide. So I think that this makes sense as part of our overall efforts to keep tabs on activity of the short-term rental platforms in Medford and making sure that at least we have an accurate picture of what's going on. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Any further comments or questions from Councilors? I think in that case, we can proceed along to if you have any next steps in mind or care to share that sample language from the city of Boston. President Bears, whenever you're ready, I think it makes sense to look at the language that other communities have used to mandate that platforms are reporting to the city on how many units they have in operation.
[Kit Collins]: Certainly. And if I'm happy to screen share if you want to send me a link or if you'd like to do so, whatever is easier. I will share with you.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bearson. Just to sort of paraphrase that back to you, the fellow Councilors and residents, this is essentially mandating a report from the short-term booking platform. that tells the city, you know, we have listings, we have rooms and buildings available within the city of Medford, this is where they are, this is if it's a room or a whole building or a whole unit, and this is the number of nights that each of the units was reported by the renter as being rented to somebody during the month to help us get a picture. I see this as helping us reconcile We're hearing from some of the people that rent rooms on the short-term booking platforms. Yes, this unit is a rental and I rented it for this number of nights. Reports such as this would capture from the platform side, this is the overall number of units that we know on the back end was rented in the city during this month. We could see if there's a discrepancy. Any other comments from councilors at this time, having looked at this draft language? This would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Hearing none, President Perez, I want to kick it back to you for next steps, if you had any before I share my thoughts.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. Actually, let me... Are there any further comments or questions from councilors or members of the public before we take a vote on the motion?
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, none against. The motion passes. So this draft language will be referred to the building commissioner, IT director, and PDS director, and we'll get their expert feedback on it before we make any moves to fold this into our comprehensive zoning update so that this can also be updated while we're doing potentially other zoning changes. Is there any other discussion on this topic before we move on to our second paper for the night, either from councilors or from members of the public? All right. Hearing none, let's proceed along to paper 24008. This is the resolution that the city council review the fee schedule. of the city of Medford and look for areas to modernize and update. My understanding is that the intention of this resolution is to look across many departments, like any departments for whom it's relevant. Many departments charge fees for various things that they do in the city, such as issuing a marriage license or registering your car, getting residential parking permit. And in many departments, it's been a long time since those fees were updated and changed. And it's my understanding that in many departments, the fees that we charge are perhaps lower than they should be to correlate with the administrative cost of doing those functions. And they might also be very out of step with what similar municipalities are charging for the same functions. I don't think the intent here is to make any astronomical changes, but just to do a standard review since one has not been done in, I think, many years, to see where are those glaring spots where things really need to be updated. And I think one of the questions before us at this early stage is to say where all of the fee schedules for all of the departments are on the table, what departments do we want to look at specifically, and who are we requesting feedback and context from at this time? But for further table setting, President Bears, do you have anything else you want to and as the paper sponsor at this time?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate that. I think the timeline sounds right. You know, I imagine, you know, trying to put myself in the position of a Department head looking at this, I'm sure that there are some of those fees where what it is and what it should be will jump out as obvious, and others where it will take a little bit of calculation. What is the administrative cost incurred? What would a more appropriate number be to do that research into what neighboring communities are charging to make sure that it's consistent with our regional neighbors? I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan, and then I see Planner Evans' hand raised on Zoom. Councilor Callahan?
[Kit Collins]: I'll go now to Planner Evans on Zoom.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Daniel. I think that's really helpful for President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Planner Everins. President Bears, I appreciate this discussion. It seems like there's plenty of organization that would be helpful to both city staff and potentially developers and other people and entities that trying to do the functions that incur fees to make it more clear what we're working with, where it lives. And on the city side, part of the overall effort is not only to update some fees that are at least a decade, if not several decades out of date. But I think in all of this, we're always trying to look at, is the procedure by which we update this the one that makes sense? And so I'm glad that we're also thinking you know, getting straight on for the different fees, for the different functions. Is it by ordinance? Is it by rule of regulation? Set by a board that doesn't have to go through an ordinance? And I'd be interested, as we're doing this review, just to see what options we have. I think it's always, for myself as one Councilor, for something like fees where we're trying to make sure that it stays up to date, it is sometimes helpful to consider if we have other non-ordinance mechanisms for doing that, so there doesn't have to be a legislation every time to keep something, you know, proceeding with, you know, cost of inflation. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. As we're, I think that we're going to be collecting input and feedback on ideas for a lot of departments and boards on this. And it's my hope that as we're going through and updating the fees themselves, we could also be you know, as it's been mentioned, working to get all of the fees in the same place right now, it's really, it's pretty disorganized with a lot of things existing in other appendices on different webpages. I think it'd be helpful to have all the fees in the same appendix. Councilor Kellihan.
[Kit Collins]: Any other questions or comments from councilors at this time?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I definitely agree with the intent of that. I'd also like to know if it's possible for us to institute an annual percentage increase to a fee by ordinance, regardless of the percentage of that fee. Do I have a second? I'll second. President Bears. So I believe that's two motions currently on the floor, one of which is to ask department heads to take 90 days to review the fees that pertain to their departments, do the necessary question and answer research review to look into what changes they might recommend, send that back to us. Planner Evans has also offered to send to city council leadership the document of community development fees that are not listed in Appendix A, which I think will be helpful context. We have a motion on the floor as well to ask legal counsel if it is possible to connect an annual... was that a CPI increase?
[Kit Collins]: Great. For a legal opinion on, it's possible to put a annual percentage increase to a fee set by ordinance or CPI. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Certainly Councilors are probably, we'll be sure to take those as separate motions.
[Kit Collins]: So let's just take the first one for now. That's on the first motion. I present embarrass with an amendment offered by Councilor Callahan. Are we good to vote on that? Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready. That motion passes. And I want to give a moment to prepare, or sorry, there was a motion from Councilor Leming to ask legal counsel if it is possible to institute an annual percentage increase to a fee that is set by ordinance. Do I have a second on that motion?
[Kit Collins]: Seconded by President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Can we increase a fee by a percentage?
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Four in favor, one opposed. The motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: Do I have a second on that motion? Second from Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Do I have a second on that motion? Councilor Kelly. Second. And Councilor Scarpel. Great, on the first motion from President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed, the motion passes. And on the Second motion from President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Hotly pursued by Councilor Scarpelli. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Clerk.
[Kit Collins]: President Bears? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The motion passes. Do we have any further comments, questions from councilors at this time? Any comments from members of the public in person or on Zoom? Please feel free to raise your hand on Zoom or come up to the podium. Controversial topic. Councilor Callahan. Move to adjourn. I'm sorry?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Second by Councilor Lemme. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Sang. I appreciate the, you know, I I'm glad that we have the opportunity to continue this conversation. I think for myself, my concerns also center around what this council has been talking about for months since before, you know, the March and the November 2023 election, which is the under-resourcing and under-capacity of our elections department. It's true of any department, and it's not specific or personal to anybody who's been involved in elections in Medford, that when there's not enough people on the case, things will fall through the cracks. I believe we did see that with November. We saw that less with March, and that's a positive thing. But I'm still really concerned. Of course, we have our chief of staff filling the role of the executive in that office right now, and we've seen transparency and communication increase from that department during that time. But obviously, everybody's extremely aware, I'm sure, most of all the chief of staff, that that's glaringly, obviously, not a permanent solution. I've made it really clear a lot of times, I think that that should be a director level position, especially this year, but every year we need the best possible candidate running elections in the city of Medford. I've said it many times before, I think that this is a department that needs to have more than two and a half full-time employees. When any department is stretched that thin and tasked with so much, things fall through the cracks. I don't think that it is a symptom of a properly resourced, you know, professional level, municipal level elections department to be it a state capacity wise where we're wrangling signage on an election day. And that's absolutely not a criticism of any person or involved or any system leading up to the March election, but rather this is, if this is the level of capacity that the elections department is at, to me, that is a resources and staffing issue. And I was happy to see that that was responded to very quickly. The issue was rectified, but our Medford deserves an elections department that has tackled the issue of keeping signage organized and is proceeding along to, you know, are we keeping our softwares modernized so that, you know, for example, files don't download as quickly as they need to. We should be at a level of resources and staffing where we can be a proactive elections department, as opposed to one that occasionally has to put out fires when there are really much more consequential things to be doing. So I absolutely would echo my fellow Councilors in saying whatever proposals the Elections Department and the Elections Commission has for identifying and prescribing and improving on current systems and identifying and improving on past problems, I'm eager to stand in support of those ideas. But my highest priority is getting to a place where we can elevate the to a director level position. I think that's really what's needed and taking a hard look at how many part time and full time employees does is really required for an elections department in a city of 60,000. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Stang. Thank you so much for being here to speak to this and for, you know, all of the very obviously extra work you've been doing over the past several months to fill this gap in the elections department. I think the council really sees that, and speaking as one councillor, it's really appreciated, and I hope that this additional labor is over for you soon. No specific questions to the chief of staff at this point, but just, you know, to further echo my, I'm really happy to hear that. I think it's obviously totally sensible that, you know, priority number one is filling that role. Everything else flows from that, right? And it strikes me that, you know, I tend to look at most of the issues that we have to collaborate on in the city as, you know, a problem or perhaps a potential solution of, project management. This certainly seems like one you need to find that person through whom policy updates and further staffing evaluations and the work of the department will flow through. And so it's good to hear that that's being prioritized. I know that's a priority that this council shares. And then just to take it back to the big picture, I again want to sort of reaffirm, you know, in my perspective, what this conversation is and what it isn't. You know, I'll speak only for myself, but I know that every city councilor, you know, sees the hard work that's put in by the Elections Commission, and that has never been in doubt. And I think when we talk about having support and having resources and having bandwidth, it's about resiliency. And, you know, I think if, you know, if all the population of Medford stepped up in the way that our elections commissioners and that team does so reliably and so, you know, above and beyond, then, yeah, our staffing needs within the city would be a lot lower because that would be a city full of superheroes. But as a city council and as an administration, you know, it's our responsibility to make sure that these systems are resilient so that, you know, if another more enticing commission steals away, you know, the chair of the elections commission, that there's still ample people to do the work that absolutely needs to get done and can't not get done legally and for the health of the democracy of the city. And I think that's really the motivation behind these conversations is to say, how can we help to make sure that the elections department is as resilient as it needs to be? you know, so that the next election, another consequential one, you know, goes as well as March did or even better. And to make sure that city staff and commissioners and all residents and voters can feel that peace of mind throughout the year. So I really appreciate everybody's participation in this process. And I think it's really great to have these conversations out in the open.
[Kit Collins]: I was just gonna say kind of, you know, to wrap up, really appreciate your time tonight and all of the information, the context. I think that this has been a, a real exercise in transparency. And I hope that, you know, I think given the topic, I think that's a positive thing. And I would also say, you know, to echo your words, Chief Staff Sarian, and also what a mission, long day, Elections Commission Chairperson Lawrence said earlier, I don't think anybody on this council is saying, you know, we have to get to a point where we can you know, realistically assume that no problems will occur. We know that's not the case. We're doing this in the context and under the backdrop of reality after all. But, you know, I appreciate the ability, the opportunity to, you know, talk about what's being planned, what's being worked on so that things will, you know, be professionalized and modernized and be as we intend them to be. With that, I don't want to supersede any other councilors questions or motions, but after I think a long and productive discussion, I would motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think it's helpful to get these drafts and recommendations after they've already been run by legal counsels. We know the committee is spending its time on something that we know could potentially go forward, and I think that's, you know, of course, it's a nice use of our time to know that this has been pre-vetted, to have legal opinion saying, yes, this is doable under the Special Act and under the ordinances. It makes sense to bring it into alignment with the Enabling Act from several decades ago. to know that the language adjustments proposed are ones that we legally can go forward with. And it's also great to begin this process knowing that we do have the ability legally to add that fifth bucket. Fifth, is that right? Right. For an affordable housing linkage fee. And I think it's worth underlining, especially since you know, for many residents who aren't deeply, you know, intimately embroiled in municipal finance, I think it's worth underlining what linkage fees are and why they're set up that way. You know, these are fees that are levied upon developments to kind of correlate with the municipal public sector infrastructural things, the public infrastructure that new developments will have an impact on. Developments have an impact on police, fire, roads, water and sewer, and developments also have an impact on housing affordability. This is another phenomenon that new developments brought into the city also have an impact on, as well as how many more cars will be driving on our roads and how many more potential units will public safety have to respond to. So I think it's really in keeping with the spirit of what linkage fees are a tool for to say, you know, new developments coming in impact the housing market and so there should be some sort of formula set up by the experts, you know. that correlate with that issue in City Hall to figure out what that formula should be so that we can make sure that housing affordability is compensated for when affecting developments come into the city. All that to say, I think this is a very worthy project. I'm very happy to support this. I don't have any, well, I guess my specific question at this point through the chair to Councilor Leming would be, what would the next step on this be? I know that some of this rests on, a lot of these specific decision points rest on the Office of Planning, Development, Sustainability, working in concert with the mayor to do those, to do those updates, you know, at least every three years to make that formula. What other details have to be worked out on the committee side other than setting up the enabling parts of the ordinance? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I want to again thank Councilor Leming for his work on this. I'm really glad to be getting the ball rolling on really modernizing our linkage fees and appreciate the collaboration with the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. Thank you so much to our housing planner for weighing in on this tonight and for, you know, your office's review of the document. I would motion to keep the paper in committee. I look forward to hearing staff's comments on the proposed ordinance changes.
[Kit Collins]: I have a clarifying question then, which was, I thought that city staff was also going to provide further comment on the draft of the ordinance. If that's not the case, I would withdraw my motion in favor of reporting it out of committee, but I thought that we were going to further amend it before pushing it forward.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. So just to recap, the last time that we talked about this project was in November of last year in the previous term. And I don't remember the dates that we met on it previously in 2023, but I know that we've had numerous Committee of the Wholes on this topic before. Overall, I think that on the council, at least the last time this was discussed in the previous term. The consensus on the council was very clear. The intent here is to streamline the process by which one day food truck vendors may obtain that license so that they don't have to come before the city council. I think in the past, especially for city events, things of that type, it's just been a logistical scheduling problem for vendors to line up when to be the floor of the city council to get their permit in time before the event actually occurs. And I think unlike some other types of vendor licenses, it's, I think there's perhaps less of a clear need for a food vendor, a food truck vendor to stand and present and talk about their business and talk about the reason for wanting to have a food truck. at a one day event in the same way as it's important for people seeking, for example, first time common victualers license to come before the city council and present on the business that they're proposing to open up in the city. Given that, just to recap, kind of the goal of this ordinance is to take what is right now a fairly inconvenient and cumbersome process for a fairly limited scope, setting up shop as a food truck for one day, and make that simpler. So our goals coming out of the previous committee of the whole were to take the draft ordinance and really just simplify it to make sure that it aligned with newer existing Board of Health regulations in such a way that prospective food truck vendors could just go to the Board of Health, make sure that they met certain guidelines, obtain that license, and then go forth to be a food truck vendor for one day, perhaps at a pop-up, or for a one-day event, and have that be that, and not have to involve the city council. So we did request feedback from a number of department heads, some of which have followed up to give, I think, fairly limited comment. I don't think that Director O'Connor has given a lot of feedback at this point, though we've been in touch with her about this project. Our economic development department forwarded along comment to council leadership, kind of agreeing that streamlining and simplifying the process is good for businesses in general, and also kind of adding to the chorus that we've heard from the Chamber of Commerce and some other businesses in Medford saying, you know, the only real worry here is the potential for competition between mobile food truck vendors and existing brick and mortars. And I think that brings us back to the point that the intent of the council with this ordinance is to create a better process for those one-day food trucks. I don't think this is a project about getting more long-term food trucks into Medford. So I think what would be helpful for kicking us off would be, I know that Attorney Stein from KP Law is here. Attorney Stein, if you would be willing to walk us through the three documents that you've proposed here. I think that we have draft amendments to the City Council ordinances, we have draft Board of Health regulations, And then we also have one more, excuse me. City Council regulations of mobile food vendors. I think for myself, the City Council doesn't typically promulgate regulations, so I'm really interested in getting an overview of how these pertain to the goals coming out of our last meeting, and especially where the City Council regulations of mobile food vendors could potentially fit in, or if that's something that we should try to align inside of the Board of Health policies. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Pierce. Thank you, Attorney Stein, for that overview. That's very helpful. And I think if I'm hearing you correctly, just to reiterate, it seems like the main two points coming out of your analysis are satisfying the stipulations that are sort of within the Board of Health's purview to weigh in on, like adherence to the sanitary code, making sure that everything you want to be happening in terms of sanitation and food safety within any vendor providing food is happening. you know, things really on the board of health side. And then on the other side, this piece that more intersects with the city council authority is use of public ways by vendors, in this case, food truck vendors. And I think this is where, you know, I wanna give my fellow Councilors a chance to weigh in on this, but I think this is where I'm really curious if there's a way for us to designate this, this is a question of, you know, in one scenario, the city council exercises this authority to sign off on use of the public way by vendors by assessing every food truck vendor application that is submitted and saying, yes or no, this is an appropriate or safe use of the public way, or no, we don't think that in this case, the public way should be used by this particular food truck vendor. And I think for me, my priority for this meeting is talking about if there's more, that. I think the intent here is to get issuing one day permits, something that doesn't have to occur on our regular agendas anymore. And secondly, because I would hate for this to turn into an issue of the City Council is consistent rubric for why some and not others. I know for the outdoor dining ordinance, we put a lot of work in and we had many conversations with city staff to say, okay, so who needs to check what box when it comes to traffic safety and visibility and having the bollards this far away from the travel lane to make sure that these licenses can be issued in a way that we're sure you know, we're doing our due diligence to make sure that motorists and pedestrians are safe. And then we handed that over to, you know, the relevant city department to, like, sign that form on the application. So I'm wondering if there's something like that that we can do here. We're in our ordinances, you know, if need be, we're updating to say, yes, food trucks are allowed on the public way, but in order to do that, you have to fill out this license application. And on the use of the public way side that goes to the DPW commissioner or the chief of police to sign off on traffic safety metrics or something like that.
[Kit Collins]: The process is to obtain a license from the Health Division of the Inspectional Services Department. So that's administrative, Malden, similar, Board of Health, Cambridge, inspections by city staff, and then submission to Cambridge license. that we're going to be able to move forward with this. Um, commission, so it makes me optimistic that there's a path forward here where this can be administrative task, and we don't have to. I also think you know, as always, Councilors Scarpelli's point is well taken, and that's why I'm glad that we're targeting the intent of this ordinance at one day. Food truck vendors and hopefully We can find a simplified path towards that.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Give me a second. I'm organizing my thoughts.
[Kit Collins]: You go first, then I'll go.
[Kit Collins]: I have a comment I'd like to make, which could be an alternate.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I agree. I think we've gotten out of scope here. Among other things, I'd like for us to be getting close to a point of resolution on this project, and I think that perhaps there is um, value in a conversation about this issue of does City Council adjudicate, um, licenses being issued over on school custodian property? Um, but we're getting out of our scope here and I and I think that there's to move forward on this ordinance without having to wade through all of the weeds on that. I do think that's a separate conversation, maybe one that informs this, but I think that the intent for the council here for many months has been to streamline the process for one day food truck vendors, and I don't want us to have to go through that process in order to finish up here. In my perspective, I think what we What I would like to see is an amendment to the city council ordinances that says, yes, we allow one day food truck vendors. There's some language in there that says, here's how we make sure it's a one day permit and not a one day that happens six days out of the week. Maybe it's the permitting authority, or sorry, the licensing authority may submit like one day licenses but only you know one per vendor for a three or six month period or something like that so we make sure that these are indeed one day licenses and not de facto you know all week round permits to Councilor Scarpelli's point. It seems to me that the overall formula here for conditions that must be satisfied to get a license is permission from the custodian or the private property owner plus adherence to Board of Health regulations and other public safety regulations equals the one day license. I Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I think that there's a path forward here where we could try to make some progress on the text of what's before us, perhaps modeling, simplifying what's before us along those lines, modeling some of the language around who creates the regulations for the licenses based off of our outdoor dining ordinance, which has already been passed. maybe that can be drafted perhaps by a member of this council, we could come back and then have legal review of that document as opposed to, I think we've gone through several rounds here and I think the context is very helpful and of course we appreciate Attorney Stein's time spent on this. But I think we're all very eager to get this to a simpler place and proceed from there. And I wonder if there's a way we can kind of scale this back to the basics and convene again as a council to make sure that we're locked in on the basics, and then have another meeting after legal review, where we finalize this.
[Kit Collins]: I appreciate that. I would be happy to put that into a form of a motion unless we feel that the discussion has proceeded along enough that the suggestion is now irrelevant. But barring that, I would make the motion to authorize myself or President Bears to take a pass at a redrafting of this along the lines of this conversation.
[Kit Collins]: Aye.
[Kit Collins]: I thank my, especially newer Councilors for wading into this perhaps unexpectedly complicated topic. Appreciate Attorney Stein's time on this call and in preparing for this meeting. And I would motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: President.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to my colleagues again for everyone's recommendations. It was great to kick off this discussion at our first committee of the whole on topic. Looking over the compiled recommendations from us all, I think that There are some, I think, clear avenues for consolidating this, even just looking at category one of preventing budget cuts. I think the other way that I would characterize this grouping of suggestions is around maintaining level service. within the Schools Department, within the Board of Health, which Councilor Tseng just noted, within the Library Department. And then I think that this also characterizes kind of this shared priority of preventing the loss of positions that are currently grant funded within the Board of Health, within the Office of Outreach Prevention, and within the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Department. And I do believe that across all of our contributions, most of us in some way phrased that same recommendation around meet the school's budget request, meet the library budget request, don't cut any positions within Board of Health, Office of Prevention and Outreach, Planning Department, even if it means, and perhaps especially if it means finding a way to fit those positions into the operating budget or shift them over to other sources of grant funding. So I would put forward that I do believe there is consensus around all of the numbered points under category one, and I think that those can be consolidated into a maintaining level service for schools, libraries, Board of Health, and planning departments.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Sure, I'll improv it. The motion would be to consolidate all of the bullet points under category one into the recommendation to maintain level service for the schools Libraries, Board of Health, Prevention and Outreach, PDS Department, including maintaining all currently grant-funded positions. And Mr. Clerk, I can email that to you.
[Kit Collins]: It's a new hand.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just wanted to respond quickly to say I think Councilor Scarpelli's point is well taken and I think that it's, I think that we have you know, as usual, somewhat of a challenging needle to thread here where, of course, I think it's absolutely not the message to send to say, we care about these cuts and not those cuts. Councilor Scarpelli is absolutely right. That's, that's, you know, and I hope it would go without saying that's that's not the message that this council would want to be sending. But unfortunately, you know, we're placed in this difficult position of knowing that cuts are likely to be proposed somewhere. And I think maybe it would be better to articulate in some fashion, maybe elsewhere in the packet, that the council will ultimately vote dissent to the mayor, that certain departments or positions whatever this council decides that they will be, are highlighted. You know, in this case, I think many of us mentioned the schools department and the library department, because often that is where cuts are proposed, and that is where level service is not funded. I know, just speaking only for myself, that's why I prioritize those in my memo. So I think you know, a discussion point for this council is how to make sure that we target our recommendations towards those departments that we know are usually the most vulnerable, while saying, of course, we're gonna, at the same time, we're advocating for level service citywide. So I just wanted to offer that to say I agree with Councilor Scartelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think that there is also substantial overlap, kind of a clustering for many of our contributions around the issue of budgeted amount for city solicitor and assistant city solicitor salaries, as well as funding for salaries within the elections department that's split I think between category two and category three in the memo that you provided. So just flagging that again as something that I think there is a ponderance of interest in from this council. That was you know of course I'm a little biased that was one of my individual recommendations was to raise the salary of the city solicitor and the assistant city solicitor salaries to be more competitive with our municipal neighbors and to raise the salary budgeted for an elections director to that of a director level position so as to attract more competitive candidates. But to me, I think that there's pretty close to consensus from the individual recommendations that we received a couple weeks ago to put that forward as one or two of our additional recommendations. I'd be curious to hear from my fellow councillors if we would want to put legal salaries and elections director salaries forward as two more of our recommendations to the mayor.
[Kit Collins]: Just adding my note of assent, I would also support putting that forward as a recommendation at this time. I think this Council has spoken before about you know, how many other problems that touches and exacerbates city side in terms of staffing and departmental function? And I think, you know, the time to start advocating for progress towards a solution is the sooner the better.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate this exchange around the Finance Department. Neil Yu, I'll second the motion. And I agree with all that's been stated. I think that, you know, obviously it is not one or the other. I think being a member of the Administration and Finance Committee this term and also in the past one, we've had many, I think, very revealing conversations with the current finance director about the ways in which the software really is a problem right now. And of course, I think it is very obvious that staffing is also an issue and that the two exacerbate the other. So I think that the phrasing we've worked towards strikes the right balance of acknowledging both. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Before you read them back, I just want to kind of note my support for keeping our list of recommendations short and sweet this year. And that's kind of going against my own instinct. I remember my first year on the council, the wish list that I submitted for our first committee of the whole on this topic was amounted to the hundreds of millions of dollars and ideas for how to make our city more functional and shore up all of our critical departments. So I'm extremely compelled by and sympathetic to all of the other recommendations that I also submitted two weeks ago and agree with everything that's been submitted by my fellow councillors. At the same time, I think that we're going into this knowing that this is going to be a difficult budget season after a couple of difficult budget seasons. I think that there is a power that comes from having a very succinct list and saying, you know, we've done the hard work and we've really considered what needs to be in that short list of things that we cannot go without in this budget cycle, even though we know it is going to be a hard one. And what I appreciate about this group of three that we've put together is that to me it's about level service, And I think over the past couple of years, we've had many important public discussions about the difference between level service and level funding. And what the residents and city staff deserve is level service, not level funding. So I think that this list prioritizes that. And I think it gets at the heart of the staffing and funding infusions that need to happen so that we can stop regressing in certain departments and start to move forward. You know, I think here on the city council we see that the most with the legal department, or lack thereof. So I think that these few recommendations that we put together so far kind of strike at what we really need to see in order to be functional as a body and functional as a city. Of course, if other councilors have recommendations of things that they need to be on the short list, I'm sure I'll find those ideas compelling, but I just wanted to note advocacy for a short, tight list this year. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Councilor Leming, and thank you again for facilitating this meeting in the chambers. I apologize that I can't be there in person today. Thank you for taking up the mantle of calling on people in person. I truly appreciate it. So just to quickly introduce the topic before us. This is an exciting day. This is a red letter day, actually. This is our first committee meeting about the zoning paper, which I think as most folks here and probably watching are aware, this is something that the Council has advocated for and advocated for funding for over the course of several terms now. Late last term, we finalized the zoning consultants that we've been working with longitudinally for this zoning overhaul reconfiguration project, Emily Innis and associates. So just to quickly run through, you know, a draft agenda for this meeting. I'm hoping to give Emily and her team a chance to introduce themselves to the committee for the first time. I'm hoping that we can get into kind of an overview of the zoning overhaul that's before us, run over a kind of draft list of our top issues. And of course, we have a lot of fertile ground to pull from our comprehensive plan, our housing production plan, our climate action adaptation plan, all of these really thoroughly Thoroughly developed, you know, plans that have come out of years of community outreach across various departments of the city that will be really great fodder for the work that we're going to do in the council in terms of making those priorities those goals manifest in an updated zoning code and updated zoning map. But the work before us is to take those lofty goals and see how we can break them into themes, into coherent themes, into bite-sized chunks, and then to figure out a timeline so that we can get through as much of that work as possible in this term. So after we hear an introduction from Emily Innis and associates, I'm hoping that we can, as a council, start to have that conversation about taking those shared priorities, grouping them into categories, and beginning a conversation about what from our current governing agenda or other priorities fit into the scope of zoning and beginning to sketch out the timeline through which we might approach this work this term. But first, I'll pass it off to Emily and her team.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Really appreciate this beginning to the discussion from my fellow councilors and, you know, in the, you know, roughly 40-45 minutes that we have here today, I think that one great use of our time might be to start, of course, you know, we're not going to do anything final tonight, but I think it could be a good use of our time to make this concrete for ourselves and also for residents to, you know, we can take a look at our governing agenda, we can pull out specific policies that councillors feel are priorities from the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, from the Comprehensive Plan, and looking at that slide from Emily, we can start to say, okay, green score, this looks like it would fit into the For example, climate resiliency, citywide policy, and here's when we're thinking of starting that. Does that make sense for that particular policy? Does that fit there? Would it have a better fit there? I think we have a lot that we are trying to do by the end of June 2025. I think that's going to be here before we know it for all of us. And I think the more quickly we can get concrete about what we all consent to work on together, at what point in the year the better position we'll be in to accomplish our goals. So just as kind of an invitation to my fellow councillors, you know, for the time that we have together this evening, if there are specific policies from our governing agenda or new proposals on the brain, I think that we should feel free to voice those and put them on the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chairwoman, I appreciate that. And I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli's note just now. I think as we get into the more neighborhood-based planning part of this process, certainly we should consider having some of these committee meetings perhaps located in the neighborhoods that they'll be affecting. I know that that used to be something that before my time on the Council, the Council would occasionally hold committees of the whole out in the real world, outside of the chambers. And I think that might be an appropriate thing to consider when we're doing neighborhood-specific zoning changes later in the year. But I just wanted to underscore a point that's already been made, but that I think is really important, is that we have so many ideas and high-level policies to go on that are already, you know, the result of these months and months and years of community meetings about what we want to see in the community and what the zoning is that could bring those about. Those ideas from community members, those proposals from residents and from business owners, those were not, the point of those ideas is not to live in a plan. The point of those ideas is to be put into our zoning ordinances so that our city can evolve to be more what we envision. And so I just say, I think it's important for us to go into this process and also for residents who are perhaps you know, rejoining this effort, you know, for the first time in several months or years to know that, you know, this is the intent of this Council is to take the will of the community that has been expressed in part through these plans that have already been published, you know, and do the good work of making sure that those are actually going to become a reality in our community through the changes that we're going to make. With just, you know, about 10 or 15 minutes left here, I know President Bears mentioned that he had a couple motions in mind, so I'll defer to him, but I think for me the most important thing, kind of pivoting to thinking about next steps, we have penciled in that we will revisit this topic again at a couple meetings in October, I'm sorry, in April on the 10th and the 24th. I think it would be really great progress, if starting on the 10th, we have a better idea of what those kind of smaller tweaks to change in the zoning ordinances are based on feedback from city staff, and I would especially support a motion to have Councilors submit their specific proposals, ideas from the governing agenda, from our various plans, new proposals to council leadership and the PBS team so that those can be compiled and we can review that as a team at our next committee meeting on this topic and move forward from there with the timeline.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll let President Bears complete his motions and then I'll jump in if I have any remaining after that.
[Kit Collins]: Chair Lemaine, I'll second these motions.
[Kit Collins]: I'll second the motion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think it will advantage us to think ahead about what we're going to be talking about when, both in the short term and in the long term, kind of we've been talking long term tonight. But I think, I imagine it will be to the advantage of Finnis Associates, which is doing most of the research and homework and prep for these meetings, if we came out ahead of time, what we at least intend to work on, even if there's a couple of options, we know that we're going to get to all of it eventually. I think, especially with these couple of motions on the table, that puts us in good shape to have a more granular discussion on the 10th about what we aspire to work on when, and to have a more specific conversation about, for example, what do we mean when we say we're going to work on commercial development before September 2024? What's involved in that? What framework governing agenda is on that? What areas of the city are we talking about? I think that that'll be a really productive discussion. And I think with everything that we're trying to get done before September, We should, we should continue quickly to actually getting into the weeds on those policy areas. So I wonder if, you know, doing all of this work, requesting all this feedback from city staff and Councilors submitting ideas for inclusion on this draft timeline. in time for our April 10th meeting. Jumping off of the discussion that we've had today, which has been pretty high level, I think that we could be ambitious and try to touch both on draft timeline and then start to get into the weeds on economic development on the 10th. If we don't get to it, then we can plan to talk about economic development and some climate resiliency goals on the 24th, and perhaps sketch out the top lines for our May meetings as well.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lehmann. With those motions behind us, I just wanted to thank Innes Associates, the whole team, for the first time joining us in committee to talk about the zoning revocation, sorry, the zoning overhaul. I'm like 2022 over here. As we've all stated, really excited to be continuing this project with you. I know we're going to spend many evenings in the chambers and on Zoom together, putting all of these ideas and proposals and changes into our zoning code. We are really glad to have you, speaking for myself, very glad to have you on board, excited to be doing this process with you. Thank you for your time tonight and your preparation. And thank you to my colleagues for coming prepared to kick off this project, which will certainly dominate the work of this committee this term. I would motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to defer to a presentation by a member of the administration, President Bearsford.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to my fellow Councilors for their comments on this. I just want to note that this is the second time that a Stabilization Fund paper has come before us. Last year, the administration submitted a similar but different paper. At that time, we decided that creating that structure and making a large appropriation all in one fell swoop was not the right timing for the city. This time, the paper comes to us After months of ongoing discussions about this city's financial future, those discussions must and will continue. I do believe that it is the best practice for cities like Medford to have a rainy day fund, in the same way that many households have a rainy day fund for unforeseen emergencies. I think that this is an appropriate time to create the structure and then subsequently have those conversations about how much is appropriate to put into the fund and when, because this paper does not call for an appropriation, simply the creation of the structure. I also want to note this, to just reemphasize, there's no money changing accounts in this paper. If there were to be, it would be a reappropriation of money already in the city's coffers and the community's coffers. I think that this is the right time to set up the structure and then again have those community conversations about how much it makes sense to put into that rainy day fund. And when the next time we have these community wide emergencies come up, we are better prepared to take care of Medford residents. I would motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to thank Councilor Leming for co-sponsoring this proposal with me. I'll try to be as brief as I can. Housing affordability, unaffordability continues to displace Medford residents from where we grew up, went to school, the communities that we worship in, study, have community ties where we go to work. It is becoming more and more out of the question for working class and middle class people to live here, and no one is going to swoop in and fix that for us. I know that Medford residents deeply value being a welcoming and diverse community. The question is, are we willing to have the conversations and utilize the tools that will help us keep it that way? If we want our Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be more than a talking point, we know that we need to create dedicated funding streams so that it can manifest in housing and programs that will make it possible for us to keep Medford residents in Medford and for us to welcome new neighbors. Real estate transfer fees are one tool that the Governor has indicated provisional support for. That's why we're proposing to consider it. Our methods for meaningfully funding affordable housing are too few and far between to dismiss this out of hand, and our existing funding streams, including CPA, are unfortunately insufficient on their own. The scale is too great. Displacement is already happening. As Councilwoman said, what's before us tonight is whether we want to have the conversation about how to tailor this tool to dedicate a small percentage of only the highest ticket real estate transactions towards the most underinvested in housing in our community, the housing we desperately need and have a very severe shortage of. I want to be clear, if we vote this into committee tonight, then we can and we will get into the weeds with the community. We can discuss how to tailor this to affect the appropriate type of highest value sales so as to capture a small percentage of the huge value increases that have come into this region as living in Medford and places like it has become more expensive and more desirable. We can consider exceptions, like for elders, for people making transfers to close family, or for people selling at a loss or at minimal profit. Essentially, we can go through what would need to happen in order for this to be a net positive for this community. And then I want to remind everybody, this would need approval from the mayor, our state delegation, as well as the governor for this to actually take effect. I want to be really clear, we are not implementing a tax tonight. We are proposing to send this idea to committee to start a conversation, and I believe it is a very necessary conversation. I thank my fellow councilors and the public for their time. I will motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: You know what, I'll follow up with Mr. Castagnetti after the meeting to thank him for sending along that New York Times Post article. Appreciate it. And I just think it speaks to the point that we need to be pursuing every tool at our disposal when it comes to affordable housing that can work for everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Um, this is an ordinance that I've worked on over my terms and city council I believe this is an exercise and compromise is the result of what we have put forward over a couple years of working on this hearing. strong opposition to the idea of regulating these devices and also very strong support for the idea of mitigating these devices that we know cause significant air pollution and also noise pollution. What we've arrived at is an ordinance that seeks to provide some reasonable constraints around which devices can be used, at what times of the day, where, and phases out the most polluting versions of these devices, gas-powered, for residential and commercial users over different timescales over the next several years. I do have one motion before we vote, which is Section 3858, subsection 2, think that the word continuous should be removed. A constituent got in touch and indicated that this created kind of a loophole that was counter to the goals of this section. So that would be to remove the word continuous from section 3858 subsection 2 before we vote.
[Kit Collins]: section 38, 58, and then numeral two in that section.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I apologize for having to be virtual tonight. Can everybody hear me okay?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Let me know if the volume goes in and out at all. So thank you for... Having this be our main topic for tonight, I'm hoping that this will be a pretty straightforward discussion. First, I'll offer a brief introduction, and then I can run us through the draft ordinance before us that I'm hoping we can use as a jumping off point. Open it up to, you know, love to hear any comments from my fellow Councilors at this preliminary stage, comments from the community, and figure out some next steps that make sense for this community. So the idea for a wildlife feeding ordinance came up based on some outreach from constituents that I got over the course of the year last year, talking about some issues arising from overfeeding of wildlife in some of Medford's denser residential areas. Looking around a little bit more, given the characteristics of some of Medford's denser residential neighborhoods, this is an issue that can cause public health nuisances whenever we have these areas of the city with homes close together, if there's overfeeding of wildlife, we have permeable borders between our various homes and backyards and porches in the city. So the intent of this is to give the Board of Health and Code Enforcement the ordinance tools that they need in order to issue warnings, tickets, potentially fines, whenever there's an issue arising from overfeeding of wildlife that neighbors cannot resolve amongst themselves. I do want to emphasize that. The intent here is just to empower code enforcement to step in when it's necessary to reduce a nuisance that's in line with other goals of the Board of Health and Code Enforcement to make sure that residents' enjoyment of the outdoors is enhanced and not limited. So I want to be really clear from the beginning, this is not about saying you can't have a bird feeder. This is about saying if there's feeding going on that's causing too many seagulls or pigeons or raccoons or rats on somebody else's property. That's something that if neighbors can't sort that out amongst themselves, then co-enforcement needs to be able to. So this, I have a draft ordinance for us to look at as a jumping off point. This language is based on several other communities ordinances that have similar goals. The one that this is modeled most closely on is Westford, Mass. So, Chair Lazzaro, if it's okay with you, I can run through the draft ordinance. I'd be happy to share my screen, or if you'd like to, I can follow along.
[Kit Collins]: That'd be great. Great. Hang on one second, please. All right. Can everybody see where it says Wildlife Feeding Ordinance Draft 2.13?
[Kit Collins]: Great. So I'll just go through this pretty quickly. This was in councilor's packets for this week, so I'm sure this isn't the first time that my colleagues are seeing this. Standard ordinance format. Up top, we start with purpose and intent, stating that Medford is, of course, as we all know and as we all cherish, Medford is home to a large population of wild animals, including rats, pigeons, bulls, and raccoons. However, feeding such wildlife, whether on purpose or through neglect, can entice and attract wild animals onto private property. porches, backyards. And again, the emphasis here is on feeding occurring on one lot that is having adverse effects for either that lot or neighbors. But limiting the practice of feeding wildlife, whether intentionally or passively, and enforcing this prohibition, the city can help limit a major factor that entices wildlife into resident areas of the city. Again, not anti-wildlife. We just want to make sure that every organism stays where it's most healthy for it to be. We have a definition section just to make it clear what this is targeted towards and what it is not. I think that the more useful thing in this section is going into some detail about what constitutes feeding, and based on some of the issues that this ordinance project arose out of, I think it's important to know that feeding doesn't just mean intentionally distributing food for wildlife, but potentially leaving inappropriate wildlife food out in an area where realistically varmints are going to get to it. So section C, prohibited activity, no person shall feed any wildlife as defined above, nor distribute or scatter any foodstuffs in or on any private place or, sorry, any public place or private property. So this is a thing that we should not do because we know that it attracts wild animals into residential areas of the city. I want to highlight some of the exceptions that are going in in this early draft of the ordinance. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted so as to prohibit bird feeders. There is an exception to the exception. If it is appearing that a bird feeder is the cause of a public safety threat or nuisance, then perhaps the enforcing officer will step in and say, here's the cause of a nuisance. This must be resolved. I think that I personally have never heard of a case where a bird feeder is causing an issue. This also states, nothing in this section shall be interpreted so as to prohibit the feeding of pets, provided that if food for pets is determined to be the source of wildlife feeding, then in that case, if it's causing an issue, that person may be directed to make sure that that food is no longer accessible to wildlife. It also states, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit the storage of food products, pet food or any other material where it's not constituting an attraction to wildlife. And again, If a reasonable usage is resulting in an adverse effect, then in that case, if it's reported, if it's deemed to be an issue, the enforcing officer may say, this isn't necessarily an issue, but in this case, it's causing wildlife to come into your property or neighbor's property to an extent that is causing harm or might cause harm. And then they might order them to remove it and store it in a more secure way. Getting down to enforcement, I thought it'd be appropriate for the animal control officer, the health director, the code enforcement officers and their designees to share administration and enforcement of this ordinance. There are some other wildlife-related enforcement responsibilities that the health director already has. Obviously, this touches the purview of the animal control officer and code enforcement officers are often called upon to. administer some of these nuisance-related issues on public and private property. So I'd be curious to hear feedback from city staff on that, but I thought that was an appropriate place to start. And finally, in terms of penalties for non-compliance, it is my hope that But again, the goal of this, I think, is not to say, oh, you did something wrong. Well, gosh, we'll ticket you immediately. No. The point of this is to provide a recourse for when something is going wrong and neighbors aren't able to resolve it amongst themselves immediately. So I would hope that, as with our other ordinances at the discretion of the enforcing officers, sometimes this is a warning. Sometimes this is a written warning, an oral warning. Sometimes it escalates to a ticket if the issue is really not getting resolved. And in that case, You know, based on that, I have in this first draft, first offense is a written warning from an enforcing officer. Second offense, $50 ticket. Third and subsequent offenses, $100 ticket. And of course, per MGL, we are not able to charge more than a $300 ticket, I believe, for any civil code violation. And I think it makes sense. Again, this is supposed to be a deterrent, not something punitive. So I thought this could be good to hear my fellow Councilors' feedback. I'm not part of the audience and anything else. I also want to note before I stop talking and let my fellow Councilors respond to that, at our last meeting of the Public Health and Community Safety Committee, I did mentioned this ordinance, and as a follow-up, the clerk did circulate the ordinance to my fellow councilors and to relevant city staff requesting their feedback by March 15th. That was when I thought that the next meeting of this committee was going to be in April. The council meeting schedule changed since then, so the word has already been put out to relevant city staff to get their comment on that, and we'll be sure to have it by the next time that we meet on this ordinance. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I really appreciate my fellow Councilors initial reactions to this. Thank you for taking this project so thoughtfully. initial reaction to the questions around, and I think it's a really good question, like how does this intersect with efforts to make sure that wildcats are attracted so that they can be spayed and neutered, which is important. There's a couple areas in the ordinance, and I appreciate Councilor Callaghan for speaking to this, where it might be covered, but I think that that would be a great thing to put to our animal control officer, as well as to have legal counsel take a look at when they do their review of this, just to make sure. that that should be would be interpreted the way that we intend. And again, the intent of this is to make sure that there's a recourse for when something is causing an issue, that there's a way for the code enforcement officer to step in. But I think that this is creating a good succinct list of questions to follow up with our staff and experts. And I would also be happy to, I'll probably make some motions at the end of our discussion, I'd also be happy to make sure that the Medford-based group, Kitty Connection, sees a copy of this just to make sure that it is on their radars as folks in the community who do work with wildlife. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Chair Lazzaro?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll answer to either. I would make a motion to refer this version of the ordinance to KP Law for a legal review prior to our next meeting on the topic. That would be my first motion.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, thank you. I have two more. Second motion would be to have the city clerk recirculate this document to the relevant city staff, along with the questions that came out of this committee discussion, mainly around if this covers putting out food to trap feral cats for spaying and neutering. And then I would also motion to keep this paper in committee.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Essentially, what I put in my memo speaks to my recommendations. My priority is for this budget cycle. This is not going to be a budget year where I think that we are having the bandwidth to pilot a lot of new programs or start a lot of new positions. My focus is on maintaining level service for constituents and for students and workers in school systems. That's why my number one and number two priorities are meeting the school department budget request and meeting the library department budget request, making sure that we maintain level service and hours of operation at the library in particular, because that has been something that has been called into question in some past budget cycles. I wanted to call out specifically grant-funded personnel in the Health Department, Office of Outreach and Prevention, and the Planning Department because there are a lot of grant-funded positions in those departments specifically, but we know that all those positions are critical. In our community, they serve really important functions and the needs for those roles are not going away just because pandemic-era funding and grant funding is going away, so we need to make sure that we are maintaining level service by rolling those positions either onto other sources of grant funding or ideally making sure that those positions can be maintained within our operations, our operating budget this year and in future years. The next few key priorities for this year are ones that we've talked about around this time of year in the past. Trying to get a city solicitor and an assistant city solicitor online as quickly as we can. It's my belief that we need to raise the amount budgeted for salary for those positions so that we can be attracting competitive candidates. I do believe that this is a at this moment in time a tough position to hire for in this area in, in general, and I think that these positions are so important that we should prioritize escalating the amount of salary budgeted for these positions, so that we are competitive with some of our neighboring municipalities. I put some recommended dollar figures on here. Those are based off of my research into what our neighboring communities of Malden and Somerville primarily are paying for these positions. For example, in Malden, the budgeted salary for their city solicitor is around, it's a little over 117,000. In Somerville, it's 189. I believe that the figure I suggested to increase the city solicitor salary by less than $50,000 was based on the discrepancy with Malden. Is that true? Oh, sorry. That was based off the discrepancy with the city of Somerville. I know this is a big jump for one position, but I think we've all felt for the past few years how significant it is to not have a city solicitor in-house, and I think that that would be a I think that we can be pound wise by investing more money into these unfilled city positions. It's the same for the assistant city solicitor and in escalating the elections manager to a direct deliver position again I think that these are things that you know we see what happens when we don't invest in making sure that these positions are first and foremost filled. And second, you know, we really owe the people of Medford, the best possible person in all of these roles. And then I put the secondary priorities under areas of study slash secondary priorities. I know that these are things we're not going to be able to bring online early in fiscal 25. But I think that charting a course towards implementing a paid family and medical leave program for all city employees, apart from being the right thing to do and what all of our city employees deserve will help us fill key staffing roles. And I believe that a review of what needs to happen to bring our finance department software into the 2020s is something that we would see the benefit from. Once we achieve that, we need to figure out if that's something that can happen in three, five, or 10 years. And I think that every department would feel the positive effects of that. So I'm hoping that while not being things that I think are realistic to prioritize for fiscal 25, these are things that I hope that the administration is saving some capacity for studying this year. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, and I thank all of my fellow councillors for coming into the meeting with their recommendations. I think it's really exciting that we're starting this conversation in March for the first time in the first time that I've been on the council, which is not that long, but I think that this conversation, this process is beginning earlier than it usually does. And I appreciate the administration's cooperation so far with trying to make the overall budgeting process more communicative and less rushed. And I think that this is a great start. I'm happy to hear that there's cohesion among a lot of us on a lot of the shared priorities, and I think that's not surprising because we hear all the same issues. And I think that when I think back over the past couple years of budget discussions and what the common threads that emerge are, you know, we're the funnel into which sort of the main problems and aspirations and grievances of the city comes into. And I think the conversation that we've been having about the law department for a couple of years is an example of this. We're seeing our capacity reduced within these chambers because we lack in-house legal support. We see it taking a lot of time on ordinances. We see legal issues coming up, like the BJ's lawsuit, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned. And I think the work of this council, very productive in the past, has been to say, what's the common denominator here? What's the investment that we're not making that we need to make that could be the fulcrum for all this other change? If we had a staffed in-house legal department, I think we would be seeing the difference in our workflow, in the quality of our workflow, and how quickly we're able to get things done, and then there would be all the things that we are not seeing. All of the decisions that It's hard to make, or we have to put off, or we have to request from an outside legal perspective, and they're not super accountable to their timelines, to our timelines, because they don't work for us. It's all the negatives that we don't see because of a targeted investment, in addition to all the positives that we do start to see. I think that's still that common denominator that we're still looking for that targeted investment there. And I think the other one that this conversation, um, I would say over the past six months is also revealing is needed investments to the finance department. I think president bears put it very well. There's all these positives that we would start to see if we brought our financial software and staffing up to year 2024. And then there's all these negatives that once we stop having these problems and inefficiencies and, you know, deleted results that come from a severe shortage of staffing and outdated software. We won't know it when those problems start to go away, but we're certainly seeing them now. And it's exciting to me to see multiple voices in this room, noticing the same problems. And I think that we're identifying another area, like the legal department, that we really need the administration to target some investment into. I know that it's hard to contemplate in this financial environment, making a multi-million dollar investment. But as President Beer said, We're already spending a lot, not just in money, but in staff time on trying to use inefficient processes to do this work that we have to do anyway, and dealing with the problems that arise from doing it less efficiently than we have to. So I hope that that can be a topic that we really elevate this budget season. Again, this is a year when I think we have to be realistic, but I think that this is so foundational to so many departments that we can't afford to not prioritize the issue and at least try to get some, you know, in my recommendations, I put it forward as an area of study. Can we at least invest in a consultant to look at our software and say, here's a plan for how to get there? Can we at least start there? If not looking at what would it look to really divert some funding into an investment in this fiscal year and know that that's something that might feel short-term uncomfortable, but we have to think about the long-term downstream positive effects of that kind of investment. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. My preference in terms of where we go from here, I think that we built in a couple of weeks to move from individual council recommendations to full council recommendations. I think this meeting put us in a pretty good, I think that there's a very clear. Ben diagram. There's a lot of stuff in the middle. Personally I would be comfortable with the process where either this kind of informal document is shared out by the clerk to all Councilors and Councilors get back to the clerk with perhaps a ranking of their. Top five, which as council leadership, you or I could assimilate into a document for us to vote on in a future committee of the whole, um, I think that it would be a pretty similar process if, um. you know, I think that we could, um. Yourself for myself. Um just took a stab at, you know, tallying up what was submitted the most times make a version of that document, and then we could similarly look at it as a group at a future committee of the whole and then make some final decisions. Um that evening and still have plenty of time to submit it before the 22nd. I just think that that will be, um, give Councilors time to digest, um, without some time to order our rankings.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that's an important question, especially for the folks for whom this is the first budget season. And I appreciate President Bears' overview of what I think is a reasonable way to approach this. In terms of what I would propose we, you know, what we literally send to the administration. I believe that what we did last year, probably the year before that as well, we go through this process of Councilors submitting individual recommendations. We talk about our shared priorities. We come to some form of consensus about, we all come in with our individual rankings, individual priorities, and we find what is the middle of that Venn diagram. What are the things that we're going to say? There's 30 things we want. We're going to ask for five and hopefully get one or two. And trying to hone in on those shared areas of most importance. So that's, I think, the first page of the packet. And then I think what we did last year was we also included every Councilor's individual memos. And I would propose that we also, of course, include the minutes of these meetings so that the administration has you know, that thorough overview of our discussion, has the record of everything that we put on the table, everything that we thought was important to raise. In addition to, out of all of that, here's that shorter list of things that we really have to say. And so, in terms of next steps from here, I think that I believe that we have some space in the schedule to have a follow up committee of the whole to revisit this before the 22nd. If fellow Councilors were amenable to it I'd be happy to make a motion for council leadership to circulate this aggregated document among fellow Councilors. By the end of the week, work to schedule a follow-up committee of the whole where we can digest it together, come up with a shared shortlist of priorities so that we can stick to that timeline of submitting it to the administration by the 22nd along with Councilors individual memos and the records of this meeting.
[Kit Collins]: to circulate the document for council leadership to schedule a follow-up committee of the whole where we will prioritize those ideas, and then to submit that list of priorities to the administration by the 22nd after the meeting, along with councilors' individual memos and the records of our meetings on the topic.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Planning and Permanent Committee, February 28, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, would you please call the roll?
[Kit Collins]: Planning and Permitting Committee. The action and discussion item for this meeting is paper 24042, a resolution to discuss the implementation of the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance. And we've invited some members of the Planning, Development and Sustainability Office that are the staff that are tasked with implementing and enforcing this ordinance to be with us here tonight. I just want to make it clear, because this is a resolution to discuss the implementation of an ordinance that was passed around this time last year. The Housing Stability Notification Ordinance is an ordinance that was passed in February 2023 that created a new requirement for property owners of properties where there are tenants, that at the beginning and end of any lease, that they should send a document that is created by the City of Medford detailing tenants' resources and tenants' rights to those tenants at those given start and end times to any lease. That is the ordinance in a nutshell. It's fairly simple. We had a fairly lengthy process crafting the ordinance between 2022 and 2023. Now it's been about a year since we passed it, so the purpose of this meeting is to check in with the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Office that have been working hard, thinking about how it makes sense to roll out this ordinance, going through the necessary steps to put together that document, to draft it, to run it by legal counsel, and to be thoughtful about how to make sure that everybody in the community that ought to know about this new requirement does before we officially begin implementing and following up with people to ensure that it's being complied with. So with that, I'm going to open it up to preliminary comment from my fellow councillors that I'd love to hear just an overall update from our city staff. Any comments from my fellow councillors? Hearing none, I'd be happy to turn it over to Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt, and our housing planner, Aditi, to give us an update on the You know, I know that there's been a lot of good work being done in the planning office to develop this document and to think through how we're gonna roll it out. So I'd love any sort of update that you can share on that process.
[Kit Collins]: I'll quickly chime in, and then I'll turn it back over to our subject matter experts. My understanding, and I appreciate that question, Councilor Scarpellirilli, because I think that's an important point to clarify. My understanding is this ordinance adds something to that process. So the state law creates a requirement for that document and that required notice and resources to be sent when there is a notice to quit. This ordinance says not necessarily just when there's an ordinance, sorry, when there's a notice to quit, but when a lease is beginning or when a lease is ending for other reasons. Let's make sure Right. If there's a foreclosure happening, let's make sure that the person occupying that home or about to occupy that home knows their rights and has these resources in those other scenarios as well, building on top of the state law that is specifically about notices to quit. Did I get that right, Director?
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Leming?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. And if I, I appreciate, um, I, One of the goals of this meeting is just a general update of where we are at in rolling out the implementation. I think the other, especially now that it's been a year since we were talking about this in public meeting, is to have these clarifying conversations about what is the intent of this and what does it do and what are the consequences and what aren't the consequences. So, you know, as the sponsor of the original ordinance now passed, I think that there is nothing about the notification document that would affect eviction proceedings at all. I don't think that there's anything about the notification document that would... The intent of the document is to be something that can go to a tenant and say, Here's some info. If you have an issue, here's who you can call. You have a question, here's who you can call. If you have a question and this is the language you speak and it's not English, here's who you can call just to be informative. And the intent of that is to really make sure that people are empowered with information before they have any sort of issue or problem, which is intended to be. beneficial for a tenant or property owner, everybody in that relationship. So on the enforcement side, I don't think this would ever impact, you know, should a notice to quit be issued. If there's another condition that prompts an eviction, this would not affect that timeline. And I think we put it very clearly in the ordinance. You know, this is something that is intended to be an informative and educational ordinance, not something that we're going to be looking and looking for evidence of non-compliance to issue tickets, but rather to be something that we can follow up and saying, let's make sure that everybody gets the information before they need it, and that our city staff can be working proactively to make sure that this is getting out to the community in an accessible way. So I really appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Alicia. I appreciate that approach. I think that, like we said, the goal of this is to be informative, if we all recognize that a healthy tenant-landlord relationship is one where everybody knows what their responsibilities are and their resources are, tenants included, and know what to expect and what to expect of themselves. And that's the best recipe for a healthy and unproblematic relationship. I saw President Bears, Councilor Leming, and then back to you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Is that a cover your questions?
[Kit Collins]: That's great. Thank you, Director. And it's exciting to hear about different ways of collaborating with, you know, not just property owners, but also real estate agents in the city to make sure that all these initiatives and all the good work that I think everybody wants to be doing, that we can be staying on the same page and synthesizing about that. I'll go to the housing planner and then Councilor Bears.
[Kit Collins]: All right, thank you. Thank you, President Bearsens, and I appreciate, you know, when we were developing this ordinance over the course of several months leading up to, I think we passed it in February 2023, most of our conversations were centered around how do we make this something that is accessible, that people can understand, that people who don't read English can language, can access in the language they understand. Essentially, how do we make this tool that is meant to be informational, how do we make it easy to access? And I really appreciate, you know, now that we're talking about I appreciate that City staff is taking the time to make sure that this is done right in that same spirit of we want to make sure that everybody who needs to know that this is a new requirement hears about it. And I appreciate that we're thinking through the communication channels that the city already uses, that the conversation is starting with. What can we use to physically get this into people's hands? Because we know it's probably a fraction of all Medford residents and property owners that are on the city's social media channels and accessing what local news we have left. And so I appreciate that those are, you know, perhaps going to be supplementary tools to getting this information out, but that primarily we're thinking through. you know, what's the best mailing to use so that this is cost-effective that we make sure that people hear about it. And I was especially happy to hear that staff is thinking in the direction of, you know, the mailing that will go out to property owners will include sort of a signal, like, there is a new requirement to send out a document. This is not that document. That document lives online. Like, here's how to access it. Here's how to print it out. Here's how to send it to the library and get it printed out, rather than sending a static document that then we'll get photocopied until it's illegible or we'll get updated and people won't benefit from that updated information and so on. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Do I have a second on the motion to keep the paper in committee and reconvene for another update, perhaps on timeline as we get later into the spring?
[Kit Collins]: Second from Councilor Leming. And just to reiterate, you know, the content of this meeting so far on the ongoing implementation rollout of the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance, we've had a, I think, a really helpful update from city staff where we're at with the timeline. What are the questions still on the table for finalizing the document and then alerting everybody who ought to be alerted about it? I know that there's some energy to try to get the document finalized and begin to roll that out, you know, this spring, by June, I think. This is a committee that meets often. It meets every two weeks. This is a fairly straightforward conversation because we've talked about this ordinance so many times before. I just say that to note that even though there's a lot of competition for meeting dates in this committee in particular, because we're doing zoning in this committee, I'm sure that this is something where we can have a quick update on an evening that's shared with other topics. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, oh, peanut gallery over here. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to keep the paper in committee seconded by Councilor Leming, all in favor. Oh, sorry, roll call.
[Kit Collins]: Yep.
[Kit Collins]: You're ready. Sorry, I forgot how to call a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The motion passes. Is there any further comment from councilors or members of the public that would wish to speak? Or last words from city staff for now. Motion to adjourn. Seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And while the clerk is getting ready, I'd just like to say thank you again to Alicia and Aditi for working with us on developing this ordinance in the previous term and for doing such a thoughtful job of implementation in this one. We appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Matt, you got to stop doing that.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thanks as always for being here and collaborating on this with us. Same to the Chief of Staff. Just to echo what my colleagues just shared, I think the You know, I certainly share the concern. It's very important to not be legislating something that we don't know is within our capacity or beyond our capacity. And I definitely appreciate the focus on that as we're still crafting this in draft form. And I completely agree to me the intent of the language that's currently in that section of the ordinance is just to create kind of some sort of timestamp for a check-in. I know the term report usually connotated as like a very structured, very detailed, like it must have X, Y, and Z type of document. To me, the intent is just to make sure that once a year we have some kind of record of here's where we were last year, here's where we are this year in terms of are we approaching it? What new tools have we developed? What is our sense right now of what we might need to get closer to that goal? And not some sort of mandate, not some sort of, you know, if it doesn't have this section, then it's invalid or something like that. A fairly, you know, the phrase I would use, I wouldn't put this in the ordinances, I would be pretty comfortable with this being as formal or as informal as possible. capacity allows it to be while we're trying to get this annual process off the ground. That's important to me is just knowing that we're going to have some kind of document and some kind of check-in in the fall every year that allows us to chart our progress towards the better information and the sophistication that I know the administration is already working towards and that we're eager to support.
[Kit Collins]: I was just collecting my thoughts. I certainly appreciate You know everything that the chief of staff has shared in this meeting and other and others. The, I think the point is really well taken and I definitely appreciate the spirit of, you know, just being transparent You know, I know that these are things that we all want to do, and I really appreciate the clarity around, you know, I know experientially what you want to do and commit to do and what you can do are not always a perfectly overlapping Venn diagram. And I think that, you know, as a city, we see how that plays out with our various challenges and episodes and things that we go through in trying to manage our capacity as a city overall. So I just want to note that that point is really well taken. You know, this ordinance has changed a lot. One thing that, again, and I respect the diversity of opinion about the exact language that this section is put into, one thing that makes me personally feel comfortable is just how flexible the language of this section is. And of course, I've made it clear before, you know, that in my mind, this says, you know, shall submit a report and doesn't really get prescriptive about what that has to look like beyond touching on certain topics. It does bring to mind to me because the Chief of Staff mentioned the Elections Department in terms of, you know, I think this conversation is a lot about thinking through contingencies. What about the years when this report isn't like all that we would dream it to be? Quite recently, the City Council asked for an elections after action report from the Elections Department and that report was not all that we dreamed it to be. So we talked about it and And that was how we took that document and got some meaning out of it by, you know, that spring conversation about, you know, this is what we would like to see in it. Next time, these are the questions that we still have. The conversation that we had about the report, I think, answered a little bit more some of those questions that weren't answered in the text of it. So I just bring that up as an example of um, why I feel comfortable with this language, knowing that, you know, I don't know, like, maybe we'll never have a season of going through this process laid out in the, uh, laid out in the ordinance where it will feel very challenging to do that. Maybe it'll feel, feel seamless, you know, starting this fall, maybe it won't. Um, but if it's not seamless, if there's friction there, if it's challenging to get a report together, if the report, like, has to be very concise, if the report has to be really bare bones the first year, if, you know, we read the report and we still have questions, well, I feel like we already have a model for how that can go. And I think that even just having a simple document to start out with, that's a jumping off point for a discussion in committee or written follow-up, to me, that's still productive to have, even if that conversation is about what's not included. So I just offer that.
[Kit Collins]: The version of the document that I'm looking at is the track changes one. appropriate to make a motion to accept the track changes along with those other technical amendments around the effective date and swapping the order of those sections?
[Kit Collins]: It was the one in the packet.
[Kit Collins]: Section 3154, I think that effective date is corrected by adopting the track changes, but section 3108, motion to switch the effective date to January 1, 2025.
[Kit Collins]: Shall become effective upon passage.
[Kit Collins]: If this is just a simple finding the right term for the position and swapping it in. I personally would feel comfortable doing that from the floor, even if we refer this out to regular session tonight.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to report out of committee as amended.
[Kit Collins]: I'd just like to thank Director Dickinson and the Chief of Staff for meeting with us about this so many times, this term, previous term, and for working through it and coming out with something that we can get a start on and I would motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate the overview since we looked at this last and since this is the first time that we're meeting about this in this current term. It's helpful to have the overview. I think that the comments that we've received from KP Law and some other partners have been helpful to get this closer to a finished product. In terms of starting at the beginning, you know, with the goals of this ordinance, I think it's clear throughout this process, you know, we've kind of tacked our way into a middle path between, you know, the goals of phasing out a very polluting technology while making sure that this is something that is manageable from an enforcement standpoint on the city side to make sure that it's a manageable time frame for large properties and commercial users to make sure that we're balancing the right regulations and restrictions for commercial users and for private users. And I think that our process has benefited a lot from hearing from constituents and commercial users in the past and hopefully tonight as well, as well as the Chamber of Commerce and making sure that we've been tailoring and tweaking this so that it's fair for different use cases. And over the past couple of versions, we've also kind of tweaked that in terms of what specific restrictions we're putting forward and also what metrics and measures we're using. whether it's the amount of months in the year that we allow use of the gas-powered leaf blowers versus electric, whether it's what we're using to measure if something is within allowable ranges or not. I'm glad to see kind of on that seam of fairness, making sure that this is fair for different types of users. I'm glad that we have removed some of the exemptions for municipal use of the leaf blowers. I think that anything that we're expecting of commercial users, we should expect of municipal contractors as well. So that's something that I'm happy to see. And I'm happy to see that this, I think, is the most readable version of the ordinance that we've had yet, which is, of course, super important because some of the people using this ordinance are just, a lot of them are just homeowners, residents who just want to know, is this okay? You know, is this what my community has in mind for, you know, reality testing? Is this a reasonable time to use this tool this time of the year? So looking at the comments put forward by KB Law, I have a couple of motions in mind just to incorporate some of those suggestions, but I'm happy to save those for after comments from my fellow councillors. Or I could just do it right now. Why not right now?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I'm happy to field, you know, I think that we have, having gone through this ordinance in great detail over past meetings, even though some of the members of the current council are not there for those, I think that we're at a point in this ordinance where we can think about finalizing it, reporting it out to committee. I have a couple of motions to make that I think get this to a place where we can report this out to regular session, but I think, you know, because we've spent so much time on this already, we have plenty of space to continue to focus in on any aspects in this meeting if we need to, to make sure that everybody is feeling comfortable and up to speed before we take next steps on this. Towards that, I have a few motions to incorporate some of the suggestions from legal counsel. Let me just orient myself here. In section 3858, First, in subsection five, council noted that it's a bit confusing that this language refers to sweeping or raking because that's the only place in the ordinance that refers to sweeping or raking. Otherwise, we're just referring to blowing leaves. So I would motion to delete sweep or rake, which is the suggestion made in the red line copy. And the intent there is just, you know, we've done a lot of work to make this ordinance more readable and very clear in its intent, especially for, you know, there's a wide range of people who are gonna be consulting this, city staff, contractors, residents. And we, I think, you know, simplicity is always of the essence so that two people reading the same document get the same impression out of it.
[Kit Collins]: Great. In the same section 3858 subsection 6. It was noted that, so this says deposits of leaf, dirt, dust, et cetera, shall be removed and disposed of in a sanitary manner, which will prevent it from being dispersed by wind vandalism or similar means. A little confusing. I think that rather than trying to define what sanitary matter means, I would, Sorry. Motion to delete in a sanitary manner and replace that with in such a manner so that it reused shall be removed and disposed of in such a manner which will prevent it from dot, dot, dot. And I'm happy to pause. Yes. Great. And then I have a couple. Oh, right. Thank you. So my thought here is for the shall be removed in terms of who's accountable for doing the removal shall be removed and dispose of. I think we could either identify the property owner and the contractor or Well, actually, maybe this is a question to my fellow Councilors for your perspective. If there's a named party that's responsible for doing the removing, should it be the property owner? Should it be the person?
[Kit Collins]: One second.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I think in that section, I think that the phrase owners of large properties is in that section, I think, important, because there are specific regulations for large properties.
[Kit Collins]: What? Are we trying to call out the property owner, the landscaper, or both?
[Kit Collins]: So that would be, shall be removed and disposed of by the operator in such a manner, which will. And then whenever the clerk is ready, I'll keep going.
[Kit Collins]: Great. 59 subsection 4, which starts commercial leaf blowers, municipal operators, municipal contractors, and OLP shall submit an operations plan by, I think, September 1. That provides a good amount of leeway before we really get into peak leaf removal season. September 1. And just for context, that's the operations plan that's submitted by the operator to the building commissioner, a mitigation plan for, you know, we're going to be doing leaf removal with these tools on this property. Here is how we are going to mitigate the noise pollution. Here is how we are going to use the equipment. Here's how we're going to make sure that the equipment is safely used, is the plan, or is the content to be included in the plan.
[Kit Collins]: I don't know. I think that annually by September one is feels common to me.
[Kit Collins]: Next. Possibly last from me. Section 3862 subsection 3. As you noted in your overview, running this by the administration, it's felt that it's not cost effective to set up a special revenue fund for the potential fines collected by this. So my motion will be to delete that section. Great. And I think that's it for me for now.
[Kit Collins]: I think it's fair to say it's something we've discussed.
[Kit Collins]: No, I just said that we did actually.
[Kit Collins]: I think we found that it's still worthwhile to put forward this ordinance that is targeted at specifically two-stroke engines, which are known to be one of the most polluting types.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for everybody who's spoken tonight and in previous meetings for and against. You know, I can only speak for myself as one Councilor, this isn't the project that I initiated it was initiated by former President Morell know that all of our projects come out of constituent feedback. You know, from one form or another, this is one of those projects. You know, I think that this project is really the product of compromise, like a lot of like almost like every single one of our ordinances and resolutions and projects in this chambers. I think we've worked hard to get from our starting point, which I think was much more onerous based on, you know, examples that we found in other neighboring cities to try to get this to a place that was a better fit for our community. We've made several I think pretty major adjustments to make sure that the balance of restrictions on commercial operators and residential users was more appropriate to make sure that, you know, anything that was expected of commercial operators would also be expected by municipal contractors and, you know, essentially to say we have a tool here, we have the appetite here to, we're hearing from constituents that we want this source of noise pollution to be, you know, to have a lever to pull to make sure that that's at a reasonable level at reasonable times. And we want to take this technology, which is known to be one of the most polluting, you know, I don't think anything, anybody expects us to solve global warming in Medford, but we, I think we've, it came from the community that we have the opportunity to take action on something that is known to be especially polluting and say, let's you know, let's start to rein that in. And this has been a public process to create a timeline. For that we've gotten a lot of feedback on it. Coming out of that we have this draft that we further amended tonight after the feedback from our new building commissioner, city staff, and legal counsel. So I just wanted to thank all the constituents that have weighed in on this over the past, I think, possibly
[Kit Collins]: It's critical for the ordinance project to get, I think that many bites at the apple and that much feedback. So with that, I would motion to report this out of committee as amended.
[Kit Collins]: I find them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to suspend the rules and take the following papers out of order in this order. 24044, 24040, 24039, 24046, 23411, 23081, and 24043.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for being here tonight. Assessor Costigan, just the basic bullet points for what this new exemption would does. I'm glad that in the past couple of years, the council has been able to take votes to make sure that we are maxing out the exemptions for these populations in Medford that I think uncontroversially, we want to extend these benefits to populations very deserving of the tax break that the city can provide. I'd be happy to motion for approval to adopt this tonight. That was a motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, after that one we just voted on, which was 24039, next up is 24046. Great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to everybody who's assembled here today. I think this is probably one of the four council chambers that I've seen, and we pack it two or three times a year. Thank you all for being here. I'm going to keep it pretty short. I've had several conversations with several folks around this issue in the past few days, some of whom I know were in the room. Thank you for reaching out. I always appreciate residents and folks who live and work in this community for getting in touch with us directly. This is how this has to work. This is the dynamic. We're elected. You live here. You work here. This is our city. I'm here to listen. I've tried to, you know, begin that process of listening with the folks who've reached out to me over the past couple days. We've heard about this over the past several days from the administration. You know, I am going into this from the perspective of this decision has landed on our desks. I know that the priority of folks here, the folks who work in service in the interest of public safety, I know what your priority is. Your priority is the public safety of Medford residents, the people who live here. As an elected representative, that has to be my priority as well. I know that's the priority shared by the committee, by the community. And so as we continue to listen and hear from people around this, that's going to be my guiding light is what decision will be in the best interest of executing public safety for Medford residents, as well as possible every single day because of how the department is structured and any decisions that we have the jurisdiction to make around that. That is going to be my lens. I've said this about other policies before, you know, because it applies to many things. With any decision, what I try to remember, it can't be about this administration or this person in the role right now or this person who's doing the job right now, it's about the department, it's about the community, it's about today, but it's also about five years from now, 10 years from now. It's always hard not to make these issues personal because we are a community made up of people who know each other and care for each other and sometimes have history with one another, but these decisions can't be made with anything other than that North Star of public safety in mind. That's the perspective that I'm going into this with for the rest of the meeting. I look forward to listening and hearing from people about this continuing to hear from constituents and firefighters and the administration and my fellow Councilors about this. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I said I wasn't gonna talk again, but I remembered a clarifying question that I just wanted to double check before we get further into the weeds on this. It's my understanding from the research and the conversations that I've had so far about this, that this change, if it were to go forward, would not render ineligible any applicant within the fire department that's currently eligible for the role that would just extend the pool wider than it currently is. Can the administration confirm if that's true?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I see there are a couple hands still raised on Zoom. I'm happy to defer to those.
[Kit Collins]: I think Director Crowley is waiting to speak, and I see a hand that looks new.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to everybody who's spoken. And there's been a lot of members of public service who have spoken tonight and are otherwise here in support. And it's never a bad opportunity to say thank you for your service. So I didn't say it before. Thank you for being here. Thank you for speaking. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on this. And thank you for your service. Um, we've heard a lot. I'm not ready to vote on this tonight. Um, we have some, we have some, I think we've all, many of us have put forward a lot of questions. Some of them to me have not been answered satisfactorily. Some of them have conflicting answers. I think everybody can agree that this is a serious issue. I want to give it the time that it deserves. I need more time to consider this and evaluate the proposal on the merits. A lot of people have pointed out that this has been conflated with other allegations against the Fire Department. This is a serious paper before us. I'd like the opportunity to continue the conversation in Committee of the Whole with my colleagues and evaluate this proposal on the merits without conflating it with other issues. What we're voting on is a change to the civil service position. I'd like to have that conversation. My motion is to send this to Committee of the Whole, and also to have legal counsel present for that discussion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much for being here. As President Bears said, we've had this conversation many times before. I think this is one of the first things that, I think this was the subject of one of my first committees of the whole in my first term. It's been great to get to know this project very well through our various meetings about it as it's gone through its various approval stages with the CPA, the CBB. It's exciting that we're getting to this stage and this very long, very considered process. Obviously, there's a lot to talk about here. There's been a lot of detail. It's baked into the process. But for me, still the most compelling thing is preserving those 144 existing deeply affordable units, adding 94 deeply affordable units to our community. I think I said this the last time we talked about this, but it is so incredibly rare that we get the chance to make a double digit percentage increase towards our known affordable housing goals in the city, especially when we're leveraging funding that comes from outside of our community, our community. It's, it's such a rare opportunity I know it's a value that shared behind this rail throughout so much of the community. And it's so important not only to be increasing affordable housing in the community but really excellent, dignified, affordable housing for people at all stages of life. This is an area where I think Medford is really leading, and thank you so much to your leadership on this and making sure that this project is shepherded through. I don't have a lot of questions because I've had the opportunity to ask you tons of nitty gritty questions before. We haven't opened the public hearing yet, so I'll save my motion for later, but thank you so much for being here. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I would motion to, um. Adopt the condition to approve and adopt the conditions recommended by the Community Development Board and adopt the. Um.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. At the most recent planning and permitting committee meeting, which is the second meeting of that committee, in keeping with the theme of preliminary meetings, we picked up a two-year-old paper to explore a home rule petition around rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections. This will be the first of many conversations that we'll have on the paper with the end result being a home rule position, not an ordinance that the city council would or could pass outright. So more to come on that. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: She says yes in the chat.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. The idea for this ordinance came out of conversations that I had with several members of city staff and several residents over the course of last year. residents were complaining about specific sidewalks and residential neighborhoods that were rendered impassable by vegetation starting on private properties that have grown so long that folks couldn't walk on the sidewalk. I've talked about this with code enforcement, and it seems like there may be a gap in our municipal code that prevents them from having the statute that they need to do enforcement when the public way is impacted by plant growth, essentially, from private properties. So this would just be a really targeted project to make sure that there's enabling language in our code of ordinances so that code enforcement does have the ability to issue warnings and potentially tickets if need be when folks cannot travel on the public way because of stuff coming out of private property. So I would move the question to proceed this along to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee.
[Kit Collins]: So we're talking about the housing stability notification ordinance right now.
[Kit Collins]: This is an ordinance that we passed one year ago, actually just almost exactly a year ago, the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. So it's been almost exactly a year since this council passed the housing stability notification ordinance. This is a pretty specific pretty limited ordinance that says when a property owner has a tenant in a building. The city shall develop a document that outlines just very, very basic tenants rights and resources, and the property owner renting to attendants to send that document to their tenant at the beginning or end of every lease. It's not a document that the landlord has to create it's something that they can download off of the city website and make sure that it's conveyed to their tenant this is opposed to. kind of empower people with information, and hopefully answer some questions before questions come up in the landlord tenant relationship. Like I said this was passed about a year ago there's been some turnover in the planning development sustainability office this is the first time we tried to do something like this in Medford so the point of this resolution is to hold a meeting. with Planning, Development and Sustainability staff and some others been working on this in the Office of Outreach and Prevention to check in on how gearing up for implementation and enforcement of this ordinance is going. There are several questions to discuss, including where are we at in terms of developing that document. I know that staff has been running it by legal and trying to get it to a place of completion. Then there's the matter of how to make sure that property owners are properly informed about this. Of course, we have to make sure that we're conveying this in the communication channels to make sure that people really going to hear about it. This is not intended to be punitive. This is intended to be informational. And I know that city staff was looking at very many communications, communication channels to make sure that the folks who need to know about this do know about this. So the point of this meeting is to meet with city staff and say, how's it going? Where are we at in the process? How can we help? So I would move to refer this conversation to the Committee on Planning and Permitting.
[Kit Collins]: City clerk. 24045 offered by as various council president resolution regarding scheduled annual budget process for FY 2025. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the council president request City for consideration in a Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday, March 6, 2024. Be it further resolved that, based on the schedule included in the soon-to-be finalized budget ordinance, the City Council and City Administration will follow the budget schedule for the FY 2025 City Budget. By March 1, 2024, City Councilors submit individual budget recommendations for consideration by Administration and Finance Committee, By Friday, March 22nd, 2024, City Council submits collective budget recommended to the mayor. From April 15th, 2024 to May 15th, 2024, City Council holds preliminary budget meetings with department heads. By Friday, May 31st, 2024, mayor submits comprehensive budget proposal to the City Council. president bears.
[Kit Collins]: Are there any other comments from my fellow councillors? Any members of the public that would like to speak on this paper?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Seeing no further comment on the motion of President Bears as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Six in favor, one absent. The motion passed.
[Kit Collins]: Not confirmed.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much, Teresa, Roberta, for your presentation. I always look forward to these meetings once or twice a year because the always does such a great job of putting together, you know, not just gassing up but it's always a really great set of projects that I think, you know, we can be really proud to fund and, you know, looking at this list of the award summary for fiscal year 24 these projects are spread out all across the community like you said, there's a pretty good mix between those three eligibility categories. And that's always really great to see. It's exciting to have a mix of projects that are in their inception and those study phases and then ones where we can see that we've been investing in these projects over years and pushing them forward to completion and being even better resources for the city to enjoy. And that's just, you know, it's nice when you tee us up like that, we just get to vote on good stuff. That's always great. And I think it's, it's always good to have the conversation about when we're talking about investing in capital projects, investing in open space, investing in affordable housing, you know, to have that conversation about what role does the CPA funding in that because it's like you said, that's, you know, that's a that that scope can be, you know, as big as we're willing to open our eyes to see. And it's good to have the conversation about What role can this play? Where can we put this money? How far does that get us? And to continue to have that conversation about contextualizing, what else would we do if the limit was higher? So thank you for this great set of awardees. Thank you for the context. Much appreciation.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to report out favorably.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tsai. As for the elections commission, I think that I would just really love for the conversation that we had the last time the election commission came before us in a regular meeting. I think the most helpful instructions that I would like forwarded to the elections commission would just be the meeting notes from that part of our discussion. In my estimation, I think the council was pretty unified in just wanting a more explicit and a more specific response to the questions that we laid out in the original paper requesting the election after report. And so that's, as one Councilor, that's what I'll be looking for. That's what I'm hoping for. And I think that that was pretty well articulated by many Councilors who spoke in our last conversation about it with the Elections Commission. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And I thank the Councilor for chairing this meeting because I have to be remote tonight. Appreciate that. So this is the first time that we are talking about this paper in committee, even though it was introduced in 2022. So I wanted to begin with a brief overview of the paper, what it is, what it isn't, why it was brought up, when it was, and just to kind of place us at the beginning of a discussion about this topic. Like I mentioned, this was brought forward by myself and President Bears in 2022. At the time, this was a resolution that bundled together many ideas for housing stability-related home rule petitions. It included, these ideas included rent stabilization, tenant right to purchase, tenant right to counsel, just cause eviction protections, anti-price gouging protections, exemptions for small owner-occupant landlords. This was a resolution that bundled together kind of a roster of different ideas that have been used by various local municipalities all around the goal of trying to introduce some stability into a housing market that is governed by market forces. And I also want to speak a little bit to the particular moment during which this paper arose. This was, I believe, March of 2022. We had just had an issue right here in Medford Square, where a large apartment building on Bradley Road, all of the tenants had been served notices to quit. The story given was renovations to the apartments. But in effect, what we saw play out at the site was that a recent change of hands for the property and the property owners wanted to be able to rent those units at very much higher rates than they had been rented to for years. And we saw a lot of tenants leave the community. We saw a lot of tenants kind of have to react to this with not a lot of information, not a lot of options. and come to the City Council for help and say, what can we do? And unfortunately, we had to say, you know, there's not a lot that we can do. You know, we cannot intervene in this kind of situation. We can't get between, we can't get in the middle of this transaction. We can provide you with folks who are experts in this type of situation, but there's nothing that the City Council can do. to help you stay in your home, stay in your community, keep your commute the same, keep your kid in public schools. So these ideas came out of that conversation with those tenants, I believe almost all of whom eventually ended up getting displaced out of the community. And in that time, of course, we've seen other unfortunate examples of rent increases so exorbitant that they had the same effect of displacing tenants out of the community when they otherwise would have remained community members. So I just wanted to give that framing for why that came up when it did because it's been a little while.
[Kit Collins]: Chair Leming, if I may.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much. And thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, for raising that. I appreciate that. I know that rent stabilization is absolutely an issue that gets people's hackles up, you know, wherever they feel about it. I completely appreciate that. I do want to, you know, and I think that Councilor Scarpelli, we're coming at this meeting actually in a similar frame of mind, you know, as you and I know through going through this process on various resolutions and ordinances. This is the beginning of a process. I think it's probably going to be a fairly lengthy and thorough process because this is such a delicate issue. Let me return to sort of the framing of the issue, because I hope that I can speak to some of the concerns that you brought up, and I think that they're important ones. For those folks who don't know, a home rule petition is when any city says to the state, All right, state, here's a thing that ordinarily cities can't do. We'd like for you to make an exception. So I think that one way we can think about this process is that we're beginning the process of collaboratively drafting a piece of legislation that we would like the permission to do. I know I heard from some folks this afternoon who said, please do not pass this bill. We're not passing a bill tonight. This is conversation number one of many about a topic that's going to take a lot of time to talk about. This is just the beginning. You know, there were meeting documents circulated before the meeting, which is common practice for us to circulate common drafts for Councilors to read before the meeting starts. My intent, and I'll make these motions later in the meeting, is for us to open up a conversation in this meeting. Afterwards, we'll circulate the documents to relevant city staff, stakeholders, and then we'll use them as a jumping off point for our next conversation on this. And just to follow up on the point I was making about the Home Rule petition, In the hypothetical scenario that we finish a home brawl petition about rent stabilization and just cause eviction, which is kind of the jumping off point that I created for a conversation tonight. If that were to go through, if this council were to approve it, then it would go to our state delegation and the jurisdiction would be with them to approve or not. And that is just the standard procedure for for any Home Rule petition. So I just wanted to make that clear, because I know these things are often opaque outside of City Hall in terms of the process that we're looking at here. Pause there in case there are any questions from fellow Councilors on the process, or if not, I can just quickly run through more of the table setting.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming, and thank you, Councilor Sparkely. I appreciate, and of course, I think it's obviously a goal that we share that everybody who'd like to weigh in has the opportunity to. It's not my, as one councilor, it's not my intent that we're going to take any substantive action or vote to take actions on this draft tonight, but rather that this can be a draft that constituents, councilors, stakeholders, and city staff can continue to review starting tonight and in the run-up to our next meeting on the topic, giving everybody ample time to review it, and then we'll revisit the same draft. So I hope that that'll provide a lot of opportunity for people to read it and digest it before we revisit it again. Having said that, and of course, happy to circle back to the process at any point. I just, I think that I'm sure that there are other people in the room and on the Zoom tonight who can speak to the potential uses of rent stabilization and how it's been used in Massachusetts before later in the meeting, but just to quickly kind of frame the conversation. Like I mentioned, rent stabilization, I think most people know what it is. It's a way for a government entity, usually a city, to set a cap by which rent costs may not increase above that amount in a given year. And then it sets forth the exceptions to that. Let me find the... Trying to find a handy quote that I found in my research about this. Okay, this is from, and pulling together some resources as I was preparing just myself for this meeting. This is one of the strategies that the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission touches on on its website. I think that they have a pretty handy encapsulation of what rent control does and doesn't do. They say rent control denies unlimited excessive rent increases, thus limiting profits. Rent control does, however, allow for annual increases that provide owners a fair return on investment with sufficient income to maintain property in a satisfactory manner. They go on to say rent control laws usually include provisions that protect a landlord's investment in these ways. For example, sometimes defining fair return, a hardship appeals process. So there are There are many levers and exemptions and ways to tailor these policies that I think we can look to other cities, including cities in Massachusetts, to guide our discussion as we start looking at drafts, as we get beyond the preliminary table setting stage and into crafting a home rule petition. I think that there's a lot of ways that cities have worked really hard to tailor this to their communities. And I think that that if this project goes forward, we'll be looking to do here in Medford is to say, what does this community need? And how can we tailor this to Medford? Like I said, the idea for this in Medford came out of a particularly visible displacement event. And that displacement in general in Medford continues to, we continue to see that happening in the community. I know for myself, I'm sure for some of my other Councilors, this is something that we hear about, unfortunately, from time to time, housing scarcity.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, for the question. I circulated around noon today through the city clerk some example language from the city of Somerville, a draft jumping off point document for our discussion for a potential home rule petition here in Medford, and a link to some background info from the MAPC. So you're correct, the original resolution included those ideas for seven home rule petitions. I thought that, you know, seven is a lot to do in one meeting. I'm not sure if it's the will of the council to advance with all of them. I thought that this meeting, we could begin a conversation about rent stabilization in other communities. They've bundled rent stabilization and just cause eviction together. So that's what the document circulated by the clerk does.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming. I appreciate that. And yes, I think it would be great to start hearing from some of the other city staff and advocates that I know are in the room. Just quickly, I want to say, you know, I think in my experience, it's, you know, I, sorry, two thoughts happening in my head at the same time. I just want to really emphasize that for the purposes of this conversation, we are beginning a discussion about something that has been brought up by the City Council two years ago. The intent to pursue this at some point has been public record for some time. The content of this resolution has been public record. I hear that people would like more time to look at the documents that have been circulated in support. It is true that we very often get supporting documents for meetings pretty close to the meeting time. At least that's been my experience for the past term. And I completely respect that people want more time to look through a draft. That's why I was hoping that the purpose of this meeting could be to begin the conversation and then give people the intervening two or four weeks to read it and develop feedback and bring that to our next committee meeting on this topic. So I think that we're all aligned on that. Before we turn it over to other speakers and people who have comments that they'd like to contribute to this discussion, I just want to again really emphasize that It's true that rent stabilization is talked about as if it's one thing, and it has one set of consequences, and those are always the same, and they're always bad. But that's really not true, and I think that we have the capacity and the creativity in this community to say, we have this issue. We know that there are people who want to move out of their parents' homes and get their own apartment in Medford. We know that there are people who want to have their own place. We know that there are couples that want to move in together. We know that there are people who can't afford to buy a home, but love it here and want to stay. And we know that rent costs are a huge problem. for all of those types of people. And I think that knowing this council, this is a proactive council, every member, I think that it is well worth our time to say, before we dismiss this, let's take a good long look at rent stabilization, something that other communities have looked at, and see if there's a way to tailor this to Medford so that we could keep more Medford residents in Medford. And I also want to note, again, And people will see this when they take more time with the examples from other communities and with the draft home repetition for Medford that are created as a jumping off point. But there are myriad exemptions that we can build in to make sure that this is not anything that is going to be dramatic or drastic for people who do own rental units in Medford, exemptions for smaller types of properties, exemptions for certain types of owners. That's all on the table. So I hope that we can proceed with cool heads because I think that everybody's going to have something productive to continue to contribute to this conversation. I'll leave it there.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Levening, and thank you to all of the constituents, advocates, city staff that has spoken. Really appreciate getting some preliminary voices into the discussion. And I think that this is What our conversation just in the past 15 minutes has, I think, reinforced for me is that this is a topic and a term that is so heavily connotated that using these meetings to bring that nuance into the conversation and just to really recenter on what exactly is being proposed and how it differs from the idea that we have in our heads about what rent control is or must be, I think that that'll be where we get a lot of really productive work done. I appreciate raising some of the details around what we mean when we say just cause eviction. And I hope that as we continue to enter into the details of this process, whether we're talking about just cause eviction or whether we're talking about really finessing the styles and levers around the specific numbers and exemptions and conditions around rent stabilization, I hope that we can, I think that we'll have a really quick conversation around the nuance and how to, again, make this something that is more helpful than not. And I think that grounding this in the overall context of how big of a problem displacement is in Medford and how increasing housing supply is deeply crucial and the council is very enmeshed in that work and it can never be fast enough to deal with the displacement that we have been seeing for years and continue to see. And I think we just have to challenge ourselves to do more than one thing at a time. So I really appreciate everybody being a part of this conversation from the outset and trying to help us do that as well as we can. I would like to make a motion to recirculate the background information. sample Home Rule Petition from Somerville and first draft of our Home Rule Petition from Medford that was circulated earlier today to all councillors, the Director of the Planning Development and Sustainability Office, to the Senior Planner, Housing Staff Planner, Of course, these will be available on the city website under the report for this committee meeting and to request feedback and comments by February 28th. And Mr. Clerk, I'd be happy to email that language over to you so you have it. That's just a motion to recirculate all of the meeting documents to Councilors and staff and request feedback by the 28th.
[Kit Collins]: I am interested in, I think my next priority would be TOPA. Okay. And I believe that that is included in the governing agenda. I don't know that the others are.
[Kit Collins]: I have no objection.
[Kit Collins]: Chair Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Even though we're splitting off this project, I would still motion to keep the paper in committee because we haven't met on TOPA yet. So I would motion to keep the paper in committee and motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate that and I just wanted to jump in ahead of any other city staff who are going to speak and just say you know I really appreciate that overview and I think it's, it's certainly abundantly clear to me as one Councilor all the time and I feel pretty safe and speaking for my fellow Councilors that the health department, the Office of Prevention and Outreach, everybody involved in this type of preventative and supportive work in City Hall, just always doing such an incredible job with the resources that they have. I'm kind of always in awe of it, and I really appreciate it. It's always a good time to get an overview of what is currently on offer, so I just really appreciate that. And Pastor Jerry as well, it's incredible to hear about the work that you and your congregation have done for years in Malden, and I think You know the theme that's come up and kind of the testimony that we've heard so far that I suspect we'll hear over and over again for as long as we talk about this topic and future meetings is that, you know, just like we say that the housing crisis is a regional issue. So, so too is the homelessness issue. And so I think it's really I think that really is at the heart of it to think about and how this plays out across a blurry line, across our various municipal boundaries. But at the end of the day, we have to think about regional capacity and how we're contributing to that. So thank you so much. Looking forward to hearing more perspectives on this.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, sorry, my headset was still muted, even though my computer was not. Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I second everything that you said. I echo everything you said. Thank you so much to all of our members of city staff for being here for tonight and for really grounding the beginning of this conversation in your years of experience and expertise in helping us frame this conversation that prioritizes contributing material benefit to these neighbors and framing this conversation in dignity for everybody that this serves to touch dignity and safety. And I'm sure this will be the first of, I hope, many meetings and conversations about this project. It sounded like we were trying to wrap this up for now because it's getting late. So I would put forward a motion to keep this paper in committee. And I know Chair Lazari did note I do have a paper that I'd love to take off the table if we have time for tonight, but I know that we have another action item to review the governing agenda, so I would be happy for us to proceed to that first.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the question, Chair Lazzaro. If we are going to continue and try to get through the second action discussion item for this meeting during this meeting, which is going over the governing agenda. The ordinance that I was hoping to take off the table is included in the governing agenda because it was assigned a paper number last term. I might see if my fellow Councilors would entertain a motion on it if we get to it during that section of the agenda, instead of taking it off the table as a separate paper. I'm seeing confused looks. I feel confused. Okay, so, um.
[Kit Collins]: Chair Lazzaro, thank you. I defer to you. I am pulling up the draft governing agenda right now just to look at.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. Um, just to offer suggestion, which, you know, um, as chair, I completely leave it up to you. What do you like to do with the remainder of our meeting? And if we, if we'd like to set a goal end time, I think that would be. Um, fine as well, but I know a number of the projects that are in the governing agenda under public health and community safety committee, and I'd be happy to share my screen if that's helpful. Um, a number of these. Are new as of this term on a number of them were proposed in the previous term. So, depending on how we want to spend the remainder of our time, I'd be happy to, um, assist with kind of quickly running through. that list of projects to provide a general overview and perhaps the timelines.
[Kit Collins]: I have it up, Chair Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: No, I think we're all co-hosts.
[Kit Collins]: All right, is my screen viewable?
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to talk through any of these projects, if that would be helpful. One's from the previous term, myself or Councilor Tseng. But Councilor Lazzaro, I'll wait for your direction on which would be helpful. I don't want to grab the steering wheel more than I already have.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'd be happy to speak to as I've probably spent, second only to President Bears, I've probably spent the most time staring at this document of the Councilors assembled in assisting compiling ideas from from all of from all of the Councilors, you and I included. So I'm happy to speak to this is one that I submitted and just quickly run through some of the others. Eternity emergency response slash civilian oversight, being a topic that has been brought up to myself as one Councilor by constituents many times. Kind of I know that we're kind of broadly having a conversation about where these projects will occur. Over the course of the two years. So this one we have a goal date of starting not immediately perhaps beginning this conversation in July. perhaps with the conversation that we were just having, the hypothetical proposed warming center, ideally a regional collaboration, something that we're starting to do in Medford, and also I think dovetails with the resiliency hub work that several of our city staff were just talking about when we were talking about this need to kind of plug some of our social service needs here in Medford. So I'm interested to see how this this item on the governing agenda evolves as our conversation about the warming center evolves.
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to speak to any of the ordinances briefly, if helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, the overgrowth ordinance was born out of conversations I've had with constituents and staff about the need to empower city staff to do enforcement around essentially when vegetation on private property is grown so long that it is obstructing the public way. For example, a hedge or, you know, plants in somebody's yard that are so overgrown that they're spilling into the sidewalk and people can't walk in the sidewalk. They have to cross the street. They have to push their stroller in the street, et cetera, just to give city staff the ability to enforce around that because currently they don't. So that should be fairly straightforward. That's the idea there. Similarly, paper 23449 is, again, about giving city staff the authority to do enforcement around you know, not around activities when they become problematic. Similar to the overgrowth ordinance, it's not about policing everybody for your plants must be about a certain height. It's if something is happening to such an extent that it's becoming a problem, we should be able to do something about that. With the wildlife feeding ordinance, this is a measure that would empower city officials to issue warnings or tickets if persistent wildlife feeding is really creating nuisances or health hazards on private property. So after we run through the governing agenda I might put forward a motion to authorize myself as ordinance sponsor to circulate a draft ordinance to the members of this committee and city staff for comment ahead of this next committee meeting. After that regulating the retail reading facilities. There is no draft for this yet, this has come out of another, this has also come out of constituent request for this regulation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. A ordinance that we passed in 2023, the community control over surveillance. over public surveillance ordinance requires the annual submission of reports from the city agencies that employ surveillance technology about those uses. So this is just an annual procedure of meeting with the agency that submit those reports and discussing them, fielding questions from Councilors in the public, is something that, per the language of the ordinance, belongs with this committee. So as the chair is aware, we have already scheduled the first meeting to go over an annual surveillance report for this committee's April meeting, which I am myself very much looking forward to, to go over Medford Police Department's annual surveillance report, which should only include the use of body-worn cameras for the part of the year leading up to March 2024. And that process will be ongoing on an annual basis. This is another sort of maintenance project that has to do with an ordinance passed in the previous term. As far as my understanding goes, the implementation process for the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance, which was also passed in 2023, I believe is still being worked on by partners in the Planning Department, the Board of Health, the Office of Outreach and Prevention. Getting the word out about this ordinance was, you know, no small feat to tenants and landlords alike. So this project would be to follow up with those partners in how broadcasting the news of this ordinance is going, how upkeep, how uptake is going, and how we can enforce that this ordinance is known about and being followed. And so this has a goal start date of April. I know our April meeting date, as we just said, is already pretty full. So maybe the chair and I can work on scheduling an appropriate date to schedule a meeting to begin to take up this project as well.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, it's my understanding and again, this, of course, the, uh, the parameters of this project would be. put forward by the Councilor that's leading on it, and it's currently listed as no Councilor owning this project. It's just put forward as a good idea. So I don't want to speak for whoever leads on this project and their priorities, but it's my understanding that rather than fitting, rather than creating a maintenance plan for emergency equipment based on a particular year's operating schedule, this is more about reconciling our emergency fleet with our capital spending plan, which is a multi-year document. So I think that this wouldn't need to wait for the submission of any annual operating budget, but rather be something that we do in parallel with our long-term budget planning collaboration with the administration. Just for clarity.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you for the question. Thank you for making space for that project. I think at this point, the clerk has helpfully reminded me that I don't need to officially motion to circulate a draft. So if it is all right with the chair, I would love for and I can communicate about this with you offline as well. I would love for that paper to be listed as an action item for our next meeting. And in the meantime, I will circulate a draft. Of the ordinance to the members of this committee and to city staff for their feedback so we can have a more substantive conversation next time.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, exactly. A good question. That will be the first time that we review the draft in this committee. Any work and amendments and revisions that we make to the ordinance will be done in this committee. And then when this committee feels that it's ready to be put before the full council, we'll vote it out to a regular session for presumably a vote.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to receive and place on file 24006, which is the paper to review the governing agenda.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. In February, we celebrate Black History Month. The story of Medford is a story of black achievement and black community, from abolitionist organizing, to local icons like Belinda Sutton, to the historic black community of West Medford. This Black History Month, we celebrate black history in Medford. We endeavor to hold black history and celebrate it every month of the year. And I hope that we can recommit ourselves to policies that will allow Medford to remain a diverse community for people of all backgrounds.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. The Planning and Permitting Committee had its first standing meeting to go over the projects that have so far been assigned to that committee over the coming term. and some papers in committee that have also been allocated to be worked on in that committee. And we'll continue to create a draft schedule for working through those ordinances oriented around the zoning project, which will organize much of our work for this term.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to suspend the rolls and take out of order the scheduled public participation appearing at the end of the agenda. Then paper 24037, paper 24038, the elections papers, followed by 24021, and finally 24035.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate my fellow Councilors for bringing this forward. I certainly will be comfortable supporting the resolution tonight. I think it's also fine to discuss it more with relevant stakeholders and community members. For me, putting aside the medical and therapeutic uses associated with psychedelic plants, it's certainly not my belief that drug-related arrests and prosecutions should be a law enforcement priority, except when it comes to some of the things specifically exempted in the resolution, such as unauthorized commercial sale, distribution of minors, driving under the influence. Recent history, I mean, not so recent history has shown us that criminalization of substances does not meaningfully advance public health and public safety. At the same time, this is a holistic issue, so I look forward to future discussion about it. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I've put forward an amended version of the resolution. I would motion to amend the resolution and adopt the revised language. A copy is in front of, sorry, a copy of the amended resolution is in front of all councilors and in the hands of the clerk. I would motion to amend the resolution and adopt the new language and have it read into the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for reading all of that into the record. I want to briefly speak to why I'm putting forth an amended resolution from what was submitted to be incorporated in the Council's formal agenda. After I put forward the resolution last week, I was contacted by many constituents who urged me to reconsider the language before us. With an issue such as this, it is critical to speak with as much clarity and precision as possible, even when and especially when it's uncomfortable. I was called upon to amend this resolution to more authentically and faithfully represent the harms endured on both sides of the Israel and Palestinian border. In addition, while the ultimate ask of this resolution is for an immediate and enduring bilateral ceasefire, I was also called upon to not let the historical context go unsaid and unacknowledged. I thank everybody who got in touch with me from the original request to put forward a ceasefire resolution to the many people who gave me feedback and worked with me to improve it. Despite my note about updating the language of this resolution, I also want to put forth a disclaimer that I don't believe I personally have the ability or maybe it's simply not possible to talk about this issue in a way that does not leave one group or another at risk of feeling diminished or blamed or impoverished. If you are feeling that way, please blame me or blame the insufficiency of language to talk about an issue that is breaking all of our hearts and has been breaking all of our hearts for decades, and most especially many people in this room. And thank you for being here. I want to speak briefly to why I elected to bring this resolution forward, apart from the fact that I was contacted by constituents to do so, that being the ultimate reason. I am Jewish. My ancestors on both sides came to America in the early 1900s because Eastern Europe wasn't safe for them. My last name is Collins because my great-grandfather couldn't get a job with a Jewish last name. My family knows that anti-Semitism is real and it is dangerous. I believe that past hardship and trauma and persecution are never valid nor meaningful, but we can seek to make past trauma and hardship, we can seek to get something out of that if we put that experience in service of other people and stand in solidarity with other people who are also facing oppression and persecution. Now we see a right-wing government using the grief of Jewish people, like me, and the name of Jewish people to justify the destruction of an entire civilian population in Gaza. There are no words that can adequately capture this horror, pain, and injustice. This resolution is long, but the ask is simple. Our US government is deeply entwined with and invested in the Israeli military. Our federal leaders have the influence, the power, and the purse strings to hasten an end to the killing. This issue is painful and divisive, more for some than for others. But ultimately, this resolution is about safety, and I believe that should unify us. Marginalizing Palestinians, whether legally, physically, or in the media, advances no one's safety. It's simply not right, and I would defy anyone to tell me that the mass murder, displacement, and destruction in Gaza will leave Israeli residents more safe from violent extremism. Some people would question the validity of city-level resolutions about this issue. To me, this is a Medford issue because Medford residents are invested in the issue. And while the U.S. government condones the killing and sends unrestricted military aid to Israel, communities right here in the U.S. are starved for funding. If you attend any average city council meeting, what you'll hear us talk about ultimately is how there aren't enough public dollars to pay for resident services, fully funded schools, affordable housing, road safety, and on and on. Meanwhile, our federal leaders authorized billions to help bomb kids in Gaza. I find that I find it unfathomable on a human level, and I find it infuriating as a Councilor. Those dollars should be promoting wellness at home, not destruction abroad. I hope that we can find unity in the unacceptability of this oppression and this loss of life, and in demanding an immediate and lasting de-escalation and ceasefire in Gaza. I hope that we as a council can join the groundswell of city councils, amplifying their residents' calls for ceasefire, and add Medford's voice to the chorus for peace. I hope we can find unity in diminishing no one's suffering and trauma, and in demanding safety and peace for all.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you to everybody who spoke. I already made the motion to adopt the new language and move forward with that new language. Motion to adopt, yeah, that's what I said. And I'll now motion to amend and adopt the new language. Got it. I hear everybody. I hear all of you. I don't know if it's possible for everybody to be heard equally, but I hear you. And I motion for approval of the resolution as amended.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate Councilor Lazzaro for bringing this forward. I'm really excited to start a discussion of what we can do to pilot a warming and cooling center of our own here in Medford. As Councilor Lazzaro stated, we've known for a long time now that it's not sustainable to keep directing our unhoused neighbors to the resources in other communities to stay safe and warm at night. communities and other resources are already overburdened. We need to start sometime at figuring out a path towards strengthening our own safety net and supportive services here in Medford. Obviously, this is really complicated and expensive, but it's important, and we all know that Medford has the creativity and the collaboration and the spirit of service to get it done.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take paper 24028 out of order.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Thanks. I got it. Um, can you hear me? 24028 offered by President Bayer's resolution calling on U.S. government to end blockade of Cuba. Whereas for 60 years, the United States has imposed an embargo on Cuba, having a devastating economic, social, and political impact on the people of Cuba. And whereas U.S. Senators Warren and Markey, U.S. Representatives McGovern, Presley, Lynch, Moulton, and Tran, city councils in neighborhood cities, and many state and local officials have called on the Biden administration to restore the policies of the Obama administration, reducing travel restrictions and removing Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list that were reversed under the Trump administration. And whereas the continuation of this policy has a detrimental impact on Medford residents and organizations who have family, business and research ties with people and organizations in Cuba. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford city council that we urge the Biden administration and our congressional delegation to reverse the Trump decision to add Cuba to the state sponsors of terrorism list and restrict travel between the two countries and be it further resolved by the Medford City Council that we urge our congressional delegation to pass legislation to repeal any laws regarding the embargo on Cuba and be it further resolved that the city clerk please submit this resolution to the offices of Senator Warren, Senator Markey and Representative Clark. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Any further comment from Councilors? Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments from members of the Council? Any members of the public who would wish to speak?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Feel free to approach the podium. Please give your name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for your comment. Before we get to you, I'm just going to go to a hand raised on Zoom, then we'll get right along to the folks at the podium. I'm going to ask you to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. Name and address for the record.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. All right, Patrick, I think we have your address already.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Patrick. I think it remains to be seen whether it's a zero-sum equation, but your comments are duly noted and appreciated. Mr. Castagnetti, go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Do I have a second on the motion? Councilor Callahan? Do folks want a roll call vote or is a voice vote fine? All in favor? Would you prefer? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. Motion passes with one note of dissent.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll be brief. I thank the Councilor for bringing this forward often, either in meetings or out in the community. When we're talking about our business districts or squares, residents ask of Councilors, you know, why is XYZ business square like this? Why is this vacant? How can we get X type of business in, you know, XYZ square? There's a pretty obvious limit to what a city can instruct commercial landlords to do with their property. But this is one tool that we could consider and possibly enact to try to incentivize our squares being full and lively and they're always being business tenants and available commercial space and so I'm excited to explore it further.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears this is kind of a procedural resolution to formally begin the zoning project which has been in a crescendo for longer than I've been on the council. Right at the end of the previous term into the start of the new one we officially the city officially brought on the zoning consultant that this council selected. So this is to assign the zoning project a new paper number and formally submit it to the planning and permitting committee so we can begin meeting with relevant staff and our zoning consultant to dive into that work in earnest on a motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: President Pierce?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I have two things. One, I'd like to table 24036 to our next regularly scheduled meeting. is, why is that funny?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, here's what, here's something that will not endear me to my fellow Councilors. Sorry, George. I'm going to invoke rule 28, motion to reconsider 24021. That's the plant medicine resolution that we voted on. That's the plant medicine resolution that we voted on. Previously in the evening, we took a vote to send it to committee as a member of the person who voted on the prevailing side. I have the right to ask that the vote be reconsidered. And I'd like to, I don't know if it'll change the outcome, but the vote that I cast differed from
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. And I do apologize to my fellow Councilors for bringing this back to the table, especially at this late hour. But to leave the meeting in good conscience, going into this meeting, having studied the resolution, having talked to advocates for it, I went in planning to support its passage tonight. My vote to send it to committee, I think, was more of my personal vote on that. was more out of going with the flow than what was really in my plan or what was in my heart for this evening. So I don't know if it will change the outcome, but I personally would like to retake that vote and have another opportunity to cast my vote for whether we should pass it symbolically tonight as an endorsement of the decriminalization policy, or if it is still the will of the council to send it to committee for further discussion.
[Kit Collins]: Vice Mayor Collins? Present. There will be a meeting of the Planning and Covering Committee, November 31st, 2024. The purpose of this meeting is to review the 2024-2025 Council Covering Agenda. as amended at the January 24, 2024 Committee of the Whole.
[Kit Collins]: How about this? Great, I can hear myself. So this is our first meeting of the planning and permitting committee. Vice Chair Leming is unable to be present for this meeting because he has a prior commitment, but he is the vice chair. So much like our first committee meeting for the Administration and Finance Committee last night, the purpose of this meeting is to go over the section of the 2024-2025 Council Governing Agenda that pertains to projects in this committee. So we have a bunch of projects and papers that have already been allocated to this committee for working on and discussing, and there are also papers in committee from previous terms of the Council, we can take a look at that section of our agenda, so to speak. It hasn't been totally fleshed out yet, but it will in coming weeks by myself and President Bears and other members of this committee. So I think much like last night, what it probably makes sense to do is to just quickly run through what is currently in the governing agenda under the planning and permitting committee auspices. Sponsors of any projects can give a brief synopsis or summarization of goals of those projects as they put forward. If anybody has questions about new or old projects or papers in this committee, totally fair game. This is the time to talk about that. There's a number of very large projects that will kind of be overarching in this committee throughout the term, in addition to ones that might be more quickly dispensed with. So we'll also take a look at the draft timeline, which, of course, can be amended over the course of the term. Do any councilors have comments they'd like to make before we start taking a look at our governing agenda? Hearing none, let me work on sharing my screen so we can look at that together. All right, is my screen visible for the, say, agendas and minutes at the top? Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Clark. So just proceeding right along to the section of the governing agenda for the planning and permitting committee. We went over this in some detail in our committee of the whole about the governing agenda overall, so I'm not going to go into great detail about, you know, we also have sections of our code of ordinances that just live in here. And I think this will probably be more relevant for other committees than it will be for ours. The thinking that if it comes the time for one of our recurring meetings and there's nothing to work on, we can be looking into our code of ordinances to bring up to date other ordinances that fall under our jurisdiction. I don't think that'll be a problem for this committee. I think we have a ton to work on. I don't think we'll have a lot of dead time during our meetings. So we can always revisit this first section if we need to. So it makes sense to first talk about or at least first look at zoning reform. This is a huge project. This will probably organize most of the other projects within this committee over the course of the next 23 months. President Bears and I have initiated, I mean, this project has been initiated at the very end of last term. The council selected a zoning consultant to work with this council to structure this process to provide you know, specialized expertise in implementing. the comprehensive plan, the housing production plan, the climate adaptation plan, other known goals and shared values that this community has, that the administration has, that this council has, and make sure that those are borne out in a comprehensive review and updating of the zoning process. And we're working on finding a date for Planning, Development, and Sustainability staff and the zoning consultant to come before this committee just to serve as a public introductory meeting. And we can talk about the timeline and structure for that project, Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Harreld. And just to clarify, do you think what would be valuable is sort of like goals or maybe like last action taken? This is why this is here right now.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. Just making a note of that. And I think we can definitely, as we start to spin up our process of sort of end of month updating of the governing agenda, we can certainly workshop that and figure out a way to just quickly make sure that that like one or two sentences for each project is being revised. So this, the structuring, the breaking down this very large two-year project into manageable pieces is something that this committee will be working on in concert with NS Associates, which is the zoning consultant that this council selected, and Planning Development and Sustainability staff. But the overall approach, I think, will be to take our ambitious goals of reviewing and updating all of our zoning ordinances, find a way to organize that by goal, by topic, by category, so that we can be doing those updates, be making those updates in a way that makes sense and is efficient. There's certainly a lot for us to get through in two years. So what that organization, what that structure looks like is something that we will be meeting about and talking about in coming weeks and months. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I really appreciate that kind of approach to how to work through this. I think that I think that some version of that approach is what we will inevitably end up doing. I think that one way we might come to that approach is we are working with planning development kind of have a two track approach to breaking this down into manageable pieces. I think that our zoning consultant might have a perspective on what categories might make sense to work on together. And then of course, from this council being representatives of the community and being very well versed in these plans, we then, I think it is, in my opinion, as one councilor, I think it's our role to then come to those topics with a set of priorities and say, this is our priority for what we do in the realm of doing something that affects housing stock, housing density, housing character. based on what we know from our plans, based on what we know from constituents. I think that individual Councilors getting very specific on what we would like to do in certain categories, something that we could certainly start to do at any time, and I think that when we are able to sync up with NS associates and planning staff in the next few weeks about what kind of timeline we might be looking at as we work to develop that timeline of what we'll work on when, that might give us some clarity on when could we collectively have those conversations about what's going on our punch list and figure out a process from there. But I agree. I think that I suspect that we all have in our heads those specifics that we're shooting for. And quite soon will come the time, sooner than we know it, will come the time to start implementing those.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. I think that's a really important point with anything, and especially with a project of this scale that we've been gearing up to for such a long time. I think it'll be really important. Well, to me, I'm thinking a lot about budgeting time for this project, because it's such a big, ambitious project. And I think that avoiding duplicating efforts will be really crucial. And it dovetails with what Councilor Callaghan was saying about how and when are we getting organized to make sure that we're doing what we want to do. Councilor Tsenglin, President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: By all means. This is my living room, George.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you Councilor Tseng I actually think that's a really helpful point to bring up. Let me just so that we can look at this visually, as we're talking about kind of timing of projects. It makes a lot of sense to me especially that those three projects you mentioned would be very relevant to my gosh here it is finally. would be relevant to our zoning work. And I would say to that specific point and to any councilors on this committee, as research into projects continues, as councilors start to get specific on the parameters of projects outside of zoning, especially those that align with zoning, just to feel free to be in communication with me as chair of this committee. One, to keep the governing agenda updated with what we plan to work on and when, but also if they're, say, for example, green score, I think it intuitively makes a lot of sense to work on that at the same time as some, you know, developer and building standards that will be picked into our zoning code. We can make sure that as the timeline for breaking zoning into parts gets solidified with our zoning consultant, we can make sure that we're scheduling these things in alignment.
[Kit Collins]: I may make a suggestion, again, to what Councilor Callahan brought up earlier. I know that we're going to eventually be going, we're going to collectively decide on a sequence through which to work through all of these topics comprised of zoning will decide that collectively will have a draft schedule like all of our other schedules will be amendable. I'm sure that we will all have our separate version of planning and homework and research that will go into the work and the priorities that will take to the zoning discussions. If it feels helpful to Councilors, I would be happy as chair to be sort of repository for those notes, lists, lists of priorities and goals. I know that we are going to be working on sort of, as council leadership, matching our main goals and priorities for zoning overall and bringing those to Innes Associates to help draft that sequence of zoning work to bring to this committee. If councilors feel it'd be helpful to, as they're devising lists of priorities on your own time in preparation for our meetings, I would be happy to be a repository for those ideas and then make sure that they are brought up again when we get to the relevant topics in our zoning work. Anything else on zoning right now? Priorities, questions, questions around timing? Well, we're going to spend a million more hours talking about it, so let's put a pin in it there. We can come back to it later in this meeting if anything else occurs to Councilors or members of the public, but I'll scroll up again to the start of the section on ordinances, and we can run through that list. So like Councilor Tseng mentioned, a lot of our other legislative projects will align with zoning to a greater or lesser extent, and some of them won't, and that's okay too. Just to run quickly down the list of ordinances that are also in this committee, the Condo Conversion Ordinance, this is one that I'm leading on. We started work on this last year. The goal of this is to create some conditions and permitting procedures around when rental units are taken off the market by for-profit developers and turned into condos to make sure that the community recaptures some of that value that is just being realized as real estate value. The status on that is there was a bunch of takeaways and great research questions from our last meeting, which was sometime last fall, that I have to follow up with the building commissioner about. And I hope that we can get about that quite soon and get it passed by May. Next, we have housing home rule petitions. There's a few here. Real estate transfer fee, tenant first right of refusal, and rent stabilization. These were originally proposed I want, oh it was 20, it was 2022, we know from the paper number. I believe the local context for when these papers were introduced to this council was when a particularly visible eviction event was happening in Medford. But we know from the community that petitioning the state for greater power to protect tenants in Medford and do what we can locally to stabilize the cost of rent is something that is important to many people in Medford. And so these are not ordinances, but home rule petitions that we can discuss here in this council. Any questions on these before we move down to a fee schedule? President Bears, would you like to briefly describe the fee schedule project?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Is your thinking at this point that this will be a process we go through department by department? Or do you have any other thoughts on how we might meet this out over the term?
[Kit Collins]: Sounds great. Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears, Councilor Tseng. Sounds like that will be pretty straightforward to dispense with, hopefully meaningful for many of our city departments. Continuing down the line, next cycling safety ordinance. This is a project that I proposed, I haven't formally proposed it, project that I have proposed to propose. The goal of this ordinance would be to align with the city's complete streets project and work with the DPW to see if there are some standards we can create legislatively to ensure that bike safety infrastructure projects are always considered when road renovation is already being done in the city or see what else we can do along those lines towards the value of increasing safety for all road users.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I appreciate that. And I think it's also a really an evergreen reminder of how important it is in the conversation of the fee schedule more broadly. So important to be really transparent with the public about, yes, it's a revenue thing, but in service of the things that we all need and see the lack of funding and I think that really makes it a less bitter pill to swallow to realize that this revenue is going towards things that are chronically underfunded and then we'll all be happy to see better funded. Well, speaking of transportation, we next go to Transportation Demand Management. Councilor Tseng, would you like to give us a brief description of this project? Sure.
[Kit Collins]: Very interesting. Thank you. Next, we have some proposed ordinances that I think are linked to energy disclosure and benchmarking. Then we also have the rental license ordinance. Councilor Callahan, were all of these your brainchild?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. That makes that linkage makes a lot of sense. While we're on this topic, let me scroll back down. You could also speak to the rental licensing if you would like. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to note, I think we would be good at some point soon, not necessarily right this minute, especially since the city clerk has reminded me that the Public Works Committee is beginning at 7 p.m. As these conversations continue on, as we start to get a sequence on paper for the zoning timeline, it would be great to start drafting some goal start dates and end dates for those ordinances, because I don't think we have them yet. So open to hearing thoughts on that at any time, inside or outside of the meeting. Councilor Cheng?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. That's an exciting project, and it makes sense that our first step should be to investigate the extent to which a possible state legislation might be relevant here, or if we should not bother. waiting for that to become relevant. Let's move quickly through the rest of these projects. Rental licensing, would you like a quick description?
[Kit Collins]: It would also help with the implementation of the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance. So lots of great reasons to, yeah, which has been, I think, a major challenge in disseminating that. So lots of great reasons to prioritize. Thank you. Moving right along, just in the interest of time. Next, Councilor Tseng, would you like to speak to pesticide regulations, blasting, green score?
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And then, like I said up top, we also have some ongoing projects. that are under our jurisdiction for ongoing engagement oversight, including the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Signs, chaired by Councilors Scarpelli. And I believe we're having a meeting next week, Tuesday. Great. Thank you. And that will be a subcommittee that meets frequently and as needed to go over those sign applications. We also have some projects in here under ongoing oversight. energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, transit signal priority. We have a couple minutes if Councilors want to give a brief overview of those projects.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. Councilor Tseng, would you like to briefly describe transit signal priority?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tsenghia. I understand from my conversations with Director Blake that this is a project for which there is a ton of appetite in the city, and we're just lacking some of those crucial millions of dollars to do exactly what we want to do, what we know constituents would love. But I'm sure that there's ways that we can collaborate to move the ball forward this term on that. So thank you for bringing that forward. President Bears?
[Kit Collins]: What paper is that, sorry?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you president bears I think, and I appreciate the framework of that comments in the context that we have more than enough in this current governing agenda to work on at this committee this term at the same time. I think, taking into account the perspective that you just shared other anecdotes from the committee. current structure of the traffic commission with mandatory members as opposed to a more representative model. It strikes me as something that's certainly at least worth discussing other models that might make more sense for our community regardless of whether this committee decides to pursue that this term. So with that we've done our speed run overview of everything that we will definitely fully complete this term. Thank you to my fellow councillors for that. For any final comments from my fellow Councilors, I would just like to invite everyone, like I said, when we were finishing up our short conversation about zoning, if Councilors, as we're preparing for our sequential digestion of the zoning topic if Councilors are so moved to submit to me top line priorities for our discussion that we can then batch into categories with the consultant and with planning staff or more nitty gritty versions of those lists. Please feel free to forward those along to myself as chair ahead of time where we can store those for the appropriate meetings when those topics come up. I would also ask Councilors, if there are any projects that are in this committee, once they've been proposed, if they don't currently have start and end goal dates, please do submit those to me. That'll be important as we do the monthly updating of the governing agenda. Any final comments?
[Kit Collins]: Was there another energy-related paper that should be in?
[Kit Collins]: Great. So that's a motion from President Bears to move transit demand management and green score under the zoning paper. Do I have a second? Councilor Callahan? On the motion, all in favor?
[Kit Collins]: All opposed? Motion passes. Any final comments from councilors? Councilor Callahan? I move to adjourn. Motion to adjourn from Councilor Callahan, seconded by President Bears. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Vice President Collins. Present. Councilor Lazzaro. Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I think that looking over the kind of the evolution of the draft ordinances will be most instructive for the newer councilors, but the original form of the ordinance spoke to both the annual budget process and also laid out a fairly prescribed structure for long-term budget planning, kind of revisiting five-year financial forecast regular intervals with the administration the same way as it creates a structure for looking at the annual operating budget with the administration every year. The administration has told us a lot about the various reasons why that is a difficult thing for them to operationalize at this point, but we still think that there's value in creating a kind of starter structure for how to begin to have those conversations in a regular way, even if we are not being as ambitious as the original form of the ordinance laid out. So to me, that is the most unfinished part of the ordinance, trying to figure out what can we start so that we are planting a seed for that kind of structure, while not legislating a process that the administration right now doesn't have the capacity to do every year.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I know that this is something I was actually going to ask about President Bears, which is why I grimaced after I touched my microphone. The classification and compensation study is a project that the administration initiated with the Collins Center, if I have that right to take a look at how we are compensating the various roles in City Hall to try to get context on if things are roughly right, you know, and this is would inform the types of salaries that we're putting out in our attempt to keep positions filled by competitive candidates. So a question that I have is the status on how complete that study is. And then I believe that the implementation for this council would be in, because pay rates to an extent live in our code of ordinances, personnel ordinances, that would be something for us to take out of the study and implement through our personnel ordinances.
[Kit Collins]: I was going to suggest perhaps to request the update come in a week before our next scheduled meeting of this committee. Okay. Which would be... by February 20th, if we go that route.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I think it's an important point to make. I mean, in general, I think the point of these initial meetings and committees, the point of the governing agenda is to try to budget our work over this term to be manageable for Councilors and for projects to occur in the right order to be most effective. I think that the way that the various commercial vacancy tax, for example, these various exemptions that we've considered in the past, the new ones that we're considering, the way that those will intersect with a potential override or debt exclusion is kind of an interesting problem, kind of to the overall topic of like, then what order do we do things in, especially with the exemptions, which we know, the assessor's office requires like a fairly long runway. to be able to implement. I think that, I mean for myself, for the Good Lord and Lord Tax Credit, as that's a paper that I introduced, I think that the approach may be to study the issue, try to do the research, have the conversations, get our ducks in a row, perhaps like create some scenarios, and then as the conversations about revenue forecasting potential changes to property tax because of a debt exclusion or override, kind of have some scenarios ready to go. And of course, I think in some cases, we might want to deploy several strategies at the same time. If, for example, say we're doing a debt exclusion for a new high school, hypothetically, it occurs to me that that might be a thing that our finance department might say. let's sit down and consider these three to four financial mechanisms together instead of doing these very related things in separate channels. But I think that we can certainly pursue all of these projects in committee and really get our arms around the issue and study, could maybe create a set of if-then conditions for these various exemptions and new mechanisms.
[Kit Collins]: Can you put the screen to Rebecca?
[Kit Collins]: For just a sec.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I just wanted to take a look, see if there's anything I was forgetting. I think in general, I feel pretty happy with the draft timeline. that we're looking at here in the governing agenda. I think that this, for the most part, organizes our projects in what I would consider a list of priority and also a list of urgency. It's very important to start implementing the classification and compensation study as soon as that data becomes available. It's, of course, the annual budget process. is fixed in the first half of each year. I think for the reasons we just discussed, it'll be important to discuss the commercial vacancy tax and the good landlord tax credit earlier rather than later, so that if those are things that we do want to deploy, we can do that. at a time that makes sense because they take a long time to implement. I think that that will set us up well for these other projects that we currently have slated for 2025, which of course are also very important. That's why they're up there. That's why they've been suggested by current Councilors, former Councilors, members of the community. But I think that this roughly follows order of need.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think that plan sounds great. Of course, with such a long document, of course, this is sketching out everything that we aspire to do over the next two years. I think that probably the best use of our time is to, as we're going through this, if there's things that Councilors, kind of reiterating what you just said, if there's things that Councilors have questions on, like, I don't understand what this project is that we're proposing to be referred to committee or if something seems incomplete. Essentially, if there are any critical substance-related flags, I think that this is a good time to quickly go over those. But in general, a lot of these projects we have touched on before, either previous term, in this term, we were talking about creating this document. So I think this is a great time to kind of We've all had several days to look at this after a couple weeks to submit our own proposals. And then, of course, the deep dives will occur in committee for any of the projects that get referred there, assuming that most, if not all, of these will end up getting referred. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Well, thank you for bringing that up because I was internally debating whether to say I noticed the percent for our ordinance was, as we can see from the paper number introduced in year 2020. I think it's a good one to bring forward and see if we can get to it this term. Despite my day job, I don't need to be the lead Councilor on it. So I just throw that out to Councilor Callahan and all my fellow Councilors if anybody sees this and wants to take point on it. I would gladly relinquish my sponsorship or share leadership with somebody else.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, my aspiration is to check in with all committee chairs monthly to say, where are we at on what and update this document. If that cadence doesn't quite work out, I think certainly keeping it updated on at least quarterly basis so we can track where we are and perhaps update further start dates accordingly. So that's the plan. Yeah, thank you for that.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Appreciate that. And it strikes me, going off of what Councilor Ziaro noted about some committees being, going into this process more flush with ordinances and projects than others, I think that I assume that we'll see some of the work of some of these committees will be more straightforwardly legislative related to, you know, our official functions, promulgating policies. Others, like perhaps the Education and Culture Committee is a good example of this, their role will be more broadcasting, engaging, synergistic. You know, just in line with the, the topic of those committees and I think that would be a great way to organize kind of the various functions that this council serves between broadcasting events, helping to be a liaison between community partners city hall partners. And I think that that will be a good way for us to budget our capacity because probably realistically if we were working on a full slate of ordinances and every committee. There's only so many Tuesdays and Wednesdays in the year. So I think this will be a great way for us to get a lot done and do the best that we can to complete all the projects that we set out to complete.
[Kit Collins]: Certainly, I think that. The way I've been conceptualizing this governing agenda overall has been to try to, you know, and of course, as we've been saying, it's a, it's a living, evolvable document, but I think that this is a tool through which we can try to project magic to ourselves, because in this committee alone, there's certainly two years worth of work. So thinking through how to prioritize and how to structure and schedule these projects so that we can get to everything that we want to get to for the community. I think that this is a topic that we can revisit as a committee in our first couple of meetings. I think that Zoning reform is certainly going to be the characteristic project of this committee and indeed of this council this term, one of our major projects. And that will live in this committee and I think that so many of the major projects and ordinances that have been proposed for planning and permitting do dovetail with our zoning reform. Some very closely some are related. So, I think it might make sense for us to begin a conversation in committee about organizing our year, you know, the work in this committee around zoning reform and structuring ordinance projects around that based on what we're talking about and when and how to make sure that our work is aligned and how to, you know, if we're touching on a topic, let's touch on it at the same time and hopefully get through our work efficiently. And that's just because there are so many projects lined up for this committee, and they're all good ones, and we should try to get to all of them.
[Kit Collins]: There's probably a lot to be said on this, so I'm happy to take, you know, one swing at the question. I think that there's many answers to the question. I think it, in general, depends on the project. I think that, for me, I've always found it valuable to involve potential partners and stakeholders and experts and staff that are related to the project early. Of course, it depends on what you are trying to do. Like we've talked about, some of our projects are serving as liaison to bring together people who could work on implementing a program that's outside of our legal jurisdiction, but it's something that we have the platform to do. There are other cases where it is an ordinance that is something that we have the power to promulgate. If we're thinking about how to tailor this in a way that enforcement is going to go most successfully because we can do the legislation we don't do the enforcement. I found it valuable to involve those city staff and other partners who'd be involved in enforcement and implementation early in the process so that what we are creating can be that balance between in line with our values and our aspiration, and achievable and actionable and doable. So I think the short answer is, there's no right answer. But I found it valuable if, since most of our projects are deeply collaborative, it's I think it's completely fine to involve collaborators. Before the paper is formally introduced, as soon as it's formally introduced at the first meeting at the second meeting, depending on your goals.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate the, the question around this just, and I think that's. You know, the best encapsulation in terms of. You know, for the newer Councilors in the room in terms of. the ways that this frequently comes to us. Certainly, we all have some level of understanding of the problem in its totality and why we're here and for how long it's been going on and the big pieces of why the problem is so widespread, which is our incredibly high percentage of private ways and very old infrastructure and a lot of rehabilitation and renovation that needs to be done and is incredibly expensive that we can't currently right now pay for, capital improvements. In my experience, how this comes up to the council on a week-by-week, month-by-month basis is residents continue to raise the issue, as is their right, and it's important for us to be a forum for them to come to with questions, whether it's, this keeps happening, who can I talk to? Or this keeps happening and I live on a private way, and we very frequently have to be the bearer of bad news because it is incredibly financially burdensome to people who live on private ways to do ideal renovations in many of those cases and it is also financially infeasible for the city at this point to just assume all of those private ways because they have to be brought to code first and that's millions and millions of dollars. So in my experience, when constituents come to this body and they say, hey, me and my neighbors have been having this problem, it's an opportunity to have a conversation. And we've had that conversation at least many times in the one term that I've served so far. And it's a way to convey that information. And I think it's a way to continue to resurface the kind of the bottom line issues that partners in City Hall and the PPW engineering are already working on that is, you know, unfortunately, but necessarily long term projects and deeply involved with the capital future of the city.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Like we talked about at the beginning of the meeting, I think it makes sense for council leadership to keep a relatively close eye on this document and be in communication with committee chairs to make sure that this document stays useful by staying up to date on a reasonable timeline. So I would motion for council leadership to review this governing agenda monthly and for the full council to review it every six months in late June and late December so that as a cohort, we are discussing and keeping updated with what's where, how things are progressing, if timelines or goals need to be adjusted, that we're making those decisions as a group twice yearly.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being here, Representative Donato. Sorry to make you stand up again. Feel free to say so if this is a question, but are directed to the folks at the Office of Housing and Livable Communities. So these migrant, sorry, these temporary shelters are being set up because We're at a crisis level in terms of the lack of shelter space. You mentioned the permanent shelters that are coming online to be sort of the more long-term solution to this issue. Can you provide any sense of the status of the permanent shelters that are being set up?
[Kit Collins]: Got it. Thank you so much. And the reason we're here in the first place is because even permanent, sorry, the longer term shelter beds in the hotels and motels, those are actually, we don't have as many beds as we used to.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, President Bears. Representative Donato, sorry, another question for you, if you're willing to speak to it. In the couple weeks since the mayor started circulating information about this temporary shelter, I've heard from a number of residents who have asked, you know, obviously folks are coming here because they're in this crisis situation. How can we as Medford residents help these folks who might be coming temporarily into our community? And I know, again, this might be one of the many questions That can only be answered by our partners at the state level, but is there anything you can share about folks that here in Medford can have on their radar about how to help out?
[Kit Collins]: Understood, Representative. Thank you. And I think it's very clear that the bottleneck here is at the state level. So thank you for the updates that you're able to provide.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to suspend the rules and take 23474.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Pierce. Manager Ripley, commissioners, thank you so much for being here today. I appreciate the diligence and effort gone into the after action report. I appreciate my fellow councilors' comments on this so far, and I think that my initial observations from the report follow the same trends. really appreciate that this is kind of a comprehensive overview of the beginning to end of the process. But I agree, I think that, you know, for myself as one Councilor, I was hoping for kind of that diagnosis of, you know, these issues that we raised before the election, on election day, after the election. You know, I think that Everybody can relate to, you know, when you're looking at something that didn't go the way that you wanted it to. You have to start out, okay, what exactly, what were we shooting for? Didn't quite happen. You need to know the why. We need to know the why. None of this is personal. But as Councilors, as electeds, as representatives, as a community, if we're going to have faith that our three very consequential elections this year, which are going to see much higher turnout probably than the one in November did, if we can trust and tell the community to trust that those are going to go as well as we know that we can, we need to know exactly why, exactly what we're going to do differently than what we did in November in the lead up to it. So, you know, for example, you know, I appreciate For example, under election preparation, you're noting every part of that process. You mentioned at this point in time, we have destroyed all old supplies from the state, talking about the information sheet that was sent in and mail-in ballots that referenced an election in 2022. That's great. For example, I would love to see or maybe talk about in subcommittee, if that's a more reasonable timeline for this, what is our policy for when old elections materials are destroyed or removed from the office so that we know they will never be put in a ballot for which they're irrelevant, that kind of procedure. You know, similarly, I know one of the issues that I was hearing the most about on election day was the interfacing of wardens and voters at the polls around things like voter guides or how people were checked in. Totally heard that most of the wardens did a fine job, you know, did the role that they were hired to perform. You know, this is one of the areas of the city where we really have to strive for perfection because voting rights are inalienable and we have to It's just essential that everybody has the full accessibility to their vote and everything that comes along with that. So this is why this has been a project for us to deliberate on this and meet on this and want to go over this to make sure that we're all entering into a resilient election year together. And I think that the interfacing between the poll workers and those going to the polls, that is an issue where we have to, again, we have to strive for perfection every single time because it's a voter enfranchisement issue. It's a confidence issue. I know on the issue of staffing, that's one that we brought up when we raised this paper to begin with. And among our questions and directives, it's not just for this report. And again, I really thank you for the detail you've put into this. We also had a motion to the administration to say, clearly there's a staffing need. There's a demonstrated, there's an articulated staffing need. We wanna know how we can help expedite that. I think this council is pretty young. The previous council was unified in saying, the election department needs staff, let's get it staffed up. But if we need to dial down on that to get specific on here's exactly what we need in the next budget cycle for a fully staffed elections department. Let's have those conversations. If we need to get specific about here's how many wardens and poll workers that we had for the November, 2023 election. And it was a little thin and we know that turnout is going to be different. So here's what we need to shoot for. And let's talk about and communicate and make public the plan for getting to that number as close as we can to it. I think that these are conversations that would really behoove us to go over publicly, you know, for our edification and again for that project of reestablishing some of the confidence that has been lost. And ideally, hopefully to, you know, add to the efforts of advertising the poll worker positions. I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli's motion to continue this conversation in a subcommittee of the government's committee. I think that that will really help us to flesh out some of the additional detail and specific next steps that we'd like to see beyond this report. And again, I thank you for your time and for all your hard work all year round.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I want to again thank you for the level of depth in this conversation tonight. And, you know, I know that there's always an appetite for going deeper and working together to help us better understand the workings of your office and go over your goings-on, you know, talking about successes as well as the problems that, you know, I know that we have a shared goal of shoring up every year. And I'm glad to end this conversation or put a pin in it for now, you know, on the issue of resources and capacity. And I think in our ongoing conversations, I think that we'd all, you know, benefit from taking the time when it's available. Certainly I can understand that November didn't go the way that any of us thought that it would. And of course, that has an impact. There's a limited number of hours in the day. To have those conversations about the specificity that we're looking for so we can have that transparency piece, the prescription, the what would fix it, and a prescription is not a solution. You know, the solution is we're going to get the prescription will be implemented. And I know that that is a multi-agency effort. So I'm hoping that we can What was that? I'm looking forward to that collaboration. And thank you for your, thank you for your willingness.
[Kit Collins]: I'd like to withdraw the motion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Appreciate the discussion around this. either the third or the fourth time that we've discussed this in these chambers. And I, as we've said before, I appreciate the dialogue with my colleagues about this. I appreciate the very many community members that we've heard from about this. I withdrew my motion and I'll second Councilor Tseng's motion because I believe that this is the most actionable compromise that we have on the table right now. My alternative proposal went even further. It would have achieved pay parity between the school committee and the city council by 2027. As I've said at the beginning of all of our conversations on this topic, I really believe that pay equity between the school committee and the city council is the right thing to do. And I think that somebody has to be the First person to do the right thing. I don't know if that'll be us. I think that we need to move the ball forward. As a Councilor, I don't know what the, I don't know what a day in the life of a school committee member looks like, but I know a little bit about the role. And I know that the role is different in every community. I know a little bit about what it means in our city from our charter. And I believe that our roles are equivalent. I believe that the role of the school committee is mission critical. I believe that there's no space for passivity in that role. And that's why I believe that our role should be paid equally. Um, so this proposal advances compensation for school committee members at percentages that are aligned with MTA contract increases over the past 24 years. In any case, I think, you know, to the headlines of this issue. It's been 24 years since there's been a pay adjustment for the school committee. This is a one-time adjustment spread out over two years, and then it stops. We've already referred to the governance committee, apart from the motion that will vote on from Councilor Callahan, the recommendation to study within the concept of our, sorry, within the review of our city charter, which we'll be doing later this year, a mechanism for triggering some sort of automatic or regular evaluation of all elected salaries. And I think that's important. not so that the salaries necessarily go up, but I think that part of the issue here has been, since there was not any sort of regular mechanism other than the city council deigning to consider an increase, we've gone 24 years without considering it. And that's why the initial proposal was for a triple-digit percentage increase, because we had so much time to make up for. So with all that being said, I'm glad that we're going to have that conversation later this year so that we can continue having this conversation about how to align compensation with our goals and our values and how to promote the elected bodies that our community deserves. And I'm looking forward to voting on compensation increase, one that I believe is fair and reasonable and very certainly the product of compromise tonight. So thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Sorry, is there a song going on in the chambers? I thought I heard something. I've already made my thoughts on this clear in our subsequent couple of meetings, but just before I move the question, just to put a couple facts out on the table, especially since I know a lot of our deep conversation about this occurred in committee of the whole last week, but residents, I think it's easier to tune in during these regular meetings rather than committees of the whole. I wouldn't want this conversation to seem truncated. So just to remind folks that There was a whole conversation, discussion, disagreement, predicating this conversation and vote that we're going to take tonight. I said this the first time that this issue came before us, but where I'm coming from on this is really that I just completely believe that we can do more than one right thing at a time. This proposal, the original proposal, which this is less than, was 0.05% of a $200 billion operating budget. I think that we need to challenge ourselves to do more than one right thing at a time. And I really appreciate the reminder that if we think that paying one city employee fairly is a grievance to another, then we are phrasing the question incorrectly. And this has always been a tough topic to talk about because We have so much work to do when it comes to paying all of our city employees fairly. And I think what's been painful about this process is the knowledge that so many of those issues are unresolved. And that's not okay, and it's not acceptable. This is the one opportunity that this council has legally to instigate a pay increase for any city employee. This is the one appropriation that we get, and it's kind of a weird quirk of our power. But as folks who are familiar with our work and the parameters of our jurisdiction know, when it comes to the budget and its appropriations, we get to vote yes or no, and that is it. We cannot appropriate. And so this does put us in this awkward position where we can instigate these compensation adjustments, and we can't do that directly for anybody else. And I think for that, that we do in these chambers the entire rest of the year. This is a really unusual topic for us to be talking about the entire rest of the year. I think we can be we can challenge ourselves to be the allies that the community deserves by supporting all other city employees and bargaining units by one vocally supporting them and standing with them and advocating for them and also by doing the bulk of the work of this council, which is doing the ordinances and the zoning and the business development work. in this chambers in collaboration with the administration, in collaboration with private partners that will bring up the city's bottom line and enable us to, as swiftly as we can, roll out improved living wages for all city employees, because that is all of our goals. I do not believe that this stands in the way of that goal, and that goal is not diminished by this change. And that's my opinion. Move the question.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you so much, everybody, for being here today. We really appreciate it. A lot to discuss here. I just want to start by saying I know that this discussion of this in the community has surfaced some painful and necessary truths about the underfunding of the schools and the need to provide every school worker with a living wage. I appreciate that that's been one of the reminders that's come out of the discussion I just want to frame with that as a reassurance that as we talk about raising compensation for school committee for the first time in 23 years that that is close on my mind to speak only for myself. City Council is no legal authority to make allocations within the school's budget. I'm sure that there's been times when we all wish we had that authority. We don't have it. This is one thing that we do have authority over. The mindset that I'm coming to this discussion with is We know it's been 23 years since school committee had a cost of living adjustment or any sort of rationale for a compensation increase. As a Councilor with a vote to change that, I feel a responsibility to change that. It's something that I have the responsibility to change. We don't have any jurisdiction over any other salaries when it comes to the school's department. This is one thing that we do have authority over. And as a Councilor, knowing a bit about Our job, knowing a little bit about the school committee members job though of course, not with that level of granular detail, but knowing how hard our school committee members work as all public servants do in our various roles that are, you know, hard to compare but all contribute to. necessary work of the public sphere. Contemplating an increase for school committee members is something that, you know, I've gone on record and say I think that these jobs are equivalent. I'd like for us to consider, you know, leveling pay between these two legislative bodies. But I'm just, I'm excited to hear the perspectives of my fellow Councilors now that we've all had a few weeks to digest this and to think about the amendments that President Morell and former Councilor Knight made during our first meeting on the topic. So I do have some proposals to bring to our discussion tonight, but I'll hold those until we hear from, you know, some of my fellow Councilors and others in the space. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate hearing from my fellow councilors about this. A lot to respond to. I already started out my comments with where I'm coming from in my overall approach to this issue, so I'll do my best not to reiterate myself because I don't want to bore you all. I'm going to make a couple of proposals. First, I do just want to, I do feel like it's important to emphasize this isn't about feel like this shouldn't be a controversial statement. This isn't about this school committee. This is about the school committee. Whoever is on it, any changes that we pass will be in effect. into the future. What, speaking only for myself, what we'll be voting on, I would vote on regardless of who was in those chairs, because I think that, and it was mentioned also tonight, compensation, the need to, sometimes it comes up, we discuss how should volunteers be compensated? Should we compensate volunteers? How should boards and commissions be compensated? I have been a little bit obnoxious in saying whenever it comes up, I believe that we should compensate members of all boards and commissions. I just bring that up to say, I think it's, It's really understandable that these conversations get personal. For me, this is not personal. This is about how I think this body should be compensated. Moving on from that. I appreciate Councilor Tseng's motion to raise.
[Kit Collins]: It wasn't a formal motion, a bit of a hint of motion, pre-motion perhaps. I appreciate Councilor Tseng's idea around raising school committee compensation to follow the same year over year percentage increases that have occurred in the MTA contract from the numbers that we received, which would arrive at that $22,105.60 number in the year 2025. If you make that in the form of the motion, I am happy to support that. I like that for a couple of reasons. One, I've made it clear I'd like to support a proposal for a school committee compensation increase. I've been clear about that. I think anything that we do at this point, I think it makes a lot of sense for it to be not effective immediately, but go into effect at the start of the next fiscal year and be phased in in accordance with the start of future fiscal years. If you make that in the form of the motion, I will support that tonight. However, I have also been clear. We are a legislative body. We make policy. School committee is a legislative body. They make policy. I don't feel comfortable as one Councilor Tseng that I know our job to be more substantial or more work than theirs because I frankly haven't seen evidence of that. So I would also like to make the proposal in the form of a motion that school committee compensation be raised over the period of four years to be leveled to city council pay, July 1, 2024 through July 1, 2027, first two years meeting parity with that MTA contract line number, and then closing the gap in 2026 and 2027.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for your deference, Councilor Scarpelli. So we have two proposals before us. And again, I say this a lot, appreciate my fellow councilors comment. This is a sticky subject. I appreciate the conversation that we're able to have about it. I know I've already put forth a proposal. Councilor Tseng has put forth another one that I also support. I don't know which of these will advance. Coming into this meeting, I know what I want to see is some increase for school committee members, and I would also like to see us create some sort of mechanism for regularly evaluating and updating and increasing school committee compensation and that of all elected officials in a regularized way. Maybe it's an automatic COLA increase, but I think one of the things that has made this conversation very difficult is that talking about school committee pay at all is an entirely discretionary conversation for the city council to bring up. And so it's been 23 years since we have, since I think it's been very murky, who controls that and why and how does it get brought up? And I think that that's just been a disservice to the conversation. All that to say, I don't know which of, if either of the two proposals that have currently been proposed will go forward. I'd like to propose a third towards that goal of setting some sort of creating some kind of mechanism for us to revisit this more than once every 23 years when everybody thinks of it. The motion would be for this council to refer this paper to the governance committee for consideration during charter review with the goal of creating a mechanism within the updated city charter to trigger automatic COLA increases and or compensation review for all elected positions at regular interviews. And I can forward that language to you, Mr. Clerk, if you like. And just to reiterate, the goal here is to come out of this with some sort of mechanism for looking at elected compensation so that it doesn't fall by the wayside for 23 years, because I think that that is one of the ingredients in this scenario when we haven't talked about it in a couple decades. And so when we do, one of the things we contemplate is a triple digit percentage increase because it's just been so long since we talked about it. Thank you, that's my motion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate you putting this into a visual format on the fly. I think at this point in the discussion, we've all spoken and heard and listened. There's a couple ideas out on the floor. personally, I think it's time to move the question. I think that in the intervening days between this goes on, the regular meeting agenda will pay time for us to reflect and absorb what we've discussed together, what we've heard from the public, and to think about path forward that makes sense now that we have some alternative proposals for us to vote on providing different ways forward. Sorry for my halting language, I'm like a nurse. I want to again reiterate, you know, I'll probably say this the next time this comes up as well. I do what I have the jurisdiction to do. You know, last year, a couple times, we were given the opportunity to vote on cost of living adjustment increases to non-union personnel while there were still unions being negotiated, while there were still union contracts being negotiated. And that was a discussion, which makes sense. I'm glad that it was, and it was brought up for an understandable reason. And I voted yes, because when I have the opportunity to vote yes on a raise, I'll vote yes on a raise. And I intend to do that here, depending on what my fellow Councilors support and what we decide that the best path forward is. If we had the jurisdiction to vote on raises for teachers and paras and custodians and other public servants, I would do that, but I don't. I'll vote for the raises that I have the opportunity to support. Um, and I just want to note also for folks here and folks watching, um, you know, if there are people here who don't usually attend our meetings, which, you know, I know sometimes people come to some meetings and others, it's super normal. Um, this is a really unusual topic for a city council meeting. We, a lot of issues were brought up that are more of what we talked about all the time. They can store fronts, the need for commercial development the need for business development, the need to reevaluate our zoning and our housing, and all the other things that are really what we interface with as residents on a day to day basis that is the bread and butter of the city council, and that all directly feeds into. the bottom line budget that affects how much we can appropriate to the schools for the schools to then appropriate. Once it enters the schools, we don't touch it, except for this. And I just also want to, while reemphasizing the validity of everything that's been said today, I believe that that work that takes up most of our time on this council exceeds by magnitudes in terms of what we can do in terms of revenue and support that feeds into necessary services in the schools and elsewhere throughout this community. it is more impactful than what will be at maximum, a 0.05% increase over as much as four years. And I don't say that to minimize the issue, the values behind the discussion are really important, but just to frame it in the larger discussion of what this council is trying to do all year long during budget season, creating more mechanisms and ordinances to bring more clarity and reality and long-term planning to our budget process, working on our commercial tax base through zoning and licensing and business development. That is all part and parcel of this work, and it is, in terms of dollars, more impactful. With that, I would move the question to vote on these proposals tonight. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I nominate Councilor Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Was I talking to this one just for now? Just for now? Thank you so much to my colleagues. I feel very honored to be starting my second term in the company of everybody here. very honored to commence our term together working as a unit. I see the role of vice president as being the person who seeks to facilitate the smooth and effective work of this council. I think this is a body that strives to be professional and effective, proactive, and prolific at doing our duty, which is to pass policies that make life better in Medford. I look forward to working with President Bears to set the conditions to make us all individually and collectively do that work as effectively as possible. and to have a term together that we can feel proud of and be accountable to the people that put us in these chairs. Thank you so much.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I think the resolution speaks for itself. Motion to have all of our previous city council rules go into effect to govern this body.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, for the benefit of our newer councilors. This is to ensure that all papers that haven't been dispensed with in one form or another from the previous term to remain live in this session. So I have a motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. This was on the draft budget ordinance. We met with the chief of staff and the finance director. We looked at the administration's draft of the budget ordinance. We reconciled it with the subcommittee's proposal. We looked at areas of alignment, and we talked about next steps for coming to a compromise on the long-term planning part of the ordinance, and I motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Hang on, I left the relevant paper down there. The clerk has some extras, bear with me. It's my first time vice-presidenting.
[Kit Collins]: 24006 offered by President Bears's resolution to propose a 2024 2025 Council governing agenda be it resolved by the Medford City Council that councilors submit items to be included in a 2024-2025 Medford City Council governing agenda document, in parentheses, draft template attached in this packet, in parentheses, that will guide the work of this council and its committees during this term, and be it further resolved that councilors submit items to the city clerk by Thursday, January 18th, 2024, for further discussion in committee of the whole. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng we'll go to
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. President Bears, then Councilor Rosario. Councilor Rosario, and then President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Do I have a motion to approve and a second?
[Kit Collins]: Great, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. 24007, offered by President Bears. Resolution to amend rule 33 of the rules of Medford City Council to establish standing committees. be it resolved by the Medford City Council that rule 33 committees of the rules of the Medford City Council be amended to the following. After the organization of the council, the president of the council shall form and set standing meeting times for the committee of the whole and the following standing committees. Administration and Finance Committee, Education and Culture Committee, Governance Committee, Planning and Permitting Committee, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, Public Works and Facilities Committee, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. All councilors shall be considered as members of each standing committee. The president shall name those members of each committee, including its chair and vice chair, who are authorized to vote on matters in the committee. All other members of each committee are not authorized to vote on such matters in the committee. A quorum of the committee shall be determined on the basis of voting members only. Each committee chairperson shall form subcommittees and appoint members of subcommittees as needed. The president or committee chairperson will give way to committee and subcommittee appointments via the longevity and interest of such appointees. Resolutions, ordinances and other papers are referred to committee by a majority vote of the members at a regular meeting of the City Council. If a councillor requests, the committee chair shall place any paper referred to the committee on the next scheduled committee meeting agenda or the agenda for another scheduled committee meeting. be it further resolved that papers and committee be referred from 2022 through 2023 subcommittees to 2024-2025 committees as described in the attached memorandum describing the proposed updated council committee structure. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Any further discussion? Motion to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. 24008, offered by President Bears, resolution to review and update city fee schedule. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the fee schedule of the city of Medford, appendix A to the city ordinances, be reviewed and updated. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Any.
[Kit Collins]: Any further comment from my fellow Councilors? On the motion. On the motion by President Bears to refer this paper to the planning and permitting committee, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The paper is referred. 24009 offered by President Bears's resolution to request Board of Health implement winter eviction moratorium. Whereas many cities and countries prohibited evictions between November 1 and March 31 due to winter cold that puts lives in danger and whereas Massachusetts has yet to implement a statewide policy to protect families from becoming unhoused and put out on the street in dangerously cold weather, and whereas over 1,200 households were evicted in Massachusetts in the winter of 2022 through 2023. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that the Board of Health declare an annual state of emergency and implement an eviction moratorium each winter to protect the health and safety of residents who face potentially fatal illness if evicted during the winter. President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. We'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Kit Collins]: Do I have a second for the motion? The motion was to refer to the Board of Health. On the motion to refer this paper to the Board of Health, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: on the motion to table by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? We're at the 23-412, which is already under unfinished business. We're just motioning to table that, but not to a specific date. All in favor?
[Kit Collins]: All opposed? Motion passes. It stays on the table.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. the good landlord tax credit. This is kind of the colloquial phrase for a local option that was included very recently in the state tax relief package under Governor Healey. Essentially, this provides now a new way for cities to give a property tax break to landlords who choose to keep their rents below market rate. So it is a way to, in different framings, either incentivize or reward or thank, if you want to put it that way, small landlords who opt to offer more affordable rents to their tenants. It's not a one-size-fits-all mechanism. Cities can have several levers that they can pull on. They can choose up to what percentage of property tax to exempt landlords from. They can choose whether to enact this option for landlords who, oh, I always get this wording messed up. You can enact this if rents are affordable up to 200% AMI. We have the option to narrow it so that it's just for landlords who provide only much deeper affordability. That's like a whole spectrum that this council could investigate and decide what might be the best fit for this community, and all communities have that option. So there's a lot to deliberate on to explore this option further and decide what might be the best fit for Medford, for our landlords that are offering low market rate rents, all towards the goal of incentivizing small landlords to do this, because we have such an acute and ever-worsening affordable housing scarcity and crisis in Medford, as we do throughout the region, and as a way to make making that choice to offer affordability a little more doable for landlords and to further incentivize them to do so. And so my motion is to send this to the administration and finance committee where we can have a start discussion about it with our chief assessor and our finance director about implications for the city and get their insight on how to implement this.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, now that we have approved the resolution to adopt committees with titles, I should just amend this to refer to the Administration and Finance Committee and not committee.
[Kit Collins]: City Council. 24 011 offered by President Bears resolution to request update on Wellington Circle study next steps. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the traffic and transportation director provide an update on when the city of Medford in partnership with mass dot district for plans to initiate a project through the mass dot project development process to implement the
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comment? Councilor Kalan.
[Kit Collins]: Do I have a second on the motion? On the motion to refer to the Traffic and Transportation Director, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Aye.
[Kit Collins]: Congratulations. Now you have to come up and give remarks.
[Kit Collins]: All those in favor?
[Kit Collins]: All opposed? Motion passes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. A motion to take from the table papers 23463 and 22605, both for a third reading.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Just by way of quick recap for the new Councilors in the room. Again, this is an update to the existing Chapter 70, which governs solid waste in Medford, how we deal with it. The updates align our current ordinance with best practices promulgated by MassDEP. We worked closely with the Planning Development Sustainability Office and the DPW Commissioner to make sure that this would align with what we are looking to do to hold the waste haulers in our community more accountable to our goals for having this be a smooth and efficient process for residents and businesses, as well as getting us closer to our waste reduction goals.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. Thank you for being before us again. We always appreciate you keeping us updated meeting after meeting. I would second the motion to table this to a date certain, and I certainly appreciate it. I know you've put time into keeping us briefed on where negotiations and putting together the agreement is at. I think you've done a wonderful job of putting the project into scope pretty efficiently for us in the past, and it's my hope that if we meet on this at our first or second regular meeting in January with those final details ironed out, hopefully we can approve this and dispense with it and get you and the offices on to the next step.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate you bringing this forward. Vice President Bears, we've spoken at length already in previous council meetings about the original reasons for bringing forward the request for an election postmortem and report, the errors and mishandlings that happened on election day, which again, were addressed, which should not have happened, and we need to know exactly how they won't happen again. And then the issues and mishandlings that happened leading up to the recount and needing a full accounting of why those happened and how exactly we'll know they won't happen again. To me, this is on the institutional scale, an example of people don't plan to fail, they fail to plan. We've discussed how going into this election, There were serious concerns about the capacity of the elections department because its staffing had dropped so low below its previous levels. And I think we really need to see, we need to see the diagnostic of what exactly happened and why. And we need to investigate. First, the Elections Commission, the Elections Department, and then as a community, as a council, we need to investigate what needs to happen so that we can go into our three very consequential elections in 2024 with the Elections Office and the Elections Commission feeling professional and organized and competent so that every voter and every resident in Medford can feel confident. about the three, again, very consequential elections that we will have in 2024. And I do think it bears emphasizing that by the time that we hear back from the Elections Commission at our January meeting, it will be less than two months until the first of those three elections. So I think everybody shares a sense of disappointment that it's necessary to have this conversation at all, that it's necessary to put a deadline on it because we haven't gotten a really any response so far. But if it takes imposing accountability at the outset until this commission and the department can be imposing accountability from within, it's non-negotiable. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate you asking the question in a public forum. My impression is that nothing is certain here. We got this heads up that Councilor Scarpelli, thank you for sharing that. My impression from receiving that same communication a couple weeks ago is that this is still in flux and the mayor is still in conversation with state partners who is in conversation with this landlord to determine when the state picks a site, will it be this one or will it be another one? And I think in this case, no news really is no news. So I just don't want us to get ahead of ourselves. It's also, and again, I think if this were to go forward, we should get solid answers from the people who really know for sure. But I think the conception of this temporary shelter is not to be a months long for any of these migrant families. It's more like away station families would stay for a couple of nights, so I don't think it's in any way certain that this would cause a burden on our public school system because we're not going to.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And yeah, I think it's certainly, certainly be great to circle back with the executive office to ask the question of what's the status? Is this going forward? I interpreted that email as not, we're extending this so that families, any given family will stay through June, but rather this will remain a way station for two or three nights at a time, just for a couple more months. So certainly appreciate all the questions asked. My assumption is that this is just certainly still up in the air as many, you know, large infrastructural, you know, sure social infrastructural or if I could. I also think that, you know, certainly asking for an update I'm sure that, you know, trying to sort this out at the end of the year. but sort of recentering on the state. We know that we have a shelter crisis in Massachusetts at this time of year. If this is an opportunity where marshaling state resources, Medford can be a port in the storm for vulnerable migrant families, I think that's another important safety piece to put into the conversation is the lack of safety that's putting these families into the situation to begin with.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Garabiello, it's been an honor to serve alongside you. Nobody knows I have the best seat in the chambers because Rick has the best gossip. You've always offered me advice, unsolicited advice that's been true every time, solicited advice that's been very useful. You know, I know that you care about the success of this community, and you care about the success of this city, and you care about the success of this council. No matter who's behind the rail, you want us to be doing the best work that we can for the benefit of the people that live here, and that's evident in everything that you do and how you spend your time. So thank you for your partnership with me. Thank you for working with me in good faith every week over the past two years. Thank you for your service for so many years, and excited to see what you do next. Thank you very much.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight, we're sorry to see you go. You leave big shoes to fill on this council. I know a lot of people have remarked upon it, but Your depth of institutional knowledge has been such an asset to this council in the two years that I've been involved. We're going to need somebody to step up and learn every line of parliamentary procedure to save us from those future kind of borderline situations. And we're like, oh, is that a simple or a super majority? Because we always counted on you to know that. But in all seriousness, I think that your respect and your affection for the city is spelled in the rigor that you've always brought to this role, you have a razor-sharp sense of right and wrong, you don't suffer fools gladly, and I think that there's been many topics that we've discussed on the council, many papers that we've deliberated where that has been an asset to the outcomes because we've always been focused on making sure that the city is headed in the right direction and that the council is doing the right thing, that the council is doing its job as you see it. And that's always been very clear and I as one council have always appreciated it. Best of luck to you and your family and everything that lies before you. Thank you for your service. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Maybe this will be one of the last very long list of unenviable tasks in your tenure as president of the City Council is calling on people to then speak about you. Well, Nicole, it's hard to know where to start in congratulating you on your two terms. Surely this must be one of the densest tenures of any Medford City Councilor to serve two years during a pandemic and then two as president. It's pretty remarkable what you've been able to accomplish in your two terms. And I think, you know, a phrase that I heard from you that I learned from you is occupying spaces that weren't designed for people like you. I think often about how you were running for city council two years before I did in completely certain terms. gave the way for myself and people like me to think about engaging in civic life in ways that are not traditional, that never felt possible or likely. And that's a gift that you gave to not just myself for this opportunity, but for the community of Medford for allowing, you know, representation to blossom and become better and become more representative. And as that continues to expand and to blossom over time, you will have been a crucial ingredient in that for future generations of Medford City Councils. I think it deserves repeating that you've presided over a really effective, a really civil, a friendlier Council than has always been true and I think that's a real benefit to the effectiveness of this Council I think that's a benefit to the community. I think that it makes City Hall more welcoming and inclusive space. And that's just so important and that will continue after you as well. so many projects that I hope that you can really feel the gravity of as you leave office. You were pushing for our zoning overhaul for two years before I was ever elected, and that's going to be a defining feature of the term ahead. In so many ways, you've teed us up for, you've teed up the future council, perhaps the council after that. for success with the projects that you've advocated for, that you've worked for, with the relationships that you've cultivated with members of, with City Hall staff, and with the new and better expectations that we have come to set for this City Council and that residents and staff have come to set for this City Council. So my hope for you is that you feel as positive and as proud about your tenure on city council as everybody else does, because it's a gift to leave us in such a position to be so much more effective and inclusive in our future work. So thank you for that. Thank you for the sacrifices that you've made to be here. And I know that your life after city council will continue to be extremely full and busy doing incredible work on MIT campus, as well as taking care of the cutest two-year-old in Medford. But I, too, hope that we can lure you back in in the future. Thank you so much, Nicole.
[Kit Collins]: I would nominate Councilor Bears for President.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Bears? He stays full name. Yes. Councilor Isaac B. Zach-Bears. I'm not going to. Councilor Stephanie.
[Kit Collins]: Even though this is the non-binding vote, we'll do this again in January. I want to thank my co-workers and future co-workers for their support and I look forward to supporting the work of the council over the coming year. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Thank you, President Morell, sorry, to the chair you're sitting in, for introducing this paper. I thank you to everybody who's reached out over the past several days and took the time to be here tonight. I want to acknowledge, I know that there's a lot of engagement around this issue. I know there's a lot of strong feelings about this proposal. And I just, before I state my own thoughts, I just want to acknowledge that and thank you for being here. Thank you for engaging in this process. As Councilor Bears said, this is a process. This is the initial introduction. This is what this process looks like coming up and sharing opinions and working through things together. Thank you for being here. Want to use my time to explain my support for looking into this proposal, my support for achieving pay equity between the city council and school committee, my view on what this proposal is and what it isn't. I do not believe that this is in any way incompatible with what I think has been a core and shared goal of the City Council, at least in the one term that I've been a part of it, which is supporting all of our public school employees, supporting Medford Public Schools, and trying to ever improve the conditions of everybody that touches our public school systems. The students, their families, the teachers, the paras. all of the workers in our schools that help students and students' families thrive. I do not believe that this proposal is incompatible with that shared goal whatsoever. I think that this the equity between the school committee and the city council is something that I've wanted to, that I've hoped to have the opportunity to vote on ever since I first took office. These are two elected bodies. I know how hard we work. I have some glimmer of perspective of how hard the school committee works. They have responsibilities that we don't. I think it is outdated that our bodies are paid differently. That is the core reason for my support for this proposal. And even if it were to stop right there, that would be enough for me. But I see that this draws in a larger conversation about what we can and can't do in Medford, what we have and haven't done in Medford so far, especially every June during budget cycle and really all year round. If you watch the city council meetings, if you watch the school committee meetings, we are constantly talking about the resources that are afforded to Medford public schools, the people that work in them and everybody that experiences the work that is done in those buildings. And we are constantly in this conversation about why aren't we doing better and how can we continue to do better to better value and better resource what goes on in the schools, and better value and better resource the people that do the work of the schools. This proposal, I think, has brought up those values and those feelings and that imperative that we have to keep doing better. What I don't believe is that this is an either-or, and what I don't believe is that this is a zero-sum game. I know that if this proposal were to go forward even as written before amendments, This is not, this would not take from the same bucket of money that would otherwise go to the workers that contribute to MPS students experience. Hang on, please. Thank you, thank you for letting me speak. This year, we found out that we had a 25 million sum of certified free cash, $25 million. When we talk about what we can and can't do in Medford and what we have and haven't done, I think that we need to stay, I try to stay, laser focused on what our real opponent is. Our real opponent is austerity budgeting. I believe that we have the money to value the people who choose to nominate themselves for school committee and go through the process of running and seek election and serve in that role. that we have the resources, that we can marshal the resources to do better by everybody who contributes to the Medford public school system. We talk about it all year long. We talk about how little authority the school committee, sorry, we talk about where the city council's authority lies and doesn't lie when it comes to making direct appropriations to our budgets, including the school budgets. We talk about this. all the time, often in great frustration. We don't have the power to influence bargaining units here in the city council. We don't have the authority to make appropriations whatsoever that is out of our purview. I know, speaking for myself, there's been countless times when I wished it was in our purview, because I'm so frustrated by what I see in the line items in the budgets that we have to vote yes or no on, because that's all that we can do on those budgets. So when it comes back to this proposal, Due to the constraints of our jurisdiction here, this is something that we are legally allowed to vote on. And there are many things that we will never have the opportunity to vote on, because that is not within our purview. When something comes in front of me that is an opportunity to discuss and interrogate, is this an opportunity to do a good thing? I want to take that opportunity. And I do not think it is in any way incompatible with continuing to do better. in the many areas, the many school-related areas where we need to keep doing better. It's not a zero-sum, and it's not an either-or. I look forward to hearing the discussion tonight, and I look forward to continuing to hold ourselves accountable to do this right, and to do right by all of our public employees, and to do as many things right as we can, all at the same time. And I don't think that we have to choose between one or the other. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. It's okay. There was a lot of, it feels cheap to say, there was a lot of really important perspectives shared tonight. I feel like even just saying that doesn't really do it justice, but I wanted to leave the last word to a lead sponsor of the paper. I did just wanted to quickly clarify one of my previous comments, because I think when I mentioned the free cash number, I was unclear, and I apologize for speaking unclearly. I was nervous. What I really meant to say was to try to recenter my comments on what I think is the most important part of most of the conversations that we have in the city council, which is that tight budgets are a choice. And they're not a choice that we make in this branch of government. I hope that a silver lining of this conversation can be elucidating for this body and for the school committee and for the residents, how our budgets get made. It's an ongoing process of making the budget every year. And for us, it just means approving it. We cannot appropriate, we cannot weigh in on collective bargaining. We cannot move money from one salary to another. We're sorely limited in what we can do. And I hope that this ongoing process allows us to have the conversation with the community how our budgets are shaped, and who shapes them, and what limited power lies where, because I think it's beneficial for the community to get a better sense of how that pie gets baked. But I think what makes me frustrated, what I hear in this room tonight, is that we, the administration, willfully keeps urgently needed funding away from the people and services that need it, year after year, on a scale that exceeds by magnitude the scale of these proposed COLA increases. And that is what I'll be focusing on as we continue to discuss this. And I hope that we can continue to center the conversation around this conversation and achieving equity and just what we need in our operating budget year after year. And I thank you to everybody who brought that to this conversation tonight and will in the future. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to say, excuse me, thank you for bringing your concerns to us tonight. Glad to hear that we have some action steps we can quickly take on the construction infractions piece of things. really appreciate you speaking to, especially appreciate you actually reading the housing production plan.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I think that's probably the average way to read it. But I think that your comments resonate with a lot of the work that we've laid out for ourselves on the council. We've been trying to work on this term and we have a lot more ahead coming up over the next two years. I think that aligning the goals of the housing production plan in terms of making sure that the development we're building is not exclusively or heavily weighted to luxury development, serving a wide range of users and households is deeply embedded in the work that we're trying to do through our zoning overhaul which we're very much gearing up for. We have a condo conversion ordinance that's still in progress so there are some, there's some ongoing council projects that touch on exactly what you're speaking so just encourage you to, you know, we'd love to, you know, have you be engaged in the public process and those as they unfold and These are projects that have come about because of what the community has said. We want housing to look like and not look like in Medford, so we welcome your continuing participation in the high-level policy that we try to implement to make sure that we don't just turn into a community of luxury condos where nobody can afford to live in.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'll echo that. I'm excited to vote on this tonight. I appreciate your office and the consultant making yourself so available throughout this entire process. And to echo what President Morell said, if there's a lack of deep questions and comments tonight, it's because we've had so many opportunities for that in recent months and weeks. I think that the recommendations that came out of the CD board, they affirm what's distinctive and significant about this district, its transit proximity. Had some really interesting conversations with your department about making sure that this is dialed in to have the right incentives for like really what we're trying to promote in this district, excited to see what comes out of this and you know for residents who are, you know, further curious about what this means for Wellington and in the greater context of, you know, development and rezoning and Medford, you know, as we talked about the last time a couple weeks ago. We still have the opportunity to look at the underlying zoning in the course of our already planned zoning overhaul beginning next year. So we'll continue to talk about Wellington and the conversation of comprehensive rezoning for Medford. But for today, excited to hit the deadline on this for state compliance and excited to make sure that this works in concert with the rest of our zoning for Medford. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Roehl. So this is a project that we've been working on in subcommittee since March. The real seeds of this project were in the Solid Waste Task Force that met for a lot of 2022 under the direction of Director Hahn and consultants towards the goal of looking at tools available to us to start our next waste hauling contract with best possible deal for the city both in terms of cost effectiveness and in terms of progressing towards our zero waste goals which of course is integral to our overarching sustainability goals and one of the things that came out of that conversation not just recommendations for our next waste hauling contract was actually to tweak the existing Medford legislation around solid waste in Medford to make sure that we had the legislative foundation to make sure that we could hold our future waste hauler vendor to account in accordance with our sustainability goals. So in the Subcommittee on Ordinances and Rules, we worked closely with Director Hunt and her department. There are a couple main changes that we made, but overall we just took our existing waste hauling ordinance, which was pretty outdated in a lot of ways. So we made sure that it was updated to align with best practices coming out of the MAS DEP. And the origins of this document start with their template language. So it's been thoroughly vetted. This aligns with what other communities do in terms of waste hauling. One of the most consequential changes is that there's now a bundled service requirement, which essentially just says, if you offer trash pickup in Medford, you have to also offer recycling. And this is significant, because that way, vendors that only offer trash pickup cannot undercut vendors that offer both on price. And this will allow us to recycle the most in Medford in the most cost-effective way, which affects people on the city contract as well as everybody else. That's the main strokes. We did work with Director O'Connor from the Board of Health to make sure that this document aligns with current Board of Health regulations for waste haulers because they do, they operate the permitting side to make sure that everything is consistent to make this legible and understandable for generators as well as vendors. I do have a few last amendments that I'll make from the floor just on the definitions in article one after any further comment or questions from my fellow Councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Amendments? Great. And thank you so much for your comments, and to everybody who worked on this with me. So just quickly, just some quick amendments for Article 1 in general. This was the last piece that we didn't amend in subcommittee, but I have some amendments that were run past a whole host of department heads, and I have a list if people are interested in seeing. We just wanted to take section 71, 72, sorry, 70-1, 70-2, and 70-3, put those into contemporary language and make sure that everybody who ought to be, every department that ought to be mentioned in those sections so that they could be tasked with enforcement would be. So I can read off those amendments. They're just a short paragraph each, and I'll also email that language to the city clerk. Yes, I'll email it to you. have the draft queued up but I didn't send it unless there was any controversy about this.
[Kit Collins]: Who will speak for the cinders? Well, I don't know who speaks for the cows. So for Section 70-1, the motion would be to strike the existing and replace with, you should have this in your email inbox, No private property may become a gathering place for debris, refuse, discarded, or abandoned items or other waste. Any property owner who has received written notice from the Department of Public Works, Medford Police Department, Code Enforcement Officer, or Medford Board of Health to remove any such material from their property must do so within the timeframe directed. Second is to take the existing section 70-2 and strike that and replace it with no debris, refuse, discarded items, or other waste, including yard waste and construction debris may be placed or dumped in any public place or public way in the city. All waste must be properly contained and properly placed for collection on scheduled collection days in accordance with the regulations, schedules, and policies promulgated by the Department of Public Works and Board of Health. Any person who has been ordered by the Department of Public Works, Medford Police Department, code enforcement officer, Medford Board of Health, or designee thereof to remove any improperly discarded material or waste from private or public property must do so within the time frame directed. And then finally, to just strike 70-3 because that information has been subsumed into the proposed 70-1 and 70-2. Thank you, Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. Thank you, Director Hunt for helping prepare these RFP responses for us. Having looked at both proposals, I echo comments from my fellow Councilors, it's great. It would have been great to get back 15 excellent responses, but I'm glad that we got back two excellent responses to compare and look at. I, you know, I think it's hard to say no to working with a really experienced, really qualified consultant that knows both our community really well from working here recently, especially on the kind of well, comprehensive projects that we've hired them for. It's hard to say no to that kind of springboard. They've already put their arms around the community as a whole through the comprehensive plan and other projects with your department. And I'm also very encouraged by the work that they've done with other communities around Massachusetts and communities that share various characteristics with us. I think that That strikes me as very encouraging. I see that they've worked comprehensively with the communities, I see that they've worked with the communities on kind of more targeted specific projects, whether it's kind of a gateway cities approach, a creative district, the MBTA Communities Act, and they also have the comprehensive experience with the communities as well. And that seems like a really good fit to me, because I think that our voting overhaul will require both that bird's eye view approach and also the, you know, I think we have areas of the city where we want to take a really specific lens and say we're trying to do this here in accordance with part of what's, some of the goals that's been laid out through our various plans. You know, looking through Fisher's portfolio projects, it's really compelling as well. I know that they have deep experience in their region that they've done a lot of work in. The Innis proposal shows a real depth of experience in communities that share some characteristics to ours around Massachusetts, and I find that especially compelling. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Not a question, but I just wanted to thank you, pardon me, again for speaking to us about this topic. I know it, I think it speaks to the need for, you know, I know it's an ever-evolving project too, because protocols around private ways have been shifting for such a long time and there's been kind of a systemic lack of clarity. It's not totally surprising that this comes up every six months or 12 months. I think it's good that we're talking about options for getting the word out to more residents within our capacity, like a mailing or, I mean, even just, I agree, even a really simple webpage, I think, would help folks in our position who, you know, kind of have to dole out information about private ways to residents when it comes up multiple times a year to try to, you know, over the long term, get more people on the same page throughout the city. So it's great to have a conversation about that. I know that we're going to try to move the needle on that as we can. and I think it's to everybody's benefit, you know, to just be reminded of what we're working against here and the responsibilities that we have that govern that public funds overall and how unfortunately incredibly expensive it is to do what we really want to do, which is to, you know, have that full jurisdiction over all of the roads that all residents live on. I think it's just helpful to get sobering as it may be, you know, and reminders of what a big task that is for the city to do comprehensively and what we need to do in interim steps to try to improve resident enjoyment and, you know, equal enjoyment of residential roads in the meantime as we try to keep our eye on the prize for what will it take to, you know, fully adopt private ways over the long term and what are the reasons for doing that and what can people do in the meantime. I appreciate this conversation and for me it's helpful for communicating that to residents and I hope that it's helpful in our ongoing efforts to let residents know.
[Kit Collins]: I have a motion to receive and place on file and adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, really appreciate the work of the planning staff that went into this. I know there's been a lot of back and forth with the state, so thank you for staying on it for many months to make sure that we can be in compliance and really appreciate the presentation as well. Emily, thank you for being here. I was hoping, could you speak a bit more about the maximum height with incentives piece, how that works, how those triggers kick in? That's not feeling super intuitive to me. If you could walk us through that, I'd really appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate the councilors who brought this forward. I want to affirm what all of my colleagues have said so far. It shouldn't need to be restated that Our constituency deserves an elections office that is fully equipped at any time to defend full and fair access for every single voter. Individual staff members and volunteers and elected should not be having to fill the gaps or notice gaps or individually lobby or push staff members to do the right thing and correct issues at the 11th hour on election day. But this was the case last Tuesday. That was my experience. It's alarming. for anybody who works with City Hall in any capacity as an elected, as an appointed, or as a volunteer. That should never be an option, let alone be necessary. I think we all agree if even one voter is unable to cast their ballot because of incorrect mail ballot return information or unable to cast their ballot because they were you know, aspersions were cast about, can I bring my voter guide into the ballot? Or even if that concern is arisen, that concern isn't supposed to happen. That's why we have voter rights. That's why they're extremely important in this city, throughout the Commonwealth. If we are condoning those issues in our elections office, even for one voter, then we've failed. that's how high of a bar that we have to have for elections. As Councilor Scarpelli and others mentioned, we're in an age where, unfortunately, people are out looking for reasons to cast aspersions on the voting process. We cannot continue to open the city up to this kind of liability, and it's extremely frustrating because the City Council has brought up this issue before. We've tried to prevent this issue from happening before it happened for a second time, and it did. And we are saying now, as a council, we can't condone a disorganized and inconsistent voting experience, or even really a difficult voting experience for any voter. That's not how it's supposed to be. Voting isn't a privilege. It's a right, and it shouldn't be difficult. It should be easy. And it was difficult. I appreciate the resolution to ask the administration for appropriation to fulfill full staffing in the elections office. I think that's necessary. I think we saw it was necessary before this election. And now I think that we're again seeing the symptoms of an underfunded essential municipal service. I think that we need to see this office restored to its full capacity because this is what a lack of capacity looks like. We need to see what accountability looks like, as Councilor Tseng said, and we need to know what went wrong specifically, and we need to know what will change specifically. tomorrow, next week, the week after that, so that our multiple elections next year will be airtight and that every resident that has felt a lack of confidence or disenfranchised by this process can know that our next elections are multiple, very consequential elections next year will be airtight. So I hope that the administration is listening and I hope that they will respond with the urgency that we feel. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I have some general comments, but I know a lot of commenters brought up concerns about traffic in the neighborhood, which I know is an existing concern for the neighborhood as is. We brought our previous meeting on this topic. We did get some more in-depth analysis of how the MHA arrived at the recommendation of 0.5 parking spaces per unit, and as I recall, at the time there was even some discussion about are we even overshooting the need based on the analysis of residents and frequent visitors and staff. Since that was raised a lot in this meeting, I was just curious if the MHA wanted to speak to that. While we have this platform for further discussion, just because my recollection was that this number was arrived at after rounding up rather than rounding down.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: If there is no further discussion from my fellow councilors, I would motion to approve pending the public comment period, if that's the appropriate motion for this public hearing.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'm bringing this forward after some back and forth with residents who are concerned about excessive wildlife feeding that they've been noticing in their neighborhood that they've been unable to resolve through neighbor outreach alone. This proposal would be simply in the interest of curbing excessive or inappropriate wildlife feeding, not talking about rural bird feeders, not trying to steal anybody's joy, in residential areas in the interest of keeping homes and porches and yards free from animal traffic, food, waste, detritus, harms to peace and health. There are some nearby communities to ours that have passed similar ordinances just in order to enable code enforcement to intervene around this when necessary that we can look to as a jumping off point. So I would motion to approve and send a subcommittee.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you to yourself and Councilor Tseng for joining with me on this resolution. Transgender Day of Remembrance is observed on November 20th. This is the day to think about and remember those who have tragically lost their lives due to hatred and bigotry and violence simply for being who they are. And it's a day to contemplate those who paved the way for others in the trans and greater LGBTQ plus community to be able to live their authentic lives and thrive in our community. against the history of hardship, enduring hardship. So I appreciate this opportunity to reaffirm our solidarity with the trans community and to have a moment to contemplate sacrifices and tragedies that have come before us and the work ahead to a fully equitable and safe society for all. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. This proposal was brought forward by a constituent who's been active in local efforts to ensure that commercial sales of pets and pet shops is done in a humane way, is kind of observing best practices around making sure that commercial pet stores in our communities are not promoting or participating in inhumane raising and selling of pets. So this would be an ordinance project to look at what nearby communities are doing to try to take local action to make sure that is the case and to see what might make sense to tailor for Medford. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, President Morell. I famously was not in Medford for high school, But, you know, I think we can all relate to having that one or two special teachers that stay with us for, you know, as students that stay with us for our entire lives, that are mentors, leave such a big impression that we never forget about. And it's clear from what I've been hearing from friends about Mr. Lazzaro after the past few days that he was that person for just hundreds and hundreds of students. And it's hard to imagine having a having a greater impact on your community than that. So I'm just thinking of his family. My heart goes out to them, sending my most sincere condolences and It makes me wish I had known him.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell for putting this forward. Everyone who knows Henry and Evelyn knows they truly have some of the one of the most enthusiastic, energetic households in the city of Medford, and we're all very lucky that they choose to direct so much of their energies towards positive causes, typically, and for families in Medford, and I'm just so happy to see them getting some of the recognition that they deserve. So thank you, Henry and Evelyn, for a really lifetime of positive contributions.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate, uh, Councilor bears for putting this forward. Um, I see this issue in action every time I try to drive to my house in South Medford from Wegmans. Um, and it's this is a citywide issue of, you know, every apartment that I've lived in in South Medford. There's one intersection that I look at 100 times a week where it seems to be a cut through street that inevitably has a daycare on that street. And you see the people get impatient with the main thoroughfare and they use the cut through, they speed down it. And it's, I agree it is a citywide issue and it's horrifying to see it every time because you're just waiting for something, you know, hair raising to happen and residents shouldn't have to live with that volume of high speed cut through traffic. And I completely agree that the widespread nature of this issue throughout the city. I think it shines a light on how what we really need is the resources to support citywide approach. I think a lot of the time with these issues, we can't control for every person who would speed if they got the opportunity. It's hard to devise a perfect quick fix. Often those aren't as those aren't the solves that we want them to be. So in the absence of resources, you know, tomorrow to type of street redesign work that would really result in safer, appropriately speeded streets, you know, I'm hoping that our traffic and transportation departments can look at Willis Avenue with haste because, you know, it's been getting, you know, this seems like it's an acute issue right now in neighborhoods. Neighbors have been speaking up about it, and it's my hope that absent, you know, the resources for a redesign, at least the solutions that seem to be working best on Willis Avenue, when we get the chance to roll those out, we can be taking the best practices and hopefully adopting those for the other many, many problem areas across the city. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate you sharing that update. I also appreciate Councilor Scarpelli bringing this forward, and I appreciate your efforts to get out ahead of the issue. And I have a lot of concerns about this, and one of them is making sure that we're, since this issue is known, that we're being proactive with how we're communicating about it, and letting people know that this election is going to be, you know, has been above board, will be above board, and not sowing confusion. Because obviously, I think you said it very well, Councilor Scarpelli, that's the last thing that we need and it's unfortunate to have issues like this come up at this point in kind of the national mood around elections. And so, using this platform to reassure the voters, I think is very productive. I reached out to the Chief of Staff after seeing the update this afternoon with some questions, really glad to hear that. Manager Ripley already responded. to shed some light on the scale of the problem. That was one of the questions I had, as well as, you know, when we say checks and balances, I think it's important for us to know exactly what those are so that we can, you know, again, be reassuring residents about, you know, exactly the how and the why of this not being an issue for election integrity. So it's great to know, you know, the nuts and bolts for those who don't already know about how the state-assigned voter IDs. I didn't. It's great to know about that process so that we can all feel assured that, you know, extra ballots, if they're not disposed of before people get to City Hall, will not be counted. I think that's really important to emphasize. So it's unfortunate. I think it's important that we you know, be transparent about the mistakes that have been made and be transparent about how exactly they're getting fixed. And I'm glad that we are being properly hasty and responsible about fixing the issue. And clearly, you know, making sure that this type of snafu does not keep happening in this office is something that I'm sure we'll all be, you know, very keen on communicating with that office about in the future, because this isn't what Medford needs.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'd just also like to extend my deepest condolences to Dottie's family. This is a sad day for the city. I'll be thinking of her and of the family in coming days. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I find them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you so much for the presentation tonight. It's exciting to get to look through the visuals to go with the story of the development that you are developing. I think, you know, of course, all of us behind the rail, I think that we have the same vocabulary for the known challenges on that Mystic Harbor intersection. pedestrian safety, traffic, of course. I'm sure in the course of your research, you've driven down Harvard many times and seen it for yourself. I think what is exciting is that it's interesting to see the mock-up of the building now in the current context of this zone. And I think that what is exciting is that we're at a place in the city right now where we have some of these PDDs beginning to come in because we just kind of enabled this mechanism. We have a comprehensive plan that was passed this year. We're kind of at the very beginning of our ability to make decisions to have this be the first of many. And along with that, I think comes making some modifications to the environment to, you know, change the resident experience. as this neighborhood is changing and being zoned and being developed into, you know, I think we've had many conversations as a council about how to have this mystic corridor fulfill a lot of potential as a mixed use area with some incredible development like the type that you are developing and also have it be a real boon for residents residentially and as a place to go and enjoy the community. That's what makes me optimistic about a project like this going forward is the fact that, you know, we have some, guiding frameworks for how this is a part of a whole that we've already talked through and we've talked through with our city partners. At the same time, I am curious, and I know that you mentioned the cooperative agreement, and I know that linkage is a part of this in whatever form it gets passed. Because of the specific siting here, Mystic and Harvard, it's already a really difficult area to be a pedestrian. It's already a really difficult area to be a biker and to drive in. I'm curious if you have any kind of, even at this preliminary stage, if you have thoughts about traffic, pedestrian, bike lane, et cetera, mitigation that could affect the experience of getting there, the experience of residents for the better.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Rowe. I really appreciate the discussion here. I think, you know, this is housed within a broad topic that we as a Council and I think the community talk about all the time, but it's still helpful to hear the particulars, hear some of what you have in mind for a couple steps further down the process and put this in the context of those community conversations about this hyper specific area in particular that intersection that street address mystic of quarter in general, and our aspirations for making certain areas such as this area more mixed use more community friendly and also contributing more to our tax base and kind of putting it more concretely in the context of those ideals is very helpful so I appreciate the back and forth. President Morell just mentioned, this is just the vote on the PDD and not this project specifically, but I really do appreciate this process and the level of granularity that we're able to have. And with yourselves as proponents, I think it is, I think that, how to put this? It makes me feel good about a development coming in saying we're going to invest in the community and going through this process when really nothing is certain yet and doing the legwork and doing that and really responding to the values that the community has put forth to say, this is what we want for this area and taking the time to put forward an application that is still in many ways hypothetical, but doing the zoning changes to presuppose that and make it possible. I think it's heartening and it's helpful to go back to the community and be able to say, you know, we have all these conversations about making this intersection less scary to walk across, more possible to walk across, like imagine walking to Wegmans, something that feels completely impossible to me, a person who lives a mile away from it, you know, being able to cross that crosswalk and beginning to see the early seeds of, you know, a more vibrant corridor that is contributing to the city's bottom line in real ways and kind of the harbinger of a walkable, interesting, in our city. So that's very appreciated. And I'm excited to be at this. I think fellow councilors expressed this, excited to be at this stage. And yeah, and with that, I would motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, we haven't done that yet.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to table until our next regular meeting. I didn't get a chance to review them.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate you bringing this up, Councilor Caraviello. You know, we've talked about resident issues on private ways in many ways, for many reasons on this council over the past couple of years. And I think this is, you know, as we all observe, this is a really tricky issue where we're doubly constrained or constrained legally with rules for what we can and can't do under certain conditions on private ways. We're constrained by Our resources, I'm sure that everybody who works for the city would say, well, if money was no object, we would fix every street and trim every tree in a private way. Unfortunately, as we know, we're just not in the budgetary position to do that, nor to adopt all of the private ways.
[Kit Collins]: And I am not contesting that whatsoever, just flagging that that's the issue that we run into, because we know and residents know that they're entitled to safe streets and, you know, traversable sidewalks and the same quality of their environment as everybody else. And we're hampered by this rule and our resources. And that's really the issue, because I think we're all in agreement that these are things that residents deserve. So I'm glad that we're opening this conversation again, and I think that this is a problem that ideally has some, you know, some short-term action steps we can take in addition to the long-term one, which is just to get the budget where we can incorporate all of these private ways. More to the point, I would just, you know, ask if you were open to also inviting the tree warden, since this, you know, pertains directly to her jurisdiction, as well as the DPW commissioner. I think we could have a really productive conversation.
[Kit Collins]: Yep. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Rosh Hashanah was this past weekend, as Jews who are celebrating are well aware, and Yom Kippur is coming up next weekend. So to everybody who is celebrating, I say Chag Sameach, and may the new year be a sweet one. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Director Hunt and Ms. Storrs for being here again and for all of the context leading up to this vote. I appreciate the discussion around this, this week, last week as well. You know, as we discussed in our Committee of the Whole on this topic last week, you know, coming into this topic, my big concern was essentially, you know, What we don't want, I think what we know that nobody wants is to privilege any one part of the city over another. That's not what we're here to do. Nobody wants that. Even the folks who, you know, talking about Medford Square and how it's in desperate need of revitalization is the first thing out of their mouths. I think everybody's very aware that all across the city, we're in dire need of reversing chronic underfunding of infrastructure and resident quality of life and roads and sidewalks and infrastructure. We can go on and on. So, getting confirmation on, you know, what the diff is and is not was the first thing that I wanted to talk about in our committee of the whole last week. And, you know, what has led me to, you know, want to enthusiastically approve this plan and then get to, you know, see it run out over the course of several years and, you know, kind of get the experiential evidence of how it's working. It's clear to me, or at least it's clear that everything that we know about this tool tells us that we know that this is not going to take anything away from the general fund. We have a reason to believe that the infrastructure improvements this will allow us to make on the city-owned parcels in Medford Square may very well increase the size of the pie for the general fund. And that's important to me because I care a lot about revitalization of Medford Square. I would love for it if it was easier to bike down here and just enjoy the riverfront and not have it be a place that I have to figure out how to get to safely or meet friends at. I think a lot of people feel the same way. I think that that's a thing that a lot of people share, you know, we see that and the comprehensive plan that was passed last year and I hear that whenever I just amount in the community talking to people. And I think that that's I think that that's very much a community value and then the other part of it. is the possibility for this really to be that flywheel effect that will become a feeder source for the rest of the general fund. If we can see this as a unique opportunity to have this grant and develop this uniquely city-owned parcels right in the back of this building that are empty parking lots right now and have been for a long time, that's what's important to me. If that then turns into increased capacity for you know, I think that's a win win. You know, starting to refund the rest of the city. Um you know where there's. Where we see the evidence of chronic underfunding day in and day out. Um. I think that can be a win win. And you know, hearing that analysis, um, from Director Hunt and the consultants on this, um, you know, I think I'll echo what Vice President Bear says. It's let me just And it seems that at the very least, it's not going to be taking capacity away from the rest of the city. It may well increase it over time.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I want to echo Councilor Scarpelli. I really do appreciate the debate about this. I think that between last week and this week, I think that, you know, especially for residents of this community, it's important that we look at this from different perspectives and that we share that openly. And I think that I've made my stance and my opinion on it pretty clear, so I don't want to go on at length. or beat a tired horse. But the other point that I do want to make that I forgot to make before was one thing that I found really compelling from our committee of the whole last week is that defunds should the city council decide to appropriate them and approve an appropriation to this effect would in fact, one thing it could be used for is improving our capacity for Developing plans for Medford square for implementing plans from the comprehensive plan from the deaf master plan. Um, I mean, to me, that's just 1 part of looking at this as a tool that increases capacity that doesn't subtract capacity from anything else. It increases our capacity for getting grants. It increases our capacity for. taking our existing plans, comprehensive plan, et cetera, and making them more concrete and actionable as we're attracting development and investment in our infrastructure. But with that, I think I've said a lot about my stance on this. I would motion to approve for first reading after further discussion with my fellow councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to waive the remainder of the reading for a brief summary.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Monroe. I wouldn't wanna preclude any discussion at this point, but since this is just a procedural step, I would motion to refer the zoning amendment to the Community Development Board, pending further discussion, questions, summarization.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'm, um, I'd like to hear what my other fellow councilors have to say. I, um, I really appreciate the extremely compelling presentation from Attorney Dash, and thank you so much to the Alice family for being here. Certainly, the purpose for which you're seeking this deed amendment is, you know, I think it really speaks for itself. I think that's really in the spirit of what this council wants to do. I see Director Hunt's concerns, and I think that one thing that's very appealing to me is thinking through this process, which is complicated. I don't think that a deed amendment has come before me in my term on the Council before. I feel like I would appreciate a little more chance to get into the weeds with Director Hunt, perhaps to make sure that we are taking this opportunity and optimizing it. I would like to have that conversation. I know that we have a motion on the floor. I would make a motion to perhaps refer this to the committee of the whole, with all haste, to meet on this, to meet with all relevant department heads. I would like to make sure that I have a full grasp of the situation before quickly taking a vote. And I will say if what comes out of that conversation is the best case scenario is just to approve the deed amendment as written. I'll take that vote, absolutely. I think I would just appreciate a more in-depth conversation about it before we take that vote. So I know we have a motion on the table, on the floor. If we didn't, I would make the motion to refer this to committee of the whole and then back to a regular meeting too.
[Kit Collins]: I can't move forward.
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to withdraw my motion to refer this to committee of the whole for Councilor Caraviello.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Nothing substantive to add, but just in summary, on top of what Vice President Bears just said, I think the substantive change in A is to bring that use table into alignment with the community's goals for that area. through regulating mechanical car park uses to bring an alignment with community wishes and our comprehensive plan. The rest I think are technical corrections. And in some cases, Scribner's errors, typos that we've, we and other bodies have noticed are in the zoning ordinance in the, a little over a year that we've been using it since the first pre-convocation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. Thank you, Director Hunt and Planner Evans for walking us through this. As was just stated, I think that the primary goal of putting these changes forward was to remove some of these uses by right because we want to mitigate how much they're encroaching on our valuable land in this area that we could put to many other uses. And it seems like with these recommendations on the slight amendments that the city board sent back, there's kind of a secondary goal of making it more consistent. Who is reviewing the special permit applications when they do come in aligning that with the right board to be reviewing it and making sure that the same board is reviewing for the same types of uses. So I think that that is really aligned with what we're trying to do with the zoning ordinance in general, making things both blend with our use goals and also just keeping things more consistent user-friendly inside and outside of the city. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. I also appreciate this being put forward into the constituents that have been advocating about this, some of them for a pretty long time. As Councilor Tseng mentioned, this has been, I mean, this is always coming up, but it's been coming up over the past couple weeks over a couple of different topics. And this council has spent a lot of time talking about the lack of code enforcement resources in the city. This comes up every budget season. It's something that we, and by we, I mean as a city, not as a council, can't seem to fund and expand resources for that department nearly fast enough at the rate that we know there's a clear need for and that residents are on a daily basis observing. the need for. Obviously, rules are not self-enforcing. I think that these suggestions are really good to try to nip in the bud the problem of Airbnbs and things like them proliferating in Medford. And then we need an expanded code enforcement office to be following up on problems like these and all of the many other problems from potholes to obstructed sidewalks to overgrowth that residents are reporting every day. in our community, and I really do regret and resent that when we exist at these substandard staffing and resource levels for basic city functions, it means that residents have to be code enforcement officers, and I really don't think that's fair. I don't think community members should have to be that. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate this bringing forward because it's, you know, essentially an example of what we've been talking about is what can we do to make it so these problems aren't happening in the first place. And I think the housing stability notification ordinance is a good example because that's using our existing city communication channels just to distribute what is information that's already existing rules that already exist, you know, using an existing communication channel. I think that that paired with having a liaison to you know, Airbnb or a similar company, these are ways of saying, hey, before anybody starts doing anything that you may not know in good faith that you shouldn't be doing, here's how things work in Medford. That paired with more robust enforcement, I think that that's what we should be rolling out for every, you know, all of these frequent flyer city problems that we know we see all the time.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I also just want to say thank you, Mr. Scullin, for working with Councilor Caraviello to raise this issue. I'm sorry that it's taken you such a long time and been bounced from department to department to try to give voice to this issue. You speak very movingly about the need to, as a city and as working with our state agencies, to keep doing a better job of, you know, not always just catering to the average user, but centering people who are disabled, either temporarily or permanently, All types of people need to get on the T, and this T station was built for all of us. So thank you for bringing this forward, and I'm sure that we're all going to stay on it to make sure that there are disabled parking spaces near this T station. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate you bringing this up and I think that this, these two, this resolution and vice president beers is for it. They rhyme together because when you look at the experience of this particular household on Emory Street and I had the opportunity to speak with one of the neighbors there as well as with representatives from our Board of Health Department and There were a lot of details from this particular episode, which would not shock most people in the city who live with, you know, chronic code violations, you know, as a matter of course, but are still shocking to hear, you know, the way in which this particular, you know, quote unquote resolution was trying to be achieved to a truly unsatisfactory way, how much time it took. But we're talking about the need to reallocate or find new resources to make sure that we're spending money where it's going to be meaningful for our residents. Because currently, you know, I spoke to the Board of Health and they said, I think it was about a different household with a vermin problem. They said, you know, same thing that you heard. The one inspector that we have for that in this apartment is out on vacation. And when she gets back, she will start to work through the queue that has been amassing for her ever since she took her vacation, which I'm sure was extremely deserved because she's the only person doing this type of inspection in the entire city. No person is a superhero. This is an extremely severe misallocation of resources problem. And the downstream effect is that residents feel the lack of responsibility and the lack of communication. And they see their complaints going under investigated and unresolved. And that's not because our city staff are doing a bad job. It's because there just aren't enough of them. And I know that we all feel that frustration day in and day out when we get these emails and calls, and we know that we feel it every meeting. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate this discussion and I always find it, I'm always gratified we have the opportunity to make it clear. I think for the benefit of residents and knowing how to navigate our government, what specifically the powers of this council are and on what matters, we have to be advocates. And sometimes being the role of an advocate can be very gratifying. I mean, we've talked a lot about different ways of addressing this enforcement problem. Throughout this meeting we've talked about you know the resolutions that are out because we've talked about we've tried to do in budget seasons, we've talked about convening a meeting with the building department and code enforcement and dpw and the mayor's office to talk about how can we address this from multiple angles we've talked about. better allocating revenue to better fund these specific departments that we know need to be at least doubled, it seems like, if not more so. I also really appreciate bringing up pilot, you know, pilot agreements. I, you know, as a Tufts alum myself, I feel like it needs to be, I try to say as often as possible, This is specifically an area because the neighborhoods that that affects that Tufts puts a lot of I would call, you know, abstract or immaterial things into its pilot agreement with the city, and we have existing material needs that are going on that that are exacerbated by the presence of the university for all the good that it does. This is another issue where I think it's one where this council, what if it could would make direct appropriations more directly. help with these problems, and in a lot of cases we can't do those things, you know, just like making resolutions to advocate in the budget for allocations that should be made to put more resources into code enforcement and whatever else we need to start meeting residents' needs, you know, I would love to see us build up a process like that with PILOT as well, so that it's more related to the actual needs going unmet in this community, and not these, you know, less than immediately relevant community functions. When, you know, I mean, we've been talking about code enforcement for feels like five hours, you know, it can go on all week just talking about code enforcement with the issues that get brought up to us. So I, I appreciate all the energy around coming to this issue from a lot of different angles, I think that we need to advocate for all of it, you know, the stuff that we can do directly legislatively, we'll continue to do. We'll continue to advocate around the budget. I think that we should redouble our efforts to, you know, for this council to advocate around pilot as we do around the budget as well. But I appreciate everybody who's weighed in on this.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, where are we sending this?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Vice President Bears. I think that was very eloquently put. As I like to remind people, I'm a Tufts alumni, so this is my atonement. Just kidding. But as an alumna, I do feel a particular responsibility to speak up in this case for the Tufts resident assistants who are seeking simply just to collectively bargain and a fair contract with their employer. I also want to remind people that we're talking about an institution with a $2.4 billion endowment. This is the same institution with a $2.4 billion endowment that doesn't pay taxes to us and does not volunteer to help us fill the gaping holes in our various municipal civil service needs. Particular to the Tufts RAs fight, you know, I think that, you know, labor is labor and workers are workers and it's time to stop entertaining the narrative that seeking to collectively bargain is anything other than reasonable. I wish that Tufts would more enthusiastically respond with that attitude. All experts, I mean, all workers are the experts on their work and RAs are the experts on their role in the campus community, which of course affects the Medford community in myriad ways. They stabilize and counsel and provide logistical support for the dorms. And I think it's also true that the dorms that they serve have become more complicated and more needful in the past few years because of the pandemic. So I'm thankful to my fellow Councilors and community members for coming together to say, you know, Tufts has to quickly proceed towards a compromise solution and a fair contract because anything other than that would be Candidly, a truly bizarre waste of their administrative time and resources, of which we know they have many. And we know that there's so many more important needs that those could be put to, not just making the campus experience more livable for those living and working on campus, but for the community as well. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Very briefly, and I think that if I might speculate, I think that the point here is not that there's a strategy that should be taken, but just that clearly the process is broken and that's why we see these labor disputes, these labor struggles in our own community. And I think that we all want to see the overarching process change so that workers in our community, whether they're workers in our community that work for City Hall or workers in our community that happen to live on Tufts for now, that they can collectively bargain in a way that they can efficiently proceed to a just outcome. And I'm really heartened, and I think that this resolution and previous ones that the city council has worked on are evidence of this, that everybody behind this rail takes the opportunity. And everybody in this community, I think for the most part, takes the opportunity to stand with labor when they can on the actions that they feel that they can take. And behind this rail, I think it's our right to sometimes have different ideas of what is possible for us to do and what's strategic. That's our right. We have a diversity of opinions, but I think when push comes to shove, we are all doing our best to stand with the laborers and the workers in our community. With that, I would move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that Councilor Tseng covered most of what I was going to say relating to locking bins being actually shown to be a really secure way to rat proof containers, just you know, I think it's a common misconception that composting can increase rat problems, I think that's actually not necessarily the case, which is great for the city on a lot of fronts because of those locking containers can actually keep rats out better. I think that the bigger picture that we're all really concerned about, we all hear about all the time is that everybody's seeing rats everywhere all the time, and it's a problem. And this is something that we need to start being proactive about so that we don't have to resort to those rat extermination measures that I think nobody wants to use that are also a threat to other beloved parts of our ecosystem, like the bald eagles along the Mr. River watershed. You know, I think this is something that comes up a lot on the city council this is, you know, to really attack this in a proactive way takes money that we don't currently have in our operating budget. I think it would be great if we can align with our department heads and make sure that we're doing everything that we can be doing with our current resources. And we need to be pushing for that future operational budget so that we can have, you know, I think Councilor Scarpelli makes a great point. We need to have a standing working committee, working group, whatever that looks like, so that we're really addressing this problem and not letting it continue to boil over. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Appreciate Councilor Tseng for bringing this resolution forward with me. And I also want to acknowledge school committee member McLaughlin who helped us with the idea. And she actually liaised with Boston City Council member Mejia in Boston who worked on a similar resolution. I loved the idea of making an official proclamation to recognize Disability Pride Month in Medford. It's celebrated across the nation, across the world. disability has always existed, it will always exist, and like any other facet of diversity in our society, it should be acknowledged, it should be celebrated, and we should make sure that everybody across every spectrum of human being is adequately accommodated and embraced in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. And thank you both, Director McKibbin and Director Hunt for being here. Again, I appreciate our longer discussion about this and our Committee of the Whole that we just wrapped up. Definitely, I agree with the comments that President Morell and Councilor Caraviello just made as this gets towards finalization. And just for the benefit of residents who weren't watching the conversation that we had at 6 p.m., you know, I think that this, authorizing this contract, which stands to encompass so many of our goals for getting towards zero waste, cost savings for the city, just a better experience for residents and businesses. I think that this positions us to be in a very exciting place as a city and for the city. You know, for me, I don't remember when recycling became the norm. I think that happened kind of before I was a fully lucid adult, but I think we're at the point in society now where if recycling isn't available, it feels weird and it feels wrong to most people to not have that option. And I think we're at a place societally, where hopefully, you know, within the next 10 or 20 years, we'll get to that place with composting. And that's so important for just the experience of being in our buildings and the overall waste stream, not to mention being a large emission source to not be composting these organics. So I think that this is really exciting for the city to be in the position to be a part of that pivot in Massachusetts of institutionalizing, just something that we should be doing. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate Councilor Caraviello for bringing this forward. I took some time to read over the responses from Director Blake and Engineer Wartella that they sent over in lieu of their presence here tonight. One of the points that they mentioned is sort of in explaining how the current interventions at this intersection came to be. I thought it was very interesting. I think they use shorthand pilot to permanence for saying why we have these plastic barriers up now, which of course are not a permanent road intervention. And I think it illustrates to me, you know, why so many of our conversations about every operational and infrastructural issue in the city eventually comes back to money. I think that this is an issue that it is currently on the queue of projects where it sounds like the city would like to see a more permanent infrastructural solution, not classic barriers, not something movable, just something permanent.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. No, no problem. And you know no disagree with anything there I think that the point that, for me, the bottom line is, regardless of what we wish had been negotiated for at any point in the past. My bottom line is now we have to do what keeps that intersection, and that road as safe as possible. given the resources that we do have. And right now that means the plastic barriers I think engineer Wartella, I think I have the number right so that there's been 300 incidents near that intersection the past five years, unacceptable, anything that that can make that intersection safer is what we should do. I wish I mean this is why we talk about it all the time. that we can make every intersection and road and site of passage in the city of Medford as safe as possible to drastically reduce the incidence of any type of accident, because that's just the most basic service that the city should be providing the people who get around here. And we're not there yet. So I feel your frustration. And I think that this issue it does bring up a lot of issues that we're grappling with in the city and our lack of resources to do things that the way that we'd ideally like to see them done.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Director Hunt for presenting on this and giving us all the context around it. I certainly hear my fellow councilors observation about, you know, observations around doing things piece by piece. I completely empathize with that. I think that we're all, you know, think that this mechanism is kind of a bridge between what we have now and where we know we're going. We have the comprehensive plan. We have the existing character of the neighborhood. We know what there's demand for. We know what's currently there. And then we have plans to do a comprehensive rezoning and make sure that all of our neighborhoods are kind of brought into alignment with our comprehensive plan. So I think that this PDD mechanism is a way to make sure that we don't miss out on these opportunities while we're still ramping up for that comprehensive project. I'm really glad that we have it. I don't think any of us want to bypass these opportunities while they're on the table. And, you know, at the same time, very much looking forward to when we can do this within the structure of a comprehensive, you know, no or very few exceptions needed kind of zoning paradigm. So I would motion for approval after many of my fellow councillors additional comments. Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion to waive the comment period. I motion to approve waiving the comment period.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor comments. Thank you President role I appreciate this discussion and I think, in terms of my perspective on this to try to put it into a, you know, analogize it to something that most Medford residents, you know, perceive every day or drive over every day I would. hate for our water and sewer infrastructure to take a similar trajectory to what we see on our roads and sidewalks, where we don't invest when we could. And that deferred maintenance becomes more and more and more expensive, more so than if we had invested earlier on and tried to prevent some of those increased costs of fixing depreciated infrastructure. So trying to think about what's the more meaningful help to the constituency, trying to mitigate a short term to mitigate a rate increase in the short term, a small amount, or trying to sock away a fairly significant amount of money to deal with the backlog that's going to keep increasing towards doing some truly necessary repairs. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I thank the resident for coming forward to raise the issue. I think the council had the benefit of seeing some of the photos that the gentleman had took on his phone and I was picturing delivery trucks. We saw a gigantic 18-wheeler. It is, you know, shocking and ludicrous to see such a ludicrously sized truck for a residential street. Obviously, one of the services that the MPD does perform is traffic patrol, traffic enforcement. You know, this is a safety issue. There's a lot of the city to cover, but I think it would be, you know, if we know there are these priority areas that these huge trucks are taking advantage of, I'd like to see some increased enforcement around there just so we can change the change the norms around that.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn.
[Kit Collins]: Aye.
[Kit Collins]: Mr. Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Amy, thank you for being here. I don't feel entitled to you sympathizing with anything that I have to say. You have every right to be upset. I just, I don't want you to get up here and put yourself out there and may not respond. I just want to say, if you think that we're getting everything that we want, I feel like we're not getting anything that we want. I'm speaking from the heart here, person to person. I want everybody in the city to get a raise. We're the city council. cannot negotiate with unions. We can't make appropriations. It's why my drumbeat for the past three months has been about these charter amendments, which I hope that I would get a call from the mayor by today saying that she's something to the AG and she didn't. That's why my persistent frustration has been with our lack of power during this budget process. But it's not fair to me that your negotiations are not resolved. It's not at all fair. The whole process of bargaining negotiations of the city, I think, Obviously unfair. Not everybody should get the same thing. The people who are paid the least should get the most and it should go up from there. All that is to say, I don't want you to think, well, you can think whatever you want. But I want to put on the record, I don't think that what's happening is acceptable. I am looking at a situation where so much of what we see is deeply, deeply, deeply unacceptable to me, deeply unacceptable and unfair. And it makes me sad. It makes me sad, but I am aware of the legal limits of my power. So when a paper comes before me to give some employees a raise, if I have the opportunity to say yes to a raise for some people, I'll say yes to that. And I'm going to wish with all my heart that I had the ability to transmit that raise to people. that have to negotiate for it and I am sorry that I can't do more materially for you and your union in this situation.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and I thank my fellow colleagues for joining with me in this resolution and I want to thank everybody in Medford who reached out to us over the past couple days to advocate for making sure that the spirit of pride and the flag of pride and the celebration of pride is, you know, echoes ever more loudly from City Hall. It's important every month of the year to let it be known that people of all walks of life, especially people who are celebrating Pride Month. We're glad you're here. We support you. We want you to live your best and proudest life every month of the year, and that we here in the Medford city government, we're here to support you in that, and to let you know that you have allies behind this rail. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Rowe. I appreciate the thorough presentation that we've gotten and appreciate the targeted questions from my fellow Councilors. I mostly just have a point of clarification. All of the proposed traffic and pedestrian mitigation that we saw in the presentation, if this is approved, will all of those go forward?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you very much. I appreciate the thoroughness there. I think it's always helpful to see sign off from the CDB, from department heads. You know, to me, I think that this is something that I'm glad that we're starting the public hearing process about. This is a large commercial space. It's an underutilized part of the parking lot. I think it would be great to see another establishment here for residents to take advantage of. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: The next motion will be to approve the site plan review. Is my understanding correct that the CDB recommendations are attached to the site plan review?
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, my question was if the CD board recommendations are tied to the site plan review and do not apply if the vote gets less than five votes.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. It's a little hard to introduce words into this. climate, and I want to acknowledge that and I'm going to try to speak both my fellow Councilors and to the residents who are watching and I think that's very two very different audiences so I just want to acknowledge that. Here's my timeline. I went to the administration in May, and I said, these are my priorities, and I don't think I can vote for a budget that doesn't have these. I need an increase to the schools department. I need more money for the libraries. I need our zoning money back in the budget. I need to talk about the clerical union, and I need some guarantees that starting next year, the budget process is going to be better. And at that time, I think pretty loudly, I said, I need guarantees. These are these charter amendments that the budget process is going to be better. Next year. That was my bottom line because I found the council's role to be largely unmeaningful and I know that's especially hard to hear right now. But with this vote, I'm trying to put, and I hope that my fellow Councilors can, you know, I don't feel entitled to understanding on this tonight. But I hope that in time, we can all relate to the feeling of trying to put a desired outcome ahead of my feelings. And in this case, I have tried to find the utility in being a protest vote on this budget, and I've seriously, seriously considered it because this budget does not meet my values in many ways. Even with the increased appropriation to the libraries and the schools and putting zoning money that we should have already had in there back in the budget, it still is not the budget that describes the Medford that we deserve to live in and that our residents deserve to live in. But I just can't in good conscience say that me voting down this budget, being a vote against this budget, is going to be better for the people who live here then not. And I told the administration clearly, more clearly than is comfortable for me as a person, I cannot vote for this budget knowing that the line item is not going to reflect the values that I have, unless we have an assurance that with this budget comes a better budget process next year. And it's less than I wanted, but it's a role for the council that I don't believe we would have had otherwise. And it reflects investments in long-term budget planning that I don't think we would have had otherwise. And I can say, you know, to residents who probably heard me over the past three weeks saying, I can't vote for this budget if we don't have an assurance that the council, that the residents get to vote on the council's ability to make appropriations starting next year through a charter amendment. I hope that this, you know, that process is going to continue for me as one Councilor, that process has to continue. We have to put that, we have to put that to the voters. In this case, I think that this is, My vote is about trying to make the best of a situation that I can't celebrate, that I can't feel good about, but I'm trying to do the best that I can with what's in front of us. So that's the context for my vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: No, I'm actually just waiting to be heard. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think I've made it clear that I know how I'm voting, even though this is a very difficult decision, and I think that we have a, I know that not all my fellow councillors feel the same way, and you're entitled to feel derisive of that, and I don't regret you for that. And I hope you can understand that I'm coming at this from my own sense as well. And just to reiterate before I motion to approve, you know, this is a difficult decision. And when we talk about an individual fiscal year budget, I think it is hard. We can't not think about all of the budgets after that. It's hard not to think about long-term planning. It's hard for me personally as one constituent and as one councilor to not be overwhelmed by the scale of need for everything that both isn't being funded in this upcoming fiscal year budget and everything that is being planned for five, 10, 25, 50 years after that. And in order to not be paralyzed by that and to make a decision, I have to think about what's within my jurisdiction, what can I make sure is in the budget, that we're better off having in the budget than wouldn't be, that isn't possibly on the table to be. So that's where I'm coming from, zoning, schools, library. And if there's a way for us to get an edge for a more meaningful participation in the budget process starting next year, I think that's more than we could have gotten. Otherwise, am I satisfied? No. And if you want to tell a story about me being happy with this outcome, that's fine. That's a story. But that's where my vote is coming from. I motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President real. Just to add my perspective on this, I'm ready to get this done tonight I sense that they're my fellow Councilors, we don't, we don't have a super majority that's ready to get this done tonight. But my reasoning is, you know, I think that the idea of a stabilization fund is a good one. I think that we probably all share that. I don't think that's a minority opinion. Looking back at the past few years and thinking ahead to do we want this online for fiscal year 24 or not, past few years, we haven't been fine. We haven't been fine. We've had a pandemic. Ask residents, we haven't been fine. What's different about next year is all this one-time funding is going away. Do I think something catastrophic is going to happen? No, but if it did, I'd want to know that we did what we could to prepare. So we don't have to do it tonight. I think we should do it by the end of this fiscal year. If that means arranging for a committee of the whole on a special meeting next week, I'll make myself available, but I think that we should do it before the end of the fiscal year. And we have had several months to think about this. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Apologies, President Brown. I'm happy for you to open the meeting first.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'm excited that we've gotten to the point tonight where we get to vote on these. I thank Vice President Bears for noting that this is the sixth time that we've been able to meet and discuss these in public meetings so far this year and have the floor open for public comment and questions. But at the same time, you know, I want to reinforce for folks who are watching this meeting that this is the beginning of a process, not the end. You know, should these pass, this would be no different from putting, for example, a debt exclusion on the ballot or putting a CPA amendment on the ballot, as was done several years ago. This leads it up to the voters to continue to discuss and consider and then place individual votes on these individual amendments. I've said this before, but just to reiterate, you know, I think that these amendments would be additive for this whole community. Administrations change, but we always deserve a council that is truly empowered to represent our community members and act on their behalf, not just be a grandstanding body, not just be a rubber stamp. Right now, this council can't appropriate resources to ensure that the policies we do pass actually get enforced or if they are just left to gather dust. We can't hire staff to allow us to do our work confidently or effectively or with the resources that we need. We're not empowered to really collaborate with the administration to craft budgets that reflect what we hear from our constituents. So to me, these are important because these amendments would leave the community with seven more avenues. for meaningful representation in their city government, and that's really what it comes down to. The community's representatives should be able to actually materially represent them. So this is about you know, just making some important targeted tweaks to our 40-year-old charter so that we can start working for a better community now. Because I think that the work we have to do, the work that we've been trying to do, will be done better and faster with these amendments with a more balanced and collaborative government. And I don't think that that can wait, you know, half a decade or more to be able to work more effectively for the constituents. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and I think the two specific questions that Councilors are probably raised at the end are important ones to resurface for constituents I think if he's making a motion to have a committee of the whole on those two I think, I think that these are topics that we've talked about a lot this term already and I think that our city engineer and others in the engineering department have offered really helpful insight I mean just for me as an individual Councilor and resident. The issue of how private ways interact with the rest of the city. Obviously, it's it's genuinely confusing and they've given us good counsel before and I think that sort of that causal chain like if this then what if you live on a private way. Clearly there's still more residents that we have to reach with that information I agree that we need a better communication strategy for that. I just wanted to raise you know I, I, I think that, um, Yeah, no. This is clearly an issue. One, because it's come up again, because it's come up so many times before this term, whether we've been talking about in the chambers, and I know that I've had one-on-one conversations with residents. many times in my pretty short term so far. I've had to go to the engineer and ask him for insight that I then relay back to the residents just about the various issues involved in living on private ways. And the other thing that I think is important to note in this conversation in terms of, you know, what are the reasons that we're not serving our constituents and our constituents on private ways, you know, to the best of our ability is everybody is trying to make do with pretty scarce resources. I remember one of the things that I've heard from members of our DPW staff and our engineer in the past is, you know, matters of public safety are always prioritized when possible. But our ceiling for what's possible is really low, and budgets are extremely tight when everybody's operating on skeleton resources. And I don't think that that is always the decision of individual staff people, but just operating in a very austere environment. So I think that's important to bring into conversation, because when we're talking about safety of our residents and safety of our residents in our private ways, The decisions that we make and the decisions that the administration makes about the resources that we have to deploy around our community in the interest of aesthetics and public safety, that trickles down to individual cases like this. And so I think it's fair to say we need insight from this position specifically and that role specifically, but also to say, if we don't have resources to go around where most of the people who come to us with an issue on a private way leave that conversation disappointed, we need to take a hard look at our books and see what would it take to be able to better serve those residents. Because as I know, we've talked as a council about how expensive it is to bring a private way back into the public fold. Um, you know, those are residents that were that we are sort of agreeing to leave in that situation when we don't build towards a plan where we can bring those back under public jurisdiction. So I just wanted to raise the point that I think that this is this is part of the long term strategy to that we've been talking about all year is, you know, sort of lacking comprehensiveness. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I agree with that. I think that having a weekend opportunity is very important. You know, people have different schedules, different work schedules. I also want to note to Election Manager Ripley, I apologize. I think I misunderstood the previous motion we took. I certainly didn't want to preempt your office's opportunity to speak on the presentation that you've created, especially since this is an opportunity to get the word out to residents and voters about what to expect for our elections in September and November, so I know there's a lot of, you know, great kind of FAQ information submitted onto our agenda. Certainly, if there's anything more that you wanted to share or were planning to share relating to the Miss Paul elections, the sort of know before you go section, I'd certainly be eager to hear that from your office. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. Thank you everybody who's been here about the petition or to speak your mind on it. We appreciate all of your time and all of your perspectives. To reiterate some of my other fellow Councilors synthesis of what we've heard so far. We're hearing about parking enforcement, we're hearing about cleanliness code enforcement. I also heard about the prevalence of large trucks in an area that feels residential. It makes sense to me that this is controversial because we do have a thriving business center, South Medford Square live right by there, right next to what is a residential area and I think we always get these friction points where residential meets commercial and residential is residential and commercial is commercial and we're trying to make sure that both can thrive. Vice President Bears spoke to this at the top. We so frequently as a council are talking about the many, many, many holes in our code enforcement that we see citywide, whether it is cleanliness or whether it is taking care of tree stumps, or whether it is responding to issues on see click fix. Certainly we're aware of the same lack of capacity lack of effectiveness in our parking department as that, you know, takes its time to get up to speed, so to speak. I think that probably every resident, certainly everybody behind this rail, has just a laundry list of places where they don't see that consistent service that we need to see. And, you know, the large trucks issue made me prick up my ears because I know that's an issue that, you know, falls under state jurisdiction as well as city jurisdiction in terms of how do we regulate these huge commercial trucks on our residential streets and how do we make sure that's fair for both users, the commercial drivers that to get around businesses that depend on them, but the residents that are trying to have a human sized existence on their residential areas. All that being said, I think where we're at is how many of these systemic citywide and sometimes statewide issues are relaying at the feet of Oasis. that's where I'm coming down. And I think that we need to be fair here. We need to be fair to the business owner. We also need to work very, very hard to make sure that residents are protected, their quality of life is protected as much as possible. I know that Councilor Scarpelli made a motion. In the spirit of his motion, I'll make one that's slightly different, also for consideration for my fellow councilors.
[Kit Collins]: Certainly doesn't have just just to present a alternative proposal. And certainly Councilor Scarpelli, I appreciate what you put forward in the spirit of having a discussion where we can see where we convene residents and enforcement staff from the city as well as the business owners. An alternative proposal would be to just approve the license. with a date certain for a committee of the whole over the summer after a 90 day review period where we do discuss what's working, how are things going, we convene parking enforcement, we convene code enforcement, we have a better sense of where those pain points are. And again, this is potentially under a 90 day review process, we're able to go forward and issuing another extended license to another thriving business in the city. And we get the chance to say, let's hear from everybody about how it's going at a date certain. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President real. Well first I want to thank the moms demand action community group for your stewardship of this resolution not just with us on the council with the school committee with various players in the mayor's administration the mayor herself. really always wonderful to see a community group coalesce around a really important matter of community well being, especially with something an issue that the gravity of which really cannot be overstated. So thank you so much for your leadership on this resolution and bringing it forward to many officials and partners throughout the community. Thank you to my fellow Councilors for working with this on me to bring it forward to the council. Um, this is a I know President moral. We made her say a mouthful, but this is really a very simple resolution. Um, the safe storage program is something that many in the city have already committed to do something they're ready to do something that they're enthusiastic to do. It's just a matter of distributing information on how to keep guns that already exist in homes safer in those homes that they're away from kids. where they can do no harm. It's just about getting that information out to the community through communication channels that already exist. So it's low cost, it's really effective. I think when we read statistics like this about something so horrible, something that really defies words such as gun violence, unintentional gun violence, gun violence that occurs in the home, it can be sort of numbing to read those statistics. that I think something like this, the measures that the Moms Demand Action Chapter has been working on, the Be Smart Safety Program, it's such a simple and effective way to make sure that more violence is prevented in our communities. And so I'm really glad to be a part of this initiative and hope that we can continue to be a part of the implementation to make sure that the word gets out to as many Medford residents as possible. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I just want to thank you for being here. I feel like there's not a lot that I could add that would be additive because you've said so much very clearly, briefly about what you've been going through for many, many years. I don't think there's anything that I could add to that. That wouldn't just be rhetorical that we've said already. And I know it's very clear, you know, it goes without saying, but you've said it, what you need is not more statements of support, but actual results. And it's obviously demonstrably true that times are getting harder. Cost of living is going up. It's not just inflation, it's cost of living, it's cost of everything. I think we probably all feel this in our personal budgets. And it's, we've been hearing about this for months, if not more, but it still is just completely, it's unfathomable to me how little you're being offered compared to the real value of that compensation compared to what it takes to live in this city. I don't get why we would make it so hard for people who want to serve their community to stay in this community. I don't get it. Like you said, nobody gets rich doing public service, they do it because of some kind of you know wanting to invest in the community. Why are we making it hard. I'm glad the Councilor Tseng brought up the, the $25 million in free cash that was certified last July that we heard about a couple months ago. And I said it then but when I heard about that. I wasn't happy, I was disgusted. It's like why are we sitting on this. As you said, you're the lowest paid workers in City Hall. So even if you were to get an 8% cost of living adjustment, I don't have the math brain that some other of my fellow Councilors do, but I don't think that would make a dent in $25 million. I want an explanation for why that isn't being allocated to bring up the baseline on the people who have needed it the most for the longest and haven't gotten anything. To make an offer to workers negotiating and then rescind that offer, That's a negotiating tactic that I've heard about in other contexts that I thought was, I'm not even sure what the word is, hostile, openly hostile. When I hear about that going on between other negotiating partners, it's meant to be intimidating. It's meant to be a show of force, show of power. Why would we do that to our clerks? I don't get it. Thank you for being here. We appreciate you being transparent with us going through I think we obviously have plenty of options to think through in terms of how we can handle this especially as the opportunity of budget season comes before us. Thank you for continuing to invite us to your negotiating meetings and I hope that we can all stay in touch both inside and outside of this chamber, as things go on.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President really I also just wanted to know this is I walked on this part of Boston have very frequently so I've seen what's you know was currently or was formerly in the space when it was a convenience store. This strikes me as if the narrative here is you know we're trying to figure out what to do with this ground floor level that has to be commercial we're trying to figure out how to make better use of the space you know I'm certainly willing to go ahead and approve this if you know the owner wants to try it as a cafe instead of a convenience store it is true I almost never saw anybody going into that convenience store. I definitely hear Councilors Garpelli's concerns about parking I think that making sure that we're not obstructing the roadway to ensure the safety of the roadway is really really important. On the other hand, it's kind of hard for me to look at a potential commercial space and have it go underutilized. You know, I think that we see the issue of cars parked where they shouldn't be all over the city. To me, that's an enforcement issue. You know, I don't want us to be tampering down on commercial development. I'd rather see rather CSB doing proper enforcement of where people shouldn't shouldn't be parking. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Thank you, President. Thank you for being here to share more about your, your business and I was looking also at the definition of this type of retail establishment in our current setting code and I have to agree with my fellow Councilor or the definition that exists in our muni code is certainly outdated included some. interesting references from whenever it was written, but in this case, you know, clearly from your description, it's a store that's providing services and retail of a spiritual inclination. I agree with Councilor Scarpelli, I think this is going to bring an interesting flavor to Medford Square that doesn't currently exist there. And you know, towards the goal of bringing more people of all different inclinations to our business districts. I think this could be a great thing for Medford. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Rowland. Thank you, Henry, and to the rest of the Commission and Elections Manager for being here today. Really appreciate the thorough rundown, you know, as it's been stated, you know, I think we probably all heard from one or two constituents after the last election, sorry, after the last election with some concerns, you know, some confusions, and I think this really details the commission is pretty forward looking being really proactive on, you know, making sure that every is dotted every T is crossed a couple times. So that's really great to hear and it's great to hear all the detail behind that. So clearly this is a team that's really good at working together. We appreciate that. And you know, I'm sure we'll be in touch as September and November. Get closer to hand. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Brown. Thank you so much, Director Driscoll for being here. I'm glad that we get the opportunity to vote in support of this again. I know you were here January last year for an earlier step in this process. I just think that this is a really great example of how, you know, public housing and Medford investing in public housing can, you know, be a great example of what affordable housing should be in the community. So I'm glad that this CPC recommendation came through so that Medford can invest in its own public housing locally. I think that this really exemplifies that, you know, to build to expand public housing in the community is expensive it takes a long time. We need to be making these investments early and often adding 98 affordable units to our community is. such an important thing. And I know it's been a multi step multi year process that you've been shepherding. And I think that's just really important for people to understand like how much it takes to be adding these permanently affordable units to our community, as well as just exemplifying that affordable housing can look like a lot of things that can be that can look like a lot of different types of households, different types of families, but that it should be rehabilitated, it should be modern, it should be high quality. I think that this is just a really a really great example of a project. I'm glad that we are to be able to, you know, chip again. Um you know, part of our fair share of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I think that we had a really interesting, thoughtful, deliberate conversation about this. Recently, we discussed these proposals in Committee of the Whole. As Vice President Bears outlined, we're going to have, you know, continuing opportunity for Councilor input for public input, as we discuss these proposals further. But just to briefly reiterate, you know, some of what I said at our last meeting on this and some of what I heard my fellow Councilors say that really resonated with me. I think Councilors Scarpelli said this is a way to keep the council relevant. I think that really sums it up, you know, these three proposals combined. We talk a lot about our frustrations with not having the tools, the resources, the people that we need to function as a legislative body. And I think the politically easier thing to do would be to stay in that state and say, well, you know, we're doing all we can with what we have. This is a measure to say, actually, that's not good enough. We're going to make these specific amendments to the charter so that we actually do have what we need. so that we can do the work of representing our constituencies that we can do the work of legislating passing policies. I think that will free up a lot of this council's energy to be a complimentary working partner with the administration across the hall. Instead of, you know, unfortunately being forced to expend a lot of energy, really trying to trying to have that co equal relationship. You know, I think that we, it's better to enshrine in policy in the charter, a way to have the powers that our constituents need us to have in order to do our work. And that's not just like I said last week, that's not just for this term, it's not just for this body. I think it's a way of saying to the community of Medford, you deserve to have a city council that is functional, No matter the, the climate inside this building no matter the political weather, this council is always going to be empowered to be working for you. So I look forward to discussing this further and I'll certainly be supporting this tonight.
[Kit Collins]: I was probably going to reiterate the point that Vice President Bears made.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate Councilor Tseng putting this forward. And I think that this is, you know, for the community, probably one of the better examples, you know, simplest examples that we have about our backlog of capital needs in the community, you know, just demonstrating when we defer maintenance over the cost of, over the length of, in this case, you know, 30 to 40 years, that maintenance over time gets more expensive because we can't We're not paying to prevent or stop the damages that are currently occurring, let alone the ones that we can already, you know, see and observe and that people are reporting on see click fix all the time. I know that our engineering department is well aware of the scope of the problem they're doing all that we can I think that it, you know, demonstrates the need to be finding cheaper ways to resurface these roads where we can like Councilor Knight said, and it also demonstrates the strong need to figure out how can we start paying for this more quickly so that these needs for repairs are not mounting. And we're just continually continually playing catch up. And I also want to note I've had a lot of friends of mine who are also cyclists specifically complain about Riverside, which is you know, because the pothole situation, basically unbreakable so I just want to throw that in there to let cyclists know everybody is going. Everybody is walking around frustrated because of the road situation in Medford, and you know, cyclists are as well. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I think it was, was it 21631? I'm trying to figure that out. just so we can compare.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. If I may, I just want to state for the record, I'm not opposed to this paper. I think this is something we should discuss. I think that it, you know, I certainly understand the argument for not spot changing our rules, but I just, you know, I hope that this is something that we can discuss, you know, after the cooling off period. If we've confirmed that, that's, you know, procedurally the action we have to take. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate hearing my other colleagues perspectives on this and I, you know, we've we've talked about this issue before we talked about this, we voted on this for first reading, I know that there's a variety of opinion on this. I think people know where I stand my, you know, Similarly, we can only vote on what we have the power to vote on. We cannot affect direct change of the things that we do not have the jurisdiction to affect direct change over. This is something that we get to vote on. And I think that these people deserve raises. I think that everybody deserves a raise. And I wish that we had the opportunity to affect that, but we don't. And I also, I think The more important point here I think the it's not really an elephant in the room it's just what's on everybody's mind because I think everybody's really worried about the only piece of the budget that we have had an indication about so far, which is the proposal given to the schools, and it is I think impossible not to consider. these expenditures in the context of the really worrying number that was given to the schools over the past couple weeks. And I know that that's something that we all care a lot about. But I think I want to, you know, kind of underline something that Vice President Bair said, which is that we get to choose, you know, whether this conversation is about Well, I guess we're in the position of having to choose between this loan order or the schools or this proposed wage adjustment or the schools. That's not the case. It's not a binary. That's not the choice that we're being presented. There's a version of that narrative where that is what's happening, but that's not factual. I think that we all wish that we had been in meaningful, deliberate conversations about crafting this budget for a long time now, and that hasn't been the case. But we have meetings and meetings ahead of us where we can be saying what I think is already known about our shared council priorities for this budget. And I think it's no secret that, you know, in June of last year all of us were very willing to disapprove the budget that didn't meet a single one of our council priorities. And, you know, I go into this budget season really willing to communicate and collaborate and, you know, be in dialogue with the administration about the things that I need to see in the budget in order to be a yes vote on it. That's no secret. I think that know, obviously, proper funding for the schools where layoffs are not an issue is a huge part of that. We go into this with the information that we have, including, you know, a pretty sizable free cash number that we learned about just a couple months ago. All of that is context that we can use. We know that the money is there. It's a matter of appropriation. It's a matter of allocation. I don't buy the narrative that it's sidewalks or schools. I don't buy the narrative that it's non-union personnel or schools. I think it can be both, and I'm willing to have the conversation to get there. for tonight. I think that these are things that we should approve, and I just wanted to explain my reasoning on that, and I hope that over the next couple months, we can be unified as a council on lobbying for a budget that our community deserves. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Bernal. I appreciate it. I think that the frustration that we felt around some of the information or lack thereof that we've gotten in the city's financial health. I don't think that that anger and frustration is fairly directed at the department head so we might be receiving it from I think that it's all a symptom of the same problem, which is that this city does not have the resources and the tools that it needs to be thriving and fully functional and reasonably staffed and have all staff be reasonably compensated. I think that You know, I think that we all share the same values here and I really want for us to be able to continue this conversation over the next couple months with our knowing that we share the same values around this and knowing our real roadblock and adversary here. I do not think that this is unionized personnel against department heads. I don't think this is unionized personnel against non-unionized department heads. And I don't think that any of my fellow Councilors are saying that for the most part, but I think that we're in the danger of rhetorically falling into that trap. And I don't wanna leave the community with that impression because the non-unionized personnel are not the problem here. the folks, you know, everybody deserves that Cola increase. We can't fix the situation of union bargaining in the city by withholding this vote. And that's why I'm not going to withhold my vote of support on it. I think I've said all this before, but it's just, it's so important to me that I want to say it again. I think we can't fall prey to this misdirection. We have to know our real roadblock here because our real roadblock is the one that we all agree on. And it's the fact that we don't have the political will to allocate the money that we do have to pay everybody and bargain with everybody the way that they to be bargained with. That's why I won't be withholding my vote on this tonight because I don't think that this is the problem. And we've been talking a lot specifically this evening and also in general about the tools that would empower us to deal with the actual roadblock here, but this isn't it. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you to President Morell. We had a first meeting on a proposed ordinance to protect seekers of gender affirming and reproductive care in Medford. We'll be meeting again to discuss it further. Oh, motion to approve.
[Kit Collins]: motion to waive the remainder of the reading for a synopsis by the presenter. Second.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and Mr. D Antonio I just wanted to share my, you know, and how unfortunately got hit in that intersection I'm glad to hear that you were doing okay but so sorry that you had to go through that. Thank you. You know, I think that it seems abundantly clear to me that. You know, we talked about the particularly troublesome intersections in the city that particularly troublesome roads, there's so many of them I think it's just clear that roads were not our roads are not built for the Medford of today. So to fix it we need to, you know, approach the problem on all fronts to accommodate, you know, all of the road users that we see right now I think the Councilor car VL brings up a really good point which is, you know, several decades ago, we didn't have ride share companies inundating the streets. We didn't have these delivery companies. That's something that I notice all the time. It drives me bananas when I see delivery drivers blocking traffic, blocking parking spaces, blocking bike lanes. There's a lot of new dangers and there's just a lot more cars on the road than there used to be. So clearly we need to marshal all of our city resources to make sure that people can cross the street, can get where they're going without without being hurt or have to fear getting hurt. So thank you, Councilor Caraviello for putting this forward I think it's one part of the puzzle and Mr. D'Antonio I hope you're feeling better very soon.
[Kit Collins]: Hi everybody nice to see you all I know some of you I don't know all of you Hope to know all of you very soon. So I can't speak on personal experience to what the Zoning Board of Appeals is doing about Regulating and observing the Development of condos in Medford, but I can't say on the City Council side some action that we are trying to take do what is within our jurisdiction to observe and moderate and regulate the conversion of rental units into condos in Medford because I think especially in this neighborhood it goes without saying what an impact that can have to take rental units off the market and also, you know, these speculative market forces turning neighborhoods into, you know, the commodification of housing. So the city council has begun to look at a condominium conversion ordinance This is something that exists in many similar communities close to us in the region what that does or what it would do what's proposing to do is to put a set of conditions and stipulations on the conversion of certain rentals into condos in Medford and so We're in the really early stages. There's lots of time for community input zba input neighborhood input on How this should be targeted where it should be targeted But the main thrust of that is to say if you are a for-profit developer that's coming in and turning Neighborhood homes, especially rental units into condos that are going to be flipped from which a for-profit developer can derive a lot of value we need to make sure that value is getting put back into the community because of You know, it's only fair the developers are making money off of the housing stock and the wonderful neighborhoods and the amenities that we have here in Medford the community needs to be benefiting to maybe that is measures to improve stability for the tenants the residents that are getting displaced because of those conversions in Medford Maybe it's an appropriation into our very new affordable housing trust in Medford. That's something on the ordinance side, thanks to the advocates for that, recently passed. But that's something that we are looking at and we can hopefully work in tandem with the ZBA to make sure that when condo conversions do occur in Medford, that they're occurring at a pace and in a way that is very careful about the impact on the community.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you so much for the presentation so far. It's good to get into the details on some of these plan changes that we've been hearing about for a little while. I'll just say this at the top because it's gonna go for a lot of the other planned intersections. I think that the RFP here is really important on Winthrop Street. It's a busy street, it's a popular street. It's well-traveled even in this kind of tucked away corner. I think as one councilor, I'd very much like for that to be a part of our affirmative vote and for other, just so I don't say it, six more times. I think for any of these streets that are being considered, you know, Boston Avenue, Salem Street, you know, Highland Ave at Middlesex, like a lot of these are very busy, very commercial, you know, well traveled by vehicles as well as pedestrians. As long as we're doing the crosswalk improvements, I think that we really have to see those flashing signs for pedestrian safety. So just say that at the top. And then I think for this crosswalk in particular, I'd love to have the director of traffic. I know that you've been liaising very closely with our draft director of traffic and transportation, but just to make sure that, you know, his local expertise is considered on this intersection in particular, before we go forward. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: It's a little face talking.
[Kit Collins]: Does anyone have. Thank you. And just for clarity, in terms of procedurally, it seems to me that this is also an opportunity to start making that shortlist of additional improvements that we'd like to see at specific sites so just be able to log those for the record even if we're revisiting them chance to get more out of this opportunity.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, yeah, this is another one where I was going to, you know, again, request for an RRFP at this intersection as well. I'm in the pro bump out camp, you know, I cycle through this intersection as well as drive and walk through it, and I think that's a, there's a real visceral need for those permanent structures.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Berloz. I was just gonna make a similar comment about an RRFB. at this location, and actually just for my understanding, sorry if you just said this, but just to make sure getting the, I wanna make sure my web of jurisdictions is accurate. So in this case, with this being a DOT jurisdiction crosswalk, we can pass the recommendations along to you. You are liaising with them to get all the permits, but these improvements will be implemented by the DOT.
[Kit Collins]: I guess just I wanted to add my, I think this has been expressed, but I think obviously talking about different scopes, guys think in terms of the entire transit system, for us, we're representing people, you know, get around the city of Medford, get it to adjoining communities. In terms of the average weekly riders, I'm sure that 50 per day is kind of a drop in the bucket in terms of your scope, but in terms of this community and our size, especially thinking about how for a lot of people, if they're taking the bus, it's because they don't have any other option. So just another voice in the chorus for these bus stops that are in the ballpark of 40 to 50 or more weekday riders, I think that I just wanna take another moment or two week period to make sure that you know, effective butters people who for whom this is an important part of their commute. It's a small number but it's also a fairly significant number. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, President Morell. Margaret Akito was a longtime Medford resident. She lived on Manning Street. She lived on Luther Road for decades, and her family was and remains deeply connected to this community. I also understand that Margaret was a very faithful and dedicated watcher of our Tuesday night City Council meetings, and so I hope that my fellow colleagues will join me in letting her family know that we are thinking of them during this difficult time and holding a moment of silence in her honor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. So it's that time of year again almost for the biannual Walk, Bike and Roll to School Day. I think this is a great way to get young riders out on the streets with the safe chaperoning of adult riders that accompany them along their routes to school. I know that many in the bicycling community in Medford are organizing these bike trains on April 4th. So I would, you know, issue a heads up to everybody who's commuting or out on the roads that day to make sure to take extra care for additional cyclists out on the road that day. And as you know, as always much appreciation for much appreciation for the Safe Routes to School program and all of the cycling activists and volunteers that make this celebration possible. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Really? Oh, okay.
[Kit Collins]: So we're super prepared. Advance warning.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I think that, well, it's always a good time to celebrate women's history. It's always a good time to reflect on the contributions of women to society, our community in particular. We have so many pillars of our local Medford community who happen to be women. And I think it's always the right time to reflect on members of marginalized communities that have made outsized contributions to the community that we enjoy today. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President real. Tough to segway away from such a powerful topic, but I wanted to take several items off of the table that are due for third reading. I can read those numbers out. There's five of them. 22519, 21053, 22058, 20024, and 23057.
[Kit Collins]: Oh yeah, let's do that one too.
[Kit Collins]: just keep it consistent?
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. And I also want to, you know, I don't want to just bring this up and vote for it uncommented on. And I want to be clear that to my fellow councilors, I know that don't agree with voting on this tonight at all, you know, that I, I hear you and I really genuinely do respect your opinion and sympathize with where you're coming from. I feel the cognitive dissonance of having those workers in the room before, and, you know, for weeks and months before this and having those discussions and hearing from them. and then taking this up, I feel it, it's palpable, and I think I really hear and understand where you're coming from and that difference in strategy. But for me, the reason I feel that this is important, and I think that Councilor Behr has put this really well, for me, the cognitive dissonance isn't between this type of positions and the collective bargaining units positions that they represent. It's between all workers in the city of Medford and this financial strategy that leaves money on the table while not giving every worker the raise that they deserve. That is the cognitive dissonance to me. And I think, you know, Councilor Bears put it well, what do we have the power to do? I think if we had the power to say, you have to give at least a 3% raise to all of these unionized workers in the city, we would have executed that already because that's where all of our hearts lie. If we had that power, we would have done it already. We don't have that power. And I think that all of us are going to continue to try to advocate for those workers how we can, but given that, Our jurisdiction here is limited. Our power here is limited. It's important to me to move this needle forward because we can. So I just, I don't expect that to persuade anybody who sees the strategy differently. I just wanted to explain my view to let you know that I do sympathize with other approaches to this and I, well, thanks.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. And I appreciate this discussion. I was going to move the question. Thank you, Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Vice President Bears, for putting this on the agenda tonight. I too received a lot of messages from constituents after this very sad passing of a very beloved local bald eagle passed several weeks ago. And I think this is a problem that can really only be appropriately addressed regionally, not only because cities kind of can't address the issue of what rodenticides are being used on a piecemeal basis. We can't, you know, influence what private individuals are using. But also, you know, I think a statewide regional approach is what's going to make these less harmful approaches cost effective for places like municipalities and institutions to implement, so that we can make sure that what we're putting into the into our food chain, into our ecosystem is preserving the biodiversity such that we have along the mystic that I think we all really care so much about. So I'll be happy to support this this evening. And I really hope that this advances on the state level. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate the discussion on this issue so far for my fellow Councilors. And I just want to note I think that this dovetails with the conversation that we just had about the discussion of a capital improvement plan I think that this dovetails with the conversation that the rules and ordinances subcommittee was having immediately before this meeting about measures that we can take within our power of the city council so that we can be a better more meaningful, more actual source of representation, source of influence in the budget on behalf of this community. I think President Morell, you say it all the time, a budget is a statement of values. And I think that the measures proposed in this resolution kind of cut to the heart of some of my most frequent frustrations with what we hear from constituents. Why isn't this happening? Why isn't this, which essentially comes down to why isn't this budgeted for? Why is the supportive service not exist in our city? Why are things like this in this department? Why are things like this infrastructurally? And to have no real other recourse or explanation, but to say, I wish that we could at least have the discussion about what it would look like to appropriate funds so that this would change in the schools or this would change in the roads or the sidewalks or that we could entertain forming this new department to better support the segment of the constituency. We don't have that power. All that we have is the power to cut, to make line out of subtractions. And I think we're all very aware of what that kind of power results in, in a budget process. I think it's not democratic. There are a lot of elected officials in the city of Medford and there's only one that has a meaningful role. in the budget process. So I think that these measures could potentially get us to a new solution around that. Another one of our, I think our most common refrains in terms of deep, deep frustrations is not having the staff to carry out even the things that are within our jurisdiction to do. And that's, I don't really have words for how frustrating it is sometimes because I think it is a rarity for a council to be this unified on so many issues. That's a really big hurdle to overcome in any public body, I think. And yet we hit a stumbling block because we don't have the resources, we don't have the personnel to execute the work ethic that we do have on a disparate set of issues. So I think that whatever form this takes, if it's the form of a home rule petition, I think this is a discussion that needs to happen because I think these are roadblocks that could really be orders of magnitude in terms of increasing our influence to better represent the will of the community in these chambers.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. Thank you, Commissioner for being here again to speak on this again. I think this all sounds really reasonable. One of the things that I hear about from constituents most often is repairs needed on sidewalks. I think this is something that we all care about a lot because it's an accessibility issue and we need to make sure that, you know, all of our sidewalks in our city are traversable for all residents, no matter how they're getting around. So for a lot of intuitive reasons, I think this is something that it is important that the city is able to continue moving forward with because this backlog of repairs will only grow and get more expensive over time. So I'm happy to motion for approval for first reading.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Director Dixon, just a quick question for you, if you're able to answer it, and if it's off the cuff, that's totally understandable. But I was just curious, if you knew the amount of our certified free cash when this loan order was being submitted to the council, would it have changed your opinion or your posture on this issue?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thanks, guys. I appreciate your deference.
[Kit Collins]: I think I probably have what might be an unpopular opinion on this paper, so I just wanted to get it out of the way. First, um, you know, another another Councilor said earlier in this meeting, you know, we've spent a long time since we had a full compliment of department heads in City Hall. It's affecting our ability to move forward as community. I think that that's you know, one of the reasons why it's important to make sure that we are doing what is within our power to retain the skilled public service workers that we do have within City Hall. I know for very good reason, we've had a lot of discussions this year about the plight of our unionized city workers for good reason. And we've been asked to advocate for those workers. And I think whenever possible, this council has tried to, and I think that's something that we can be proud of and that we have to continue to do. But I don't think that the narrative here is the non-union titles versus the unionized titles. I think that's a false binary. I think that we need to stick up for the city workers that are unionized as well as sticking up for the city workers that aren't, because everybody is experiencing cost of living increases. And the issue here is fair bargaining for those workers who are unionized at the same time. We need to keep people in the building, to keep the lights on, to keep the wheels turning. So that's all I'll be supporting this paper tonight. And I look forward to hearing my fellow councilors perspective on the matter.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Morell and I appreciate the context around this from my fellow Councilors and from Director Dickinson and I came into the meeting. Ultimately, I think that a stabilization fund is a good thing for a city to have. I think that's one of those things that we probably should have had already and it's good for it to be enacted now or at least this year. I'm fine with the idea of moving it into a committee of the whole. I do think that there's a broader scope to this discussion that I would perhaps prefer to have. And I think a big part of that for me is this Sorry, it is getting late. It's not slowing down. You know, this announcement of the stabilization fund request arrived at the same time as the announcement of the certification of $25 million in free cash put forth as in the posture of something to celebrate. I don't really think that's something to celebrate. You've been in a pandemic recovery for three years preparing for future emergency spending needs is good, but when you look at the amount of under-investment in pressing urgent needs in this community that have gone under-invested in and frankly under-acknowledged over the past few years, I'm glad if this means that we are turning a leaf towards more investing in urgent material needs for our community that we need right now when we need them. But I think this very vast overflow is evidence that we have not been good at that. And I think frankly, that's a source of shame. And I think what would make me feel better about kind of hastily throwing together a stabilization fund now is if we can get a commitment that this will also involve material investments in areas of greatest need in our community soon. maybe that could be an appropriation for an affordable housing trust as soon as that comes online. But I think that kind of thinking does make more sense in a broader discussion what we're talking about. What is this going to be for? How is this going to be funded in the future? And what can we expect this to be used for based on our track record of not always taking available opportunities to meet urgent needs for stabilization in our community, like the three years that we all just witnessed and lived through. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. I just wanted to thank Commissioner McKibben and Director Hunt for speaking on this issue. Obviously, I've heard about this issue more than my fellow councilors as a member of the Solid Waste Task Force, and we discussed in the context of that body, you know, how it's one of the things that makes this very, very expensive budget line item, the waste hauling contract, feasible both for perspective haulers and for the city are these long contracts for some of the reasons that Commissioner given just spoke to, I think if, based on the question from Councilor Knight and what Director Hunt has heard from the legal counsel that we do have available to us. You know, I know that we're in previous meetings, we've discussed the RFP timeline for getting this out to haulers to getting those responses back. If, you know, I wanna make sure that we get a satisfying opinion on that question. I also wanna make sure that this timeline is proceeding the way that the experts say that it needs to, so that we can be proceeding along and getting these competitive bids and keeping things on schedule again, all towards the goal of getting the best bids that we can on this really, really outsized piece of our DPW budget. So I'd be happy to motion for approval tonight based on that context from Director Hunt. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate the discussion around this. I appreciate the context from some of our department heads that have been working on this. I know that there's disagreement on this point. I am swayed by Commissioner McGibbon's point that I don't see why. And again, this isn't a vote on a contract. It's just a vote to enable these departments to pursue a contract longer than three years. So we're not marrying ourselves to any contractor company, I would motion for approval with a roll call vote to try and move this forward, and maybe we can concurrently get a legal opinion. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: That's right, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Vice President Bears for continuing to work with council leadership and city staff to get this ordinance into the version that we're voting on for first reading. Tonight, another many years of hard work has gone into this ordinance predating my tenure on this council. I think it's about time in many ways. This has been a work product spread out over many years with input from many local and regional housing experts. And what's most important to me is that there is a incredibly demonstrated need for affordable housing in Medford and mechanisms for creating affordable housing in Medford and repositories for funding for affordable housing in Medford. There's already a discrepancy between the people who are eligible for affordable or subsidized housing and how much of that type of housing that we already have. So in a lot of ways, creating an affordable housing trust is really just a preliminary step, but it's one I'm glad we're finally taking. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Tim, for being here and providing helpful context around this paper. I think my feelings are similar to Vice President Bears. I feel that I would be comfortable going forward with this paper this evening. I'm comfortable tabling it if we table it to a date certain, March 14th, our next meeting. I think this is an issue that we encounter very often as a council. I'm very sympathetic to our need to take actions that force action because we haven't had a super consistent track record of seamless collaboration. So far, that being said, you know, I feel like I also say this often, there are, you know, I think every individual player has to make decisions about what they're willing to hold up and what they're not willing to see held up. And all of these projects, you know, that come before us are important. I think it's up to each of us to make our consideration of what we're willing to place on hold in order to try to force another action. So I think this is a really important paper. I know that, you know, sidewalk repair and road repair is an accessibility issue that touches everybody in the community. I'm comfortable tabling it for one meeting. Beyond that, you know, I think this is really important to make sure that it goes forward. And these greater issues of budget and, you know, continuing, I think what we've had are really great first steps recently in greater budget transparency, continuing those. I hope that we continue those in parallel, and perhaps if we are amending this paper to ask the mayor for a determination on if KP Law is functioning as an acting city solicitor, if we could also perhaps include an update on where we are at with hiring a city solicitor and assistant city solicitor. I know that that was in the works. I haven't had an update in a while. I'm taking it on good faith that that's a real project. I believe that it is. and I think that we're all incredibly eager to see whether we actually get the opportunity to know when that in-house legal counsel will arrive.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I appreciate my federal Councilors sharing their thoughts about this, and I appreciate that it is kind of in conversation with the previous paper. I will be supporting this tonight, and like I said on the previous paper about the loan order, I would have been comfortable going forward with that paper. I think we heard from the expert in the room that it's not gonna be catastrophic to wait on that for two weeks, so I was comfortable with that middle ground. And I also said, I think every council has to make their own decision about, you know, what tactics to use and where we feel comfortable drawing a line in the sand. And as Mr. Bears put it, weighing those balances. As every project that comes before us is important to the functioning of the city in some way. My understanding, this is the first reading anyway, and we know that we're getting that legal opinion. And this, the creation of this position I think is very overdue. It's very important to the city it's important to me, the D the, you know, acting traffic and transportation director person currently in that role once it's codified I think is one of the experts in the city that I've turned to the most of the city councilor on the incredibly responsive it helped me out was scores of constituent problems and complaints and questions over the past 14 months. And I just think that the creation of this position is critical to where we are as a city today in the 21st century with just the sheer amount of traffic and transportation related projects and problems that come across my email inbox. This is a motion that I'm personally not willing to wait for. So I'll be voicing my support tonight, Thanks, my fellow Councilors for listening to my explanation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. So I wanted to use the council as a forum to make sure that as many Medford residents as possible heard about this upcoming change. Our nation's leaders have allowed for extra pandemic assistance to expire. So on March 3rd, every household that's currently using SNAP can expect to start receiving at least 95 fewer dollars a month. This is potentially very damaging to households, especially as cost of living and cost of food remains high. and local governments have been asked to help get the word out so people can prepare as best they can to fill the gap. Residents are encouraged to contact the Department of Transitional Assistance for more information about how they will specifically be affected to see if they can qualify for those new increases. And I did hear from the City's Director of Communications today that the City of Medford is planning to broadcast this information and those links to resources on the city website and social media channels. So to residents who are looking for those details about how to investigate this further and look into resources that they and their households can potentially use, I would counsel them to be on the lookout for that. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Love to see mutual aid infiltrate the council chambers. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. This council has talked about similar legislation in previous sessions. The current pilot program statewide still exempts wealthy nonprofits like universities from paying taxes, property taxes, and that short changes cities like ours from much needed, fairly deserved tax revenue. These are not the shoestring kind of nonprofits that probably the word comes to mind with these. high wealth nonprofits that are property tax exempt, their revenue is increasing, their endowments are often quite large, and it's not logical for them to be exempt from paying taxes to their host communities, something that every other resident and type of business is required to do. So this proposed legislation would be to change the existing law to make large nonprofits no longer able to pay taxes or compensation on a purely voluntary basis. And so I asked my colleagues for their support for this bill, which would make larger organizations, sorry, large organizations start paying their fair share. And I think we can all imagine the very material ways that recouping some of that lost revenue from large nonprofits like Tufts University and my Alma mater, how big of a difference that would make in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you for co-sponsoring this. This is pertaining to the National Opioid Settlements against the manufacturers and distributors of opioid painkillers. Late last year, it was announced that five additional settlements were reached with more opioid distributors, and states and cities are being allocated funds to go towards prevention and community-wide rehabilitation as resulting from the national opioid epidemic. The council did actually receive an update from Director of Communications earlier today with some good news. We are confirmed to receive a distribution as a result of this settlement and our Board of Health and Office of Prevention Department staff has already been anticipating the five additional settlements, which is to say the city is on top of it. which is great to hear. I'm grateful to hear that. And just to share with the community, the update that we received, which I think was also disseminated early December, these funds can be used for sort of pertinent uses such as opioid use disorder treatment, support for people in recovery, harm reduction, prevention of opioid misuse. And the city has a number of next steps that they'll be conducting community outreach about. including establishing a promote prevent support behavioral health commission, um, feedback and listening sessions with the community. And the city council will be hearing more about, um, the specific plan and role of that commission as it gets formed over the next year.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I thank Councilor Tseng for putting this forward. I think this is a clear example where, you know, words matter and formalizing the right policy matters. And I think it's, you know, a really, it puts our community in a very positive, strong light that this is a policy that our city staff are already carrying out and what we can do as a legislative body to make sure that we are using our power as a forum and a speaker box for the community to make sure that it's known to as many communities as possible, sorry, as many constituents as possible, that interfacing with any city department regardless of your immigration status, is a good thing to do, a safe thing to do, and that they can trust the outcomes of that interaction. I think that codifying this formally will help us just promulgate that to more of the community. And so I'm happy to support this tonight. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Earl I'd be happy to provide a summary of this ordinance and a summary of the process that has gotten us to where we are today. I'm very gratified to be able to put this ordinance forward for first reading the council has been discussing modifying and evolving this ordinance for almost a full year, almost a full year now in the public health and community safety subcommittee and committee of the whole. and in one-on-one conversations with city administration, our chief of police, and other department heads, legal experts, and with community advocates. This ordinance is about being proactive to safeguard our community against nascent, privately developed surveillance technologies, which are both rapidly evolving and severely underregulated at the state and federal levels. I think this is a very exciting moment for this council and for the city. While we would be far from the first city to have a CCOPS ordinance, Medford has the chance to be a real leader here and a model for other communities. This ordinance, with the inclusion of some floor amendments that I'm going to propose in a minute, presents a clear and a structured way for the community, the City Council, and the administration to communicate and to collaborate. The outcome of that communication and collaboration will be the development of use policies and parameters for surveillance technologies now and in the future that are properly weighed benefits and the risks of these technologies. When we do choose to put surveillance technology to use in our city, we will know that we have had the intentional conversations about costs and benefits. We will have discussed the potential risks and the helpful benefits and how to balance both so as to safeguard community members against threats to personal privacy, civil liberty, and over-surveillance. As a city council, we will know that we have a guaranteed seat at the table when potentially large impacts to our constituents' lives and potentially huge purchases are decided. We will have a clear and a structured way to let this people's forum be a people's forum on these very real 21st century issues. And we will be able to guarantee that our constituents have a chance to ask questions and to be heard. Surveillance technology is already in use in communities around America. There's no turning back the clock on this new class of corporate technology. However, We can do what we can under our local purview to take this as an opportunity to involve the public to hear from experts and to build trust between our government and our community. So the version of the ordinance that we'll be voting on tonight is the product of four years of advocacy by the community coalition behind it, and months of discussion among city council and the administration. Since March of last year we have substantially modified added to and subtracted from the original draft. These changes centered around paring down the reporting requirements to make this ordinance more manageable, making it more clear that routine office tools are not considered surveillance technology, and also clarifying the reporting requirements are to be high level and general rather than onerous and granular. Throughout this process we have had productive good faith conversations with this administration, especially this chief of police in those conversations we've been able to address a number of outstanding concerns that were raised even after this ordinance was reported at committee, and I know that no document is perfect. And there are partners within and without of this administration, who have, who would have preferred different approaches to certain aspects of this ordinance. Still I'm grateful that we seem to have reached an agreement across a broad range of stakeholders on a set of amendments that we believe would make this ordinance doable workable for this community. And there is a document before Councilors, along with the clean and also redlined versions of the ordinance tonight, outlining the floor amendments that we intend to propose, and I will move that they be adopted prior to us taking a vote tonight. So, to sum up, I believe this has been a collaborative process helping us craft what I think is the most Medford tailored version of this ordinance that we could have arrived at. In short, this ordinance would advance the goals of transparency, accountability, community participation, and trust building, goals that we all share, within a scope that our department heads can accomplish within their existing duties. I thank my fellow Councilors for their deference with my preamble. and I ask for your support tonight. And President Morell, I know that there are audience members here to speak on the ordinance, and I would ask if you'd be willing to invite them up to speak after my co-sponsor. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate my colleagues thoughtful consideration of what's before us this evening, not just a 12 page ordinance, but also 12 floor amendments to go with it. And Councilor Scarpelli, to your point, I honestly, I do hear you on the legal council piece. I think that that is a concern that this entire body shares, and I'm sympathetic to your view that, you know, at some point we have to draw the line when it comes to demanding appropriate legal representation for this council. At the same time, I've made this clear many times to me, serving in public office is a privilege. None of us know how long we're going to get to sit in this chair and I'm committed to doing what I can while I can for a lot for as long as I sit in this chair. So when I hear about an ordinance that a community group has been pushing for for four years, if I have the opportunity to work on it, I'm going to work on it. That's my personal opinion and I respect yours. On the issue of the 12-4 amendments, You know, I think this is something that is procedurally well within bounds so there are other comments that I've heard that I don't quite know how to countenance but if any of my fellow Councilors would like us to go more in depth on what's before us. I know we did kind of a speed read round I'd also be very happy to walk anybody through it. I touched on this in my opening remarks but all of these floor amendments have come from. conversations that we have had with the city administration over the past months, in the past two weeks, as recently as today, all in service of trying to pass an ordinance that is manageable and doable for this administration. I'm sorry if that process didn't feel transparent at first blush, but there's, you know, all of this in spirit of this ordinance can be talked through. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Kit Collins]: No, these are, these are, sorry, Councilor Caraviello, these are new amendments that we're proposing after it was reported out of committee of the whole.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you chief appreciate you being up here. You know, like I said earlier today, I really appreciate your candor, I know that this is a difficult conversation I really appreciate that you've been willing to have it with us with me for a year with others for four years. You know, I respect where you're coming from and I just want to reiterate that I don't want to repeat our conversation from earlier from two weeks ago, etc. you know, to the extent that we're having this conversation in the public forum, just for the sake of responding to you and putting it on the record. You know, I do want to emphasize that, you know, again, our intent here is not to be anti-surveillance technology. You know, that there is a reason that the ordinance is called Community Control over Public Surveillance. I think it's evidenced by our December Committee of the Whole when we had a whole range of city departments petitioning for exemptions or asking questions. How will this affect me? How will this affect me? It's really not our intent to target your very reliable department specifically, and I hope that you know that that intent is sincere. We've done our best to enshrine that in the language of the ordinance. This is intended to be proactive, not reactive to anything that your department or any other has done or done wrong. You know, I think I try to say often you know, policy and ordinances. They're not about just today and they're not about tomorrow and not about next week. They're about decades and even generations. You know, they're about putting something in place that will benefit the community when nobody who's currently in this room is still in this room. And I think we've tried our best to create a policy that will be right for the community, even when, you know, there's the next Jack Buckley leading the police department. And even when the city council looks entirely different so that we still have those structures for community input for transparency, regardless of who is at the helm. You know, over the past year, we've heard your very reasonable concerns about making sure that this is something that you can actually do, because we all know you have so much on your plate, and we've tried to only pare down this ordinance. I just want to say all that for context, for folks watching at home, for others who are participants in this process, and to say, you know, I really do appreciate your good faith discussions with us throughout this entire process. It's really appreciated, and I hope that you do feel heard. Thank you. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Brown. What a treat to have two of my ordinance projects come before the council on the very same night. Good thing it's a holiday. I'm very glad to be bringing this forward tonight. This paper was first proposed by Councilor John Falco in 2021. Very grateful to him for proposing this paper and for the opportunity to carry the project forward as Housing Subcommittee Chair. In contrast to the ordinance that we just discussed, this ordinance is extremely simple. It creates a new requirement that all property owners in Medford distribute a simple, perhaps one or two page document prepared for them by the city to their tenants at the beginning and termination of any lease or upon eviction. This document would also be provided to homeowners that are being foreclosed upon. The goal of this policy is to make sure that all residents in Medford are aware of the housing rights to which they are already entitled, and the resources that are already available to them. People should know what their rights are, what to expect, and where to turn for help before some kind of stressful or emergency situation occurs. This information is often hard to find. Whether you're a tenant, an owner, or an owner being foreclosed upon, having to scramble for information, or not know where to turn for help benefits nobody. This ordinance ensures that relevant information is distributed through the community in a streamlined way proactively. I want to just briefly outline the process of this project. The council has been meeting on this paper since the fall first in the housing subcommittee, and then in a recent committee of the whole. We began by discussing the examples of three of our neighboring communities, Cambridge Boston and Somerville, who also have housing stability notification ordinances. We compared and contrasted these ordinances and selected the best parts of each example. We also reviewed the actual notification document that's currently used in each of these cities to inform our discussion. At every step we discussed the ordinance with the city departments that would be implicated by this ordinance. These partners included the Board of Health, which stepped up to do enforcement. The Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability volunteered to create the housing notification document. based on resource documents that their office already has available, and they also consulted on how to best begin the rollout of this ordinance. The Office of Prevention and Outreach, whose work in our community is closely aligned with the goals of this ordinance, offered their insight on equity and implementation strategies. I'm very heartened that this ordinance has the approval and even the enthusiasm of our city departments that are already responsible for housing stability and community outreach projects in our community. Finally, I just want to say this is an ordinance that is primarily intended as an educational tool. Thanks to the collaboration and the input of our city partners, I believe that this ordinance will be simple to implement and serve as another tool toolbox for promoting stable housing in Medford, through expanding awareness of existing housing rights and resources in our community.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry?
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Yeah, thank you for that question, Councilor Knight. This doesn't currently exempt any housing situations other than short or long-term like hospital care facilities in the city of Medford. So I believe it would implicate student housing situations, whether that's private property owners or the dormitories themselves. I wanna be clear, this doesn't create any new housing rights or responsibilities. It doesn't create the right to remain in a housing situation for longer than a person would already be able to do that. It's just a simple document that's delivered upon move in and move out.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins, Advices and Affairs. Thank you, President Morell. Thank you, Councilor Knight, for entertaining this line of questions. I think that we discussed similar issues with the Director of the Board of Health at our recent committee of the whole around enforcement, the fee structure, fine structure. The $300 was booked because it's statutorily defined and also because it's commensurate with other fines for ordinances that we already have in the books in the city of Medford. More importantly, when we discussed, when we were kind of first hashing out who would enforce the ordinance earlier in the subcommittee process after it was determined that it'd be more appropriate for it to be the Board of Health rather than code enforcement. You know, like I said, I think this is a phrase that I probably borrowed directly from Director O'Connor. This is primarily intended to be an educational tool. This ordinance isn't on the books that we can go around issuing $300 fines to landlords that don't know that this is something they're supposed to be doing. After all, the penalty for the first warning is a written fine, and this is to be endorsed, sorry, enforced at the discretion of, in this case, the Board of Health Director or their designee. So I say that to say, I don't think that this is the kind of thing where You know, if a landlord is delinked and accidentally, or we have some kind of extenuating circumstance, overall, it's at the discretion of the director of the Board of Health to enforce this towards the goal of actually promoting housing stability, not towards it generating revenue. And that was a discussion that we had pretty explicitly with the Board of Health director earlier in this ordinance process.
[Kit Collins]: Can we take those separately?
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you. I just wanted to note before we take the vote on this Council and I appreciate your amendment and thinking through this on the floor. Having not considered such an amendment before, I think it's worth putting on the record that as a Tufts alumnus myself, I've seen firsthand, I don't think that this is an ordinance that would be in any way difficult for them to implement. And I think that there is some value for an institution that professes to be a community partner to participate in such an ordinance so that should students move off campus after graduating from Tufts University, like myself, that they are given a headstart in, you know, like we're talking about being aware of the housing rights and responsibilities and resources that they can expect from their community. So I don't know that this is a major point, but I just felt it's worth expressing that I don't think it's going too far to ask a major and wealthy community partner to participate in a good faith ordinance. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. Thank you, Mr. South, for being here for tonight and for always keeping us updated. You know, there's a lot that's astonishing in what you shared with us tonight and what you've shared with us over email in recent days. It's hard to even remark on it, but I wanted to just thank the rank and file that you represent for being here. Thank you for your organizing. Thank you for your efforts. There's so much to really be astonished by, even though we've heard, I don't even, I'm running out of adjectives to use, you know, the scope of what's being offered to your bargaining units compared to what could be expected to be reasonable or fair. Just one thing that's ringing in my head 2% with concessions in a climate of six plus percent inflation, it puts me at a loss. And I'm glad to see that the rank and file is not willing to accept such an offer. I think that one of the exemplars of this, we're actually outsourcing or privatizing the folks who are negotiating with our collective bargaining units. And if there's not a crystallizing example of this problem, if that's not it, I don't know what it is. It's a really frustrating time, I think, to be on the city council and have what rounds down to no power over the root causes of this, which is our inability to invest in our city employees the way that they deserve and the way that our city deserves, the way that our residents deserve. I think, Obviously, this all comes down to will, comes down to the will to invest in our city the way that it serves, and that it comes down to the ability to do that. We're talking about the budget, but all of our realm of possibility here flows from that. I think we passed this year's budget on June 28th. I think this probably goes for all my fellow councilors. What date did we start worry about our next budget? June 29th. It's a discouraging time to be in, to be looking at what's going on right now and staring down the barrel of what we're ever going to be able to offer to the folks who make the city work and make the city run next year and the year after that. When it comes down to what we're able to offer the city employees, it's not just the work that they do, it's investing in the people themselves. And I don't know how we're going to expect to maintain, let alone improve our city and the experience of our city if we're not figuring out how to invest in the people that make that happen. So I just wanted to share some of my disbelief over what we are hearing tonight, what we've been hearing, and thank you to all the city employees that are standing up for what you deserve.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you to all BJA's representatives for joining us again in the chambers. Just to pick up on the thread that Councilor Knight was speaking to, for the benefit of residents that are observing this process, ultimately this is a permit that is allowed by right. I wasn't on the council when this process began. I think it's, as it's been stated, it's no secret that this was a project that not everybody on this council was convinced was needed. here in Medford but it's a by right project. I'm really grateful for this process that's allowed us to get clarity on hearing from residents, knowing exactly what neighbors want to see from this space in order to, you know, see that reciprocal relationship more fully. You know, through this process, I think we've been able to arrive at a package of conditions that can address specific things that the abutting neighbors need to see to get to specific outcomes that will help us be as as neighborly as possible as possible when this gas station goes into operation. You know, and really attach that as a condition to the permit, not a handshake deal something that we can continue, make sure is followed up on and make sure that this relationship is as good as possible for the people that will affect most directly, the butters. your willingness to engage in this process and really deeply appreciate all of the constituents that reached out to us during this process on both sides of the issue. And I think what's before us is kind of a best case scenario for this going forward. So I'll be supporting this this evening. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Rowland. Thank you for the thorough overview. On the vegetative screening along Woodruff Avenue, I'm just curious, what's the timeline on the sort of what, if that were to go in, when can residents expect to be able to fully enjoy that? I don't know to what extent it's planting of existing adolescent trees or waiting for a lot of growth to happen?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. One more question while you're up here. I appreciate the notes about pursuing better signage and a towing policy for unauthorized trucks in the parking area. I think that we also heard from residents about some problems, noise pollution coming from potentially authorized trucks with a lot of offloading happening into the evening hours. I was curious if, is there currently a policy around that? Is that something that could be resolved as well?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Rowe, and I appreciate everybody who spoke tonight from the the web of BJ's related individuals and constituents and those representing the constituents local to this site as well. I think my fellow Councilors who have kind of spoken and in summation, I think they've put it well. This has been a pretty long road. Most of this happened before I took office last year. And, you know, I just wanna acknowledge the community of neighbors that have lived through the nuisances created by BJ's sometimes for decades. I'm sure that if I don't I don't live in the Wellington neighborhood I live in South Medford but I'm sure if I was one of those neighbors I would also have the, I'll believe it when I see it kind of attitude that we're hearing I think that's really understandable I think that's really justified. You know, this is, I think the context is helpful here, the legal context and the very kind of strict parameters that we ultimately have to operate within. And I think this situation where we are trying to do the least harm overall and end up with the best outcome possible. And again, that's very constrained. I think that We've gotten to a place where this special permit application is now attached to a whole slate of mitigating and improving conditions that is broadened, even from what was looked at two years ago. It's my hope that you know, this process, while unfortunate, you know, it's the type of thing, as Councilor Scarpelli said, I wish that we never had to go through this version of this special permit review process in the first place. But it's my hope that we've been able to use this to negotiate the best possible terms under which this gas station might come in. And I appreciate that investment, that renewed and increased investment that has been proposed for all the work done to create that and for all the work ahead. Um, and, um, you know, it's to the constituents. You know, I want all the residents of this neighborhood to know that if this goes forward, you know, of course, we'll be holding BJ's accountable to its promises to be a good neighbor going forward. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Partially an attempt to see if we can get Attorney Austin back on the line. I have shared the same concerns. She can't come back.
[Kit Collins]: Well, fair enough. In that case, I mean, questions I'd love to have answered by somebody with a JD is, it's my impression that this application to have special early, it's not similar to BJ's in that it's opening at 5 a.m. It's not allowed by right. That said, you know, I don't know. I don't have a legal degree. In an ideal world, I would love for this council to be able to stand up for organized labor in Medford by saying, you know, why don't you follow through on those great rhetorical commitments to the value of your employees by collectively bargaining with them, and then we'll see if, you know, you can open your store. Earlier enough that, you know, for example, it's harder to get here in public transportation. I think these are all conditions for why it's especially important to have an organized labor force in such an establishment. That being said, this is a quagmire. I think we'd like to know that beforehand. So something along the lines of if we have the time to table to our next regular meeting or to the waiting period, those are motions that I'd be in favor of.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, President Morell. Myself and others in the Medford Arts community received word just a week or two ago that there is a planned opening for Arts Collaborative Medford's very long-planned, long-anticipated community arts center sometime later this year. At this point, it's looking like it's going to be in the spring. This has been the product of years and years and years of work and effort on the part of many in Medford's arts community. As a working artist myself, you know it's hard to overstate how important it is to have a community art center actually within our city limits, it's, it's very hard to find. space for arts, for community arts within our communities. These spaces are really scarce, they're really precious, they really mean a lot to artists working in all types of media. So I'm really excited to see what this can do to leverage a very rich existing arts community in Medford and I just want to wish a very hearty congratulations to everybody who's worked on this project so far.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, president Rowland. Yeah, I really appreciate the discussion around this. you know, we all get the emails and the calls when we, you know, usually it's around the big sweep. And, you know, I think it's an issue that I'd be really happy if there was a way for the city administration to look at what can we do short term and what can we do long term. I got a call a couple months ago from a constituent who, real recent resident, I think they live in South Medford, just like I do. And they said, you know, I just didn't know my car got towed and it was like her whole paycheck. know, of course, a lot of people have had that experience. It's not a one-off. You know, I hope that she was able to, you know, bounce back from that. But, you know, that's the type of thing that I think we have a lot of conversations about and ultimately want to insulate our residents from that kind of penalty. I think people want to do the right thing. I, you know, of course, we're, we sit behind this rail. We're Councilors. We're not policy implementers. Like, I don't know how to do the DPW's job. Certainly don't know how to do our city staff's job, but I'd really love for this to, whether it's through this resolution, follow-up meeting, you know, either or, I think that this is something that I'd really love to discuss with city administration, just to say, you know, what can we do so that we're bridging that gap? Because I think we see the patterns where there are residents, as Councilor Bears says, there are residents who have been on the email list all along, they get the phone calls, and then there are folks who just, they don't know what they don't know. And I think that ideally would be part of a revamped communication strategy, but I'd love it if we could do as much as we could. Thanks.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. So this is bringing up a topic that has been brought up innumerable times by, I don't know how many Councilors in the past, probably all of them. I'm really not sure. And, you know, as we're all aware, we still are receiving, we're hearing from residents who are experiencing a level of noise pollution from airport traffic that is disruptive to their daily lives. The background on why these air transit navigation changes happened and when they happened and why that's now causing additional trouble for certain neighborhoods in Medford. It's all on the city website because it's something that branches of our government have been active in. This is just a following up on some of those recent efforts to follow up on promises that have been made by our federal delegation and the federal agencies that they're trying to work with. Unfortunately, we are many, many steps removed from the people with the power to affect the navigation changes from Boston Logan. That could get some relief for our residents. but we have to stay on this. One short term step that we can take is just to follow up with that federal delegation and say, where are we at with the FAA reviewing these recommendations that include potential solutions for dispersing this noise pollution and go from there. And if constituents who aren't already very active in lodging noise complaints would like to do so, there's a lot of information on how to do so on the city website. If you go to airplane noise, there's a couple, there's a few options for where to register specific complaints that these all get compiled and eventually make them what make their way to the decision makers. Thank you. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell, and I just want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this forward and for your words in describing the intent behind this resolution. I think that, you know, what I feel that the community is looking for is for this whole Medford City government to work together to improve the lives of specifically students and those who work in the schools. And, you know, isn't that the goal of government in general? And I see this as a really, just a great way to start off the year saying, you know, we're partners in this, we're equal partners, let's strike the right tone, let's have a collaborative meeting. We all want the same things. What do you need? And what can we do to support you. And I know from some informal conversations with members of the school committee. This process of saying, here's what we need to create the school environment that our students really deserve and then hearing back a number that's different process that's baked into the school committee here, you know, better than I do. And if we can help shore up, making sure that we get as close as possible to having NPS have what they need to provide the environment that students deserve. This is a great tone to start out the year with, and I really appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Rowe. Thank you so much for being here and for this found the presentation really interesting. It's great to hear about a playground from bonafide playground experts. So I really appreciate you walking us through this. You know, as Councilor Scarpelli and others have noted, our requests are appropriated by the mayor. Our vote tonight is, you know, largely symbolic, but I'm really glad that we have the opportunity to do so because this is just, you know, such an inspiring project, really. I mean, the need for rehabilitation, you laid it out very clearly, and we're so clearly going beyond that to create a adaptive and inclusive space, some of the concepts that we love to talk a lot about how to work those into our public spaces. And this is just such a such a clear example of us, putting that manifesting that in our community. So I'll be really proud to have this playground within men first borders and thank you for your work.
[Kit Collins]: I would motion that then.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Penny, for being here tonight and for presenting, you know, some of the process and progress that's gone into the work that this grant has enabled. I think, you know, over the past year, this grant, I mean, I know it's gone on for more than the past year, but, you know, what's come out of this has been one of the things that I, you know, feel most proud of in the city. It's really great to be able to see some first steps towards language equity, doing a better job of reaching out to the people who, you know, historically do not show up to City Hall, are not reached out to, don't speak the language, you know, in whatever way, I think this is really important work. And it's great to get sort of these concrete facts about what specifically has been done, what the grant has enabled the city to do. I think that it's important for us to get a picture of what doing that work of bringing more of the community into community spaces, how that breaks down into roles and positions and programs, kind of gives those numbers some context. You know, as a, as a Councilor, and I know that you in your office, you, you, you get this, you know, 10 times more than, than we do, but, you know, we hear from people looking for housing, we hear from people who are looking for pro bono legal representation, you know, the eviction crisis in Medford square several months ago, eviction help, you know, tenant organizing. I'm been very involved with the mutual aid network for several years. You know, I, what strikes me every time these conversations come up is, It seems like over and over again, we hit against the fact that even our provider network are very close to hitting their bandwidth. And I know that it's in my mind so strongly all the time that our regional network of providers is inundated. There's so much need, you said for housing, food insecurity, there's so much need. And I know that that's one of the many things that we need a regional approach for, we need more state assistance for. Where this comes in as I think, Given that it's so important for us to streamline on the local level as much as possible to make sure that everybody in our community who needs those resources can access them in an easy way. I think this program is doing that and that everybody in the community can have equitable access to the resources that are available. And I really hope that that work can continue in parallel with, you know, regionally and with our other providers working to make sure that we have more places to direct people to, you know, I'm sure it's heartbreaking for your staff every time you have to say, I can get you on that wait list. I can get you on that list. I can't wait. I can't get you on that wait list. And I'm sure that's, I'm sure that's really hard. So I just thank you for, thank you for this work. I'm really excited to see how it continues. And like vice president Behr said, so any way this council can support you and continue that work, you know, we're partners with you.
[Kit Collins]: I just wanted to thank you for coming before us for having these numbers prepared and for your candor. I think we all know that when you took the job here, you didn't sign up for a cakewalk, but we all know how much is on your plates with catching up from our financial backlog, reconciling everything, and we don't want you know, your, your role in, in, in getting us up to speed to be any more, you know, painful than it has to be. So I'm hoping that, you know, I'm looking forward to the presentation in January. I really appreciate, you know, your help in dialing down how to get us what we need. And I hope that, you know, at that presentation and the committee of the whole, if we refer it there, we can also at that point kind of assess what do we need going forward to make sure that this back and forth between the council and your offices, you know, having communication wise, what it needs, just to make sure that that's as streamlined as possible. So again, thank you for being here. We do really appreciate your hard work.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. You know, mostly right now, I want to, I know there are community members in the room, I want to hear from community members. But I just wanted to say at the outset, you know, yesterday's incident was heartbreaking. It's traumatizing during an already extremely raw and difficult time. These events affect the whole community. As leaders, I think it's our responsibility to hear from people who are the most affected, the students, the families, teachers, and staff. I think we can all agree, nothing is more important than our public schools being safe and stable and supportive everybody who has to be inside of them. I think that's a really shared goal. And I think this heartbreak is shared that our schools are not safe. They're not secure. They don't feel supportive. And, you know, in this conversation, you know, I want to hear from the people most affected. That's the folks who go to the schools every day and the people who love them. As we mentioned, you know, many Councilors, myself included, have papers later on the agenda for ways that this council can act within its power to try and be part of the solution. We'll get into more of that later. It's deeply troubling that we have to be having this conversation. It's hard to put into words how to express sympathy for something so painful that's happened to kids just going to school and their families. It's a sorry thing, the events that precipitated this discussion, but we have to have it and we're gonna have it. Councilor Scarpelli and others were calling for urgent action. We're calling for the council to act within its purview to try and be part of the solution. And I completely agree, completely agree. You know, we have to use our powers as city councilors to try and be part of the solution. We aren't the school committee. We can't be the school committee. We can't make the type of the decisions that the school community is empowered to make. We can use the powers that we have as the city council to try to direct resources where they need to go to try to be a part of the community-wide conversation. to emphasize the voices of the folks that are most affected by this, to listen to the people who know best where those resources need to go. And I'm glad that we get to be a part of that conversation. I hope that going forward, this can be more collaborative, that we can all do our specific roles, but in concert with each other. And lastly, since Councilor Scarpelli's resolution calls for public input, if anybody's here to give input, I just want to acknowledge that not everybody does feel comfortable speaking in public, especially on live TV. It's not for the faint of heart. And also not every comment, especially when kids and school security is involved, is best said in a public setting. I just wanna restate for the record, whether we're in session or not, I'm available to any resident, to any constituent to field ideas, to hear your questions. If you just need a listening ear, if you don't feel comfortable speaking tonight, you can always reach out to me, we're available. So I just wanted to say that at the outset of any community input. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I'm speaking off the cuff here. So I just want to say, you know, I think that what the community deserves today in the aftermath of yesterday's events, in the aftermath of other traumatic, tragic events, what the community deserves is a communicative, collaborative city council. They deserve clear communication, resolve to work together productively from all their elected leaders. We owe our community better than infighting. You know, we've disagreed on many things many times before. Behind this rail, it'll happen again. That's what we're here to do. We're here to represent different viewpoints for perspective on issues. We're here to represent different viewpoints for how to, how to craft strategy and how to respond to problems in our community and how to plan for the future. But I think that we owe today, especially today and all days, we owe the community a productive use of our time, discussing available strategies for what we can do within our powers to try to deal with the problems before us. I, you know, What, what looks like a buzzword to one Councilor might be somebody else's best good faith, earnest approach at doing something that is within our power, within our purview to try to address specifically a problem that exists. It's put forth in good faith. And I think that tracks both ways. I don't think it's productive for us to launch into veiled personal attacks. You know, I don't want, I don't want that to be what tonight is. I think that we have to come together. We have to discuss the strategies that we've put forth. We might not agree on all of them, but what our community is calling out for is a good faith, earnest discussion of strategies. It does our community no good to spill a lot of ink and spill a lot of airtime, fighting about things that we cannot control. The community deserves better than a performance. we need to discuss strategies that we have the capacity to enforce. And sometimes we will disagree about what those best strategies are, but that's what our time should be for. So I have a rationale for why I brought the strategies that I think are most important to talk about here. I know those feelings aren't universally shared. I'll save that for when those papers are brought up, but I really hope that we can maintain clear communication and sticking to the issues at hand and striving for concrete strategies for as much of this evening as possible, because that's what the community needs from us. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Um, I it's, it's hard to add anything after a story like that. I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to thank you for, for being here. Thank you for sharing your story. I'm not a parent. I can't fathom what it's like to be a parent and go through something like that. Something that unfortunately a lot of families in our public school systems have to go through. It's heartbreaking. I just want to say, you know, our hearts go out to you. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, President Morell. Tonight is the third night of the holiday Hanukkah. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing a Chag Sameach or happy holiday to all who celebrate this holiday. Celebrates the legend of an oil candle that burned in probably for eight whole nights. And I think tonight we can celebrate the miracle of a hypothetical candle that burned for a probably five hour city council meeting. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Just to keep it very brief. This is a project that I've already discussed with the director of PBS. This came about because of my involvement in the Solid Waste Task Force. They thought that an ordinance to this effect would help further the overall goals of the task force and further streamline standards and operations for all waste haulers in Medford. They've already indicated that draft language is available. So I'd move approval for referring this into subcommittee for further study.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, Penny, for being here tonight and for presenting, you know, some of the process and progress that's gone into the work that this grant has enabled. I think, you know, over the past year, this grant, I mean, I know it's gone on for more than the past year, but you know, what's come out of this has been one of the things that I, you know, feel most proud of in the city. It's really great to be able to see some first steps towards language equity, doing a better job of reaching out to the people who, you know, historically do not show up to city hall or not reached out to don't speak the language, you know, in whatever way, I think this is really important work. Um, and it's great to get sort of these concrete facts about what specifically has been done, what the grant has been, has enabled the city to do. Um, I think that it's important for us to get a picture of what, um, doing that, doing that work of bringing more of the community into community spaces, how that breaks down into roles and positions and programs, kind of gives those numbers some context. As a Councilor, and I know that you in your office, you get this 10 times more than we do, but we hear from people looking for housing, we hear from people who are looking for pro bono legal representation, the eviction crisis in Medford Square several months ago, eviction help, tenant organizing, I've been very involved with the mutual aid network for several years. What strikes me every time these conversations come up is it seems like over and over again, we hit against the fact that even our provider network are very close to hitting their bandwidth. And I know that. It's in my mind so strongly all the time that our regional network of providers is inundated. There's so much need, you said for housing, food insecurity, there's so much need. And I know that that's one of the many things that we need a regional approach for, we need more state assistance for. Where this comes in as I think, given that it's so important for us to streamline on the local level as much as possible to make sure that everybody in our community who needs those resources can access them in an easy way. I think this program is doing that and that everybody in the community can have equitable access to the resources that are available. And I really hope that that work can continue in parallel with regionally and with our other providers working to make sure that we have more places to direct people to. I'm sure it's heartbreaking for your staff every time you have to say, I can get you on that wait list. I can get you on that list. I can't get you on that wait list. And I'm sure that's really hard. I just thank you for this work. I'm really excited to see how it continues. And like vice president Baird said, so anyway, this council can support you and continue that work. We're partners with you.
[Kit Collins]: I just wanted to thank you for coming for us, for having these numbers prepared and for your candor. I think we all know that when you took the job here, you didn't sign up for a cakewalk, but we all know how much is on your plates with catching up from our financial backlog, reconciling everything, and we don't want you know, your role in getting us up to speed to be any more, you know, painful than it has to be. So I'm hoping that, you know, I'm looking forward to the presentation in January. I really appreciate, you know, your help in dialing down how to get us what we need. And I hope that, you know, at that presentation and the committee of the whole, if we refer it there, we can also at that point kind of assess what do we need going forward to make sure that this back and forth between the council and your offices, you know, having communication-wise what it needs just to make sure that that's as streamlined as possible. So again, thank you for being here. We do really appreciate your hard work.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Um, you know, mostly right now, I, I want to, I know there are community members in the room. I want to hear from community members. Um, but I just wanted to say at the outset, you know, yesterday's incident was heartbreaking. It's traumatizing during an already extremely raw and difficult time. Um, these events affect the whole community as leaders. I think it's our responsibility to hear from people who are the most affected, the students, the families, teachers and staff. I think we can all agree nothing is more important than our public schools being safe and stable and supportive for everybody who has to be inside of them. I think that's a really shared goal. And I think this heartbreak is shared that our schools are not safe. They're not secure. They don't feel supportive. And, you know, in this conversation, You know, I want to hear from the people most affected. That's the folks who go to the schools every day and the people who love them. As, as we mentioned, you know, many Councilors, myself included, have papers later on the agenda for ways that this council can act within its power to try and be part of the solution. You know, we'll, we'll get into more of that later. It's, it's deeply troubling that we have to be having this conversation. I'm just, it's, it's hard to put into words, you know, how to express sympathy for something so painful that's happened to kids just going to school and their families. It's, you know, it's a sorry thing, the events that precipitated this discussion, but we have to have it and we're gonna have it. You know, Councilor Scarpelli and others were calling for urgent action. We're calling for the council to act within its purview to try and be part of the solution. And I completely agree, completely agree. You know, we have to use our powers as city councilors to try and be part of the solution. We aren't the school committee. We can't be the school committee. We can't make the type of the decisions that the school committee is empowered to make. We can use the powers that we have as the city council to try to direct resources where they need to go, to try to be a part of the community-wide conversation, to emphasize the voices of the folks that are most affected by this, to listen to the people who know best where those resources need to go. And I'm glad that we get to be a part of that conversation. I hope that going forward, this can be more collaborative that we can all do our specific roles, but in concert with each other. And lastly, since Councilor Scarpelli's resolution calls for public input, if anybody's here to give input, I just want to acknowledge that not everybody does feel comfortable speaking in public, especially on live TV. It's not for the faint of heart. And also not every comment, especially when kids and school security is involved, is best said in a public setting. I just want to restate for the record, whether we're in session or not, I'm available. to any resident, to any constituent, to field ideas, to hear your questions. If you just need a listening ear, if you don't feel comfortable speaking tonight, you can always reach out to me. We're available. So I just wanted to say that at the outset of any community input. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I'm speaking off the cuff here. So I just wanna say, I think that what the community deserves today in the aftermath of yesterday's events, in the aftermath of other traumatic, tragic events. What the community deserves is a communicative, collaborative city council. They deserve clear communication, resolve to work together productively from all their elected leaders. We owe our community better than infighting. You know, we've disagreed on many things many times before, Behind this rail, it'll happen again. That's what we're here to do. We're here to represent different viewpoints for perspective on issues. We're here to represent different viewpoints for how to craft strategy and how to respond to problems in our community and how to plan for the future. But I think that we owe today, especially today and all days, we owe the community a productive use of our time, discussing available strategies for what we can do within our powers to try to deal with the problems before us. I, you know, what, what looks like a buzzword to one Councilor might be somebody else's best good faith, earnest approach at doing something that is within our power, within our purview to try to address specifically a problem that exists. It's put forth in good faith. And I think that tracks both ways. I don't think it's productive for us to launch into veiled personal attacks. I don't want that to be what tonight is. I think that we have to come together. We have to discuss the strategies that we've put forth. We might not agree on all of them, but what our community is calling out for is a good faith, earnest discussion of strategies. It does our community no good to spill a lot of ink and spill a lot of airtime, fighting about things that we cannot control. The community deserves better than a performance. we need to discuss strategies that we have the capacity to enforce. And sometimes we will disagree about what those best strategies are, but that's what our time should be for. So I have a rationale for why I brought the strategies that I think are most important to talk about here. I know those feelings aren't universally shared. I'll save that for when those papers are brought up, but I really hope that we can maintain just clear communication and sticking to the issues at hand and striving for concrete strategies for as much of this evening as possible, because that's what the community needs from us. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Um, I, it's, it's hard to add anything after a story like that. I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to thank you for, for being here. Thank you for sharing your story. Um, I'm not a parent. I can't fathom what it's like to be a parent and go through something like that, something that unfortunately a lot of families in our public school systems have to go through. It's heartbreaking. I just want to say, you know, our hearts go out to you. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, President Morell. Tonight is the third night of the holiday Hanukkah. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing a Chag Sameach or happy holiday to all who celebrate this holiday. Celebrates the legend of an oil candle that burned in probably for eight whole nights. And I think tonight we can celebrate the miracle of a hypothetical candle that burned for a probably five hour city council meeting. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Just to keep it very brief. This is a project that I've already discussed with the director of PBS. This came about because of my involvement in the solid waste task force. They thought that an ordinance to this effect would help further the overall goals of the task force and further streamline standards and operations for all waste haulers in Medford. They've already indicated that draft language is available. So I'd move approval for referring this into subcommittee for further study.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Councilor Collins. Thanks, Owen, for being here. My question is also about sidewalks. If the sidewalk mitigation is rolled into the same project by Eversource or their contractor, I was just curious if you had a quick status update on your fingertips. If not, that's fine. I was hearing from constituents who were dealing with sidewalks.
[Kit Collins]: So that'll start in the spring?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. Are there any interim measures for folks on wheelchairs, strollers, with those missing chunks in the meantime?
[Kit Collins]: Sure, totally. I understand that added up a bunch of full-time jobs to the DPW's roster. I'm just curious, are there added crosswalks just to maintain ADA compliance while all that's been worked out?
[Kit Collins]: But that'll happen in the spring.
[Kit Collins]: So it'll look the same, but it's just temporary. Okay, gotcha. Essentially what I'm trying to get at is for folks who can't hop over an uneven sidewalk through the winter, do they have recourse right now or is it avoid that sidewalk and toll? I don't, yeah. Where in particular are you talking? I'd have to reference my inbox. Okay.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morella. Fellow dog lover here, for the record. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Councilor Scarpelli has to offer. I also took note of the survey when it was released. My first thought was just similar to the ARPA Community Survey in general. In the community, when we see a survey go out, I'm very curious to know What's the plan for the survey? What is the goal for how many people to be surveyed? What is the process for making sure that we get a representative cross section of the community actually weighing in? Will that be reported? How will that feedback be translated into policy with this issue in particular because it involves an ordinance? I would love advanced notice from the administration on if we are to try to craft or change policy based on the feedback from this ordinance, how will that go? Especially since that is a multi-jurisdictional event because of the ordinance involved. there was one more thing that I had to say. But it's left my mind. Um, you know, in general, I think that I think that Councilor Scarpelli's point about the bandwidth of our animal control specialists as well as our communications bandwidth is really a point well taken that applies to most things in the city. And I think that when we do put out a survey, especially knowing that it's an issue that constituents are looking to hear about, I think that we need to be proactive about managing expectations, both for the timetable on which things are proposed to maybe change and also the scope that it's possible to change things within. And again, especially that's relevant here because it would involve city council action as well as administrative action. But I think that in many cases, that's really lacking when this sort of, we're just putting feelers out there type of action gets done. I think it's really, we owe it to the community to let them know, we wanna hear your feedback and also this is the universe of possibility. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Rao. I appreciate all of the resident comments on this issue. At the end of the day, I'm not even overly concerned about a quick change to our dog free range policy precipitating here in Medford because honestly, I think Mr. Lincoln said, and if you didn't, I apologize for putting words in your mouth, why put out a survey at all based on the resident impact, that input that we've received so far. We know why they're putting out a survey. It's a way of not having to say in response to resident input, Actually, we don't have the operating budget to sustain what you are asking for, and that's why we're not doing it. It's a way of avoiding making that statement. And that is the conversation that we really need to be having on this and every other important issue facing the community. With that, I would motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Roehl, and I appreciate the dialogue so far. I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this forward. Like Vice President Bears, I I'm glad about the spirit of this resolution. I had similar reservations about doing it by the text offered in the main paper, which the amendment offered, I think I'd be much more comfortable with. I think that everybody behind this rail, this really feels that frustration of asking for this information over and over and not getting it. And also the frustration of trying to work with KP Law, a lawyer that is not beholden to us or working exclusively with us and getting extremely variable responses to our requests for legal counsel, which I will not enumerate, but I will if anybody asks me specifically. I was going to mention well, in the spirit of the amendment that's been offered, I think that, you know, the buck has to stop somewhere. I think this is an appropriate next step to make. I think we can, I think we have demonstrated, I think we'll continue to demonstrate to the administration that we are extremely serious about getting a city solicitor, assistant city solicitor that will be accountable to us for the council to stop all work that requires legal review right here and now before another escalating step. You know, not to sound overly cynical, but I could see that being a real gift for the administration in the way that goes against what we're trying to do here. Prior to June of this year, you know, we heard multiple times an alleged rationale for why we didn't really need an independent council. The summer we started hearing that. Um. Commentary about the fact that we would try to produce two whole ordinances per year. I want us to keep making the case that this city council is. By law, a legislative body. We will legislate to create the policies that this community deserves. I want us to keep doing that through December. If we don't get you know the reasonable accommodations that we're asking for, you know, then I
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I think this was a great idea. I'll be happy to support it tonight. Just to echo what Vice President Bears was just speaking to, you know, I think that as we try to improve the status quo with parking in our community, among other issues, you know, I keep coming back to What were they set up to do? Were they set up to succeed? Were they set up to fail? I think that these traveling information sessions is a great idea. Actually, just earlier this week, I was talking to a constituent who actually didn't hear about the big sweep, which is something that even I hear about. And I feel like I'm the last person I know about everything in the community, notwithstanding being a council member. To me, that speaks to the fact that we can do as much as we're doing right now. We can try to reach as many people as possible with our current communications infrastructure and staffing levels. We are, it's reality, we're missing a lot of people. This is going to help. but it's not a systemic approach. I really want to see the city administration supporting the parking department and rolling out these traveling information sessions. No department crafts its own policies. These are directives that are coming down from the administration. If the administration wants this department to succeed, they need to help them succeed. I think this is a great tactic to advance that, but it needs resources and it needs support just like the rest of their agenda. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for being here tonight. I also want to open by apologizing for not speaking up last week. when you came before us and briefly shared your story. This case is very deeply troubling. And honestly, I felt at a loss for what I could offer that in that moment would possibly help given how limited this body is and what it can do to directly impact this or any other situation in public schools. I was distracted by a sense of regret that this issue even had to come so far as to be brought up in a public meeting and risk further pain and exposure for everybody involved. I apologize, this is state of my mind. I've had the opportunity to speak with you privately and thank you for giving me your time and your perspective. In reflecting, I've remembered that even in the absence of a new good idea to lend to a problem or some idea for an instant fix, which there isn't here, simply expressing sympathy can be a good start. I'm sorry that I didn't offer that last week. So for all the families who listen to these meetings, for your family, for all the families who invest in our public schools, I am sorry for my silence. COVID was no excuse. If I wasn't well enough to respond to a resident in need, I should have already been logged off. That's just something for me to take forward. Like I've said, I'm deeply troubled by what your family and these students have been through. I'm sad that we have to go so far in giving each student what they need to have a safe and stable experience at school. Every student needs to be able to count on that. We owe that to our public school students and their families. Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli, I appreciate the sincere attempt to create a solve for this issue. It's a policy that will improve conditions in our schools. Talk is cheap, we all know this. Roles change hands, policy is an expression of values. That being said, I want to support policies that will help to effectuate direct impact that this body can enforce. I don't love to share this, but I'm not comfortable supporting the main papers tonight as written. I do want to share why. I believe this proposed ordinance, I share similar concerns. I believe it would conflict with national law. I believe it would be unenforceable. I believe that we need to pay Deep attention to resources. Hold our administration accountable to following through on resources. A public forum is deeply important. I don't know that we can enforce that. I know that we owe our students and our teachers and our school staff more resources to create the environment that our students deserve. In the interest of avoiding a conflict with mass general law, I feel unable to support this paper as written. I believe that we can hold school leadership accountable to our shared goals while also maintaining checks and balances in our city government. That's not to say that I don't support changes to school policy that would arm our school administration and school staff with better systems and tools to prevent school violence and create the best possible experience for our students and our public schools families. I just don't believe that this is something that we can do. I know that our teachers, our school staff, our school committee want what is best for our students. I know that we need, and I think that most of them would agree, that policy changes and resource changes to improve the condition and the environment of our schools, ensuring the best possible environment for kids to learn and thrive in safely. We have to effectuate that. I think that the B paper offered by Councilor, Vice President Bears is one piece of an overall puzzle of aligning resources with our values. I'd be happy to support that tonight and continue the discussion about the main paper. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Kit. Hi there, my name is Kit Collins. I'm on the Medford City Council. I'm a member of the Solid Waste Task Force Apologies for being off camera. I'm recovering from COVID right now, so not looking my best, but really glad to see so many people on the call tonight. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. The Housing Subcommittee met again to discuss the proposed Housing Stability Notification Ordinance. We had a robust discussion with relevant city staff regarding enforcement and implementation, and we referred it to Committee of the Whole to continue the discussion with other councilors.
[Kit Collins]: President Merle and I motioned a table, so that we can we can take this up in person at a subsequent meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Just since you asked for confirmation, I just wanted to offer mine, what I heard from the chief of staff at our meeting was that I say, I believe that they said they were looking for feedback, an opportunity for feedback from the city council on these projects, but that they had, the executive office has full jurisdiction to go ahead with the appropriations and that they do not need our vote to complete them.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And thank you to Chief Friedman, Director Morrison, and I wanna say project manager, Jim Silva. I apologize if I got your title wrong, but it's great to see you working in the city hall in any capacity. I definitely, as one councilor, I definitely appreciate the clarity and the context around these funding requests. Now that we've heard a little bit about each of them, you know, I would be happy to make a motion to them all or frankly to just receive and place on file, the Chief of Staff made it clear that our votes of approval on these appropriations were not necessary for funding. So I'm not sure if there is a procedural difference. But, you know, I think that this is, you know, in a best case scenario, this could be a forum for meaningful feedback on the work of these departments. I don't know that we've really seen that play out in our ARPA allocation process so far, which, you know, I think is a part of the allocation process where there's a bit of potential that I hope we can see used a little bit better as we continue to go on and continue to spend down our disbursement. I would like for the community to have meaningful input. I would like for this council to have meaningful input. That's not to say that there's anything I'd really like to critique about the projects before us right now. These are projects that are being advocated for by the city department heads. It's not up to us how ARPA is spent. And so for the purposes of this meeting, That's good enough for me. I think that there's a forum for getting more information about each of these projects in particular. But frankly, I'm not sure that this is it. I think that the administration wants to let it be known, you know, some of these big buckets that some of our ARPA money is going to be, is considered being committed towards at this point. You know, message heard loud and clear. I think that's good. That's a good start of getting, you know, a bit more on the ball in terms of where those big tracts of our ARPA spending is going. I hope that we can continue to have that level of back and forth and that we can continue to have meaningful input going forward. But as for now, Um, you know, I think that continuing to have that broad stroke kind of conversation is great. And then if there's nitty gritty on implementation, you know, I'd like to have that in a more dedicated setting, um, so that Councilors as well as department heads can be fully equipped to have those kinds, um, of conversations. So with that, I would, I would motion for approval on, on these five. appropriations. And I also I apologize if my words are a little garbled tonight, I am on day four COVID right now so not speaking that well but thank you for letting me know.
[Kit Collins]: Great, then I would I would motion to receive in place on file, if that is the case, but I'm open to open to amendment if other Councilors feel differently.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Yeah, to echo Councilor Scarpelli's words of support and other Councilors' words of support, just to emphasize, since I didn't earlier, even if we were voting for approval, even if approval were up to us, I would have no hesitation voting for approval for any of these, for any of these suggested expenditures. They heard loud and clear the benefits to our city, our community, to our various departments, the projects that these expenditures will fund. I don't wanna detract from that note of support just because this conversation also brings in sort of the broader threads of, ARPA's funding in general and how that relates to the overall budget and how that relates to the structural deficit. I think the point that I'm trying to make through what I've said is that I think with conversations like this with individual department heads, about individual departments, about individual Expenditures, often they become about the operating budget, they become about the structural deficit, they become about the communication that we receive about the budget. With city staffers who frankly, I don't think it's fair for us to expect to answer to those questions because we're not getting that communication elsewhere in predictable and routine ways from our central administration. You know, I'm always glad for the chance to talk about those things with our department heads and our project leaders, but at the same time, that's not the forum that I want for these conversations. So, you know, I think we can say at the same time, we're concerned about one-time funding. being used to fund projects that will then, in a couple years, need another funding source, because maybe somebody knows, but I don't happen to know where that funding will come from. We can say that, and at the same time, we can say, you know, I personally, as one Councilor, I'm glad that these projects will be funded. They will be funded because it's up to this administration and the administration, by virtue of the fact that these department heads are here today, they're planning on funding them. So I just wanted to make that very clear. I think there's kind of two levels to this conversation. They're parallel, but these broader concerns in my understanding, don't take away from the fact that these projects are going to get funded unless, you know, the executive office changes its mind. And personally, I'm happy about that. So just to clarify that, and with that, I would move the question.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and thank you. Councilor Knight, for your motion to approve. I think this resolution speaks for itself. I also wanna flag that we have a few representatives of the Resident Assistance Union here tonight to speak. And just to emphasize that this is a call for Tufts University, my alma mater, to voluntarily recognize the union. We hope that they will do so swiftly as it's the right thing to do. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate the discussion around this. I also don't want to belabor the points that I made the last time this was on our agenda, but I want to say, you know, I'm sympathetic to some of the other concerns that I'm hearing tonight. I remember after we, you know, finally passed the budget in June, on July 1st, what was on my mind was fiscal year 24. You know, it was, it was so immediately apparent, you know, Our issues are not behind us. Our budgetary concerns are not behind us. We're already kind of staring down the barrel of what we're going to hear about in, you know, hopefully May of next year. Hopefully it's not June again. But that being said, you know, like we talked about last month, or like I said last month, you know, to me, I'll be supporting this paper tonight because Medford is experiencing growing pains. and this position I feel is necessary to help us evolve thoughtfully and appropriately and intentionally and plan for the future that we want. And to me, leaving this position unfilled is leaving opportunity on the table. The Planning Development and Sustainability Office is, you know, one of the most productive departments that we have in the city hall for actually increasing revenue for our city. Of course, the future is incredibly uncertain and that creates a lot of anxiety for me and for so many other people who care about this community. But I am fearful of what will happen, the opportunities we'll leave on the table, the people that will lose to other communities if we don't create opportunities for growth within our city hierarchy.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And again, I appreciate all the perspectives being shared on this. I really appreciate this discussion. I think it's an important one for the public to hear. To me, kind of in summation, I believe that this council has been doing the work of seeking to change the financial conditions of the city to get us to an environment where all city employees can count on getting raises, can count on being fairly compensated, can count on getting wage increases every year. That is very obviously has been well documented and talked about at great length. Not the case. It has not been the case for a long time. I think it is truly astonishing. I think that all of the city employees who have chosen to remain public servants in light of that is, it's truly astonishing. It's heroic, including many people, I'd say probably in the departments that we've talked about tonight, that they remain committed to this work to serve this community, even as they are going under compensated and without having a light at the end of the tunnel for when that condition is going to change. At the same time, this body has been doing the work of trying to change the financial conditions so we can get to a place where all workers can be fairly compensated, can count on fair raises every year. I wish that we were seeing more of that type of leadership from the executive office. In my opinion, we have not been. We've been doing what we can in our limited jurisdiction to create the conditions for development, to create the space and capacity and funding for people who will help us do that development, because at the end of the day, we allocate the resources that we have. We have been trying to do the work to create more resources to give the people who take care of this community what they deserve. I don't think that this is a worker versus worker issue. I hope that the people of Medford, especially those who work for our city, and in many cases, in spite of how the city treats them, know that this council stands with them and wants to fight for them. I think that this particular position is in service of our work to try to better the conditions of the city so that conditions can be better for everybody who works for the city. And with that, I'll motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and thank you Attorney Blake for being here, my, and perhaps we'll get to this in your presentation but my concerns are similar to what Vice President Bears just expressed. And in the light of the example of BJS last year that Councilor Scarpelli alluded to I'm curious. Are there, with this type of permit application, are there permissible versus non-permissible reasons for denial that we need to know about before we take this vote? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President real I want to check my understanding here it sounds like from that. description from Attorney Blake that per our zoning ordinance, we can make special exceptions for non-conforming land uses in the case of an exceptional community benefit. But it sounds like the interpretation is in a case such as this, we can't deny a technically conforming land use for a reason that doesn't fit within those bullet points that you mentioned. And I just wanna first check that. My understanding is correct there.
[Kit Collins]: It does, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Motion while under suspension to take communications from the mayor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you, Alicia, for being here. I support this paper. I know that some of my councilors won't feel heard that I'm saying that, and I regret that. I do hear you on this issue in particular. I hear you about the buck has to stop somewhere. I hear you that we need to find what leverage we can to get the reports that we have been asking for, to get the level of accountability that we have been asking for. I hope you look at my past actions and know that I agree with you and that my metric for what I can support and what affects to our city departments I can condone just happened to be different and that is not personal. In this case, this is not an appropriation from Greek cash that makes a difference to me. It already exists within the OPDS budget. In addition, you know, I mean, I think that we'd all agree that the, you know, in many ways, the situation here in City Hall is not stable, as Councilor Knight alluded to. You know, I've spoken to staff in City Hall who, you know, despite their commitment to this community and to public service, they too are feeling the pull to leave, to go to the private sector, to find jobs in other municipalities, because they feel there is no future for them here. No opportunity for growth or promotion. We can't be creating additional reasons for the qualified staff that we do have to leave. you know, and just circling back to what I feel is the broader issue, you know, to me, the foundational issue, this is, you know, we're a community, putting the HR problems aside, we're going through growing pains. This is the type of work and role that will help us evolve thoughtfully and appropriately and intentionally and plan for the future that we want. I don't want to hold our future hostage to the problems that we as a body cannot solve on our own. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, I had the opportunity to meet Steve via the Solid Waste Task Force and I can say he's already very much missed on that body and elsewhere throughout the Metro community. So sending our deepest condolences to his family and many friends.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I just want to note for the record, the parking department is not self-governing any more than any other department in our city, in my view, not any more than the assessor's office, the DPW, or any other department. They've been under a lot of fire since they were established. And I'm glad that we're flagging resident concerns and that we're making sure that residents are being righted and made whole where appropriate. But I just want to make the point that no department is an island. The administration is responsible for creating the conditions for the parking department's success, same as any other department. These projects are being done at the administration's behest, and so I want to make sure that the administration is being held accountable for these issues that are affecting resident quality of life, and not just the people carrying them out. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. So this is a ballot question that all voters get to vote on on the November ballot. It would uphold the Work and Family Mobility Act, which passed the legislature this spring. It would ensure that all drivers who can present proof of residency and pass a road test can get a driver's license. This ensures that all drivers are tested and licensed and insured, which it's demonstrated to make the road safer for everybody. This bill is also supported by a coalition of law enforcement professionals because it is demonstrated to reduce hit and run accidents by as much as 10% in the states where it's implemented. This is why I'm putting this forward. I believe that the passage of this ballot question would materially benefit people of Medford by making our roads safer. That's why I've been personally urging Medford voters to consider voting yes on four, and that's why I'm asking for my fellow councilors' consideration in endorsing this ballot question to make our roads safer for all vehicular drivers and pedestrians in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council express support of question four, dot, dot, dot.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this forward. You know, I think we need to I don't know if this counts as outside of the box, but we need to think outside the box about how to resolve heretofore intractable problems. I think it's been frustrating for all of us to keep putting out requests for updates and requests that are simply germane to our responsibilities as councillors and not hear back and be kept in the dark. And that affects our ability to be accountable to the people who put us in office. And I think that that's something we all share. I'm also not against drawing a line in the sand to you know, continue to demonstrate to the administration that we are serious about being armed with the information that we need to forecast for this community's future and make responsible decisions. You know, I think sort of where my personal limits bump against that, I've demonstrated in some of my votes in the past. However, I think I'm willing to support this this evening. was the one other thing I was going to say. Second time tonight I've done that long day. Oh, in terms of what we're asking for from the finance department, I just think that it needs to be emphasized, you know, that it's It's not necessarily our best move to try to decrease what we're asking for. We're asking for reasonable things from the administration because of lapses in staff capacity. It's our responsibility to ask for the policies that we know are in service of our community. And sometimes, I mean, we see it all throughout the community every day. Those are not going to be enforced or implemented on the timetable that we'd like to see. That is a feature of our community. But that doesn't mean that we should not ask for and legislate for and advocate for the policies that our community deserves. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I just wanted to make sure that residents heard about this prior to November 1. This is a statewide ban going into effect because the majority of mattress or box spring materials are recyclable, which is why they are now required to be recycled and divert them from landfills. I also saw this update from the city just a couple days ago. A company called Hand Up is now offering mattress and box spring pickup in Medford. So residents can schedule a pickup by going to handupmattress.com. There is a charge for the service. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. So I peruse this website a couple times a month just for general updates, and I was surprised to see a lot of open positions in the city of Medford not listed on the job board when I checked there last. I did actually hear from Director Osborne just earlier today and said that they do frequently use this service to advertise the jobs that we are trying to fill. It's just that they're taken down after 30 days, so I'm glad it's being used. And I hope that it's continued to be used consistently as, you know, obviously this is a place where people qualified for municipal work are looking around and we have a great and urgent need. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: This was the meeting about the draft housing stability notification ordinance on which we'll be meeting again. Motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'm excited for the chance for this council to recognize and for the community to celebrate Walk, Bike and Roll to School Day. This celebration is a project of a coalition across Massachusetts. Tomorrow, I have the opportunity to take part in a bike to school caravan, which I'm very excited for. But I think that these celebrations are, you know, really take on more meaning when they're tied to action and a commitment to policy. So I think it's great that we're recognizing the folks that do already take advantage of multimodal ways of getting to school and doing so safely and encouraging that as part of an active lifestyle for our school-age community. And at the same time, I think that it reflects the responsibility that city administration has on this body has to making sure that we're putting forth. Policies in the programs as with as much urgency and speed as we can to make sure that our infrastructure. our ability to, our shared ability to get to school, to work, to wherever safely through all modes of transportation, increased cycling infrastructure, protected bike lanes being just one piece of that project and making sure that we're allocating the city resources to actually live and protect that vision, not just celebrate it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Collins. Vice-President Bears.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merlin. Thank you, Ms. Campbell, for being here tonight and to the other residents that are speaking about their experiences with parking. The last time we spoke about this, Yeah, I know, I'm like, what instance was it? I made the comment, I think something along the lines of, you know, wondering because of the volume of complaints that we've been getting about residents' experience with parking and also complaints from within the parking department itself, from the rank and file and from the leadership wondering, was this department set up to succeed or was it set up to fail? And listening to, you know, the resident experience, you know, the new parking rules as they're filtering through the residence experience. It strikes me that, you know, something that my dad used to tell me about writing is, you know, you can't brainstorm and edit at the same time. You can't write and edit at the same time. And I know from conversations with director Morrison that there's, sorry, this whole circus going on over here. I'm a little distracted. I don't know what's going on.
[Kit Collins]: That's okay. You know, you can't write and edit at the same time. And I know that it's a huge mantle to spin up a whole new city department from nothing, you know, from a contractor that I think, you know, a lot of sources have said was mismanaging our parking system in the city beforehand. But it brings me back to that same question about was this department set up to succeed? Was it set up to fail? Is it even conceivable that a project of this scale could be started and refined and take back resident feedback and be guided and be modifying what it's doing all at the same time. And it seems like that isn't really happening based on what we're hearing from residents. And I know that, you know, it's our parking department staff that's executing the work on a daily basis. But, you know, we get very strong city communications about certain topics from our city administration. about certain types of events and certain types of updates and certain types of developments in the community. And, you know, I'm really upset about the adverse effects of the new parking program on residents when they've been burdened by this and when they felt unheard. But I'm also upset that the city administration isn't stepping up and taking more of the of the Brunton more the responsibility for directing this, um, in the way that I think it's their responsibility to do so. And so you know, we seem to have a great capacity for communicating about certain types of developments and certain types of updates in the city. And I think I think we're past due for seeing more of that capacity spread to the parking department, not just that it's more fair to the rank and file parking staff, the ones that are charged with just executing. the protocols, but also for the benefit of the residents who months later are still struggling to stay up to date with what's already been said about what we can expect. Why is this happening? When is it going to change? Is it going to change? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I was going to make many of the same points when we talked about this project several months ago. I like to say we're a community that's very rich in plans, and this is so exciting because this is the chance to actually take the vision and those plans, which a lot of our, you know, truly expert dedicated city staff have worked on, you know, preparing the menu of options with which we can guide our future and create the policies that will bind us towards actually manifesting that future in our community. So I appreciate you for bringing it forward. Looking forward to this meeting and a motion for approval after the comments of my fellow
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the petitioner being before us tonight. I appreciate the motion to table as well. I think this is a matter I'd want to give some additional consideration to. I think that the point is well noted that this, um, company or its subsidiary already exists in Medford and there haven't been grave consequences noted that they've been a pretty good neighbor in the business community. But I think for myself, you know, it's hard for me as a representative to further enmesh, you know, the subcontractor based economy in our community, knowing that there's no way of regulating, you know, if these are competitive with living wages, if these are, you know, as good of jobs as our local residents really deserve. So that's not at all a reflection on the petitioner. here before us. I really appreciate the work you've put into this. It's something I want to give more thought to. I think it's the issue of, you know, the day-to-day, the traffic impact, the impact on this specific neighborhood. And in addition, you know, what type of businesses do we want to be making up our business ecosystem here in our community? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. I was waffling back and forth on how to vote on this motion now that it's before us. And I had been thinking, just to speak candidly, I mentioned earlier, I think that, We're all acutely aware of the many problems with the parking department and the ways that that's manifested into the lives of our residents and business owners into the community. And I also think that some of the ways in which that flack has been levied upon the parking department to the exclusion of higher ups in the city administration is not quite fair. So I have been thinking, you know, why spread the grief around? I know from talking to staff in the parking department that as flawed and fraught as this parking meter repair project has been, you know, it was a lot of work to repair kiosks that had been broken and in disrepair because of Reef Republic for years. Why not let them, you know, why not say yes to something immaterial? However, the more I think about it, you know, everybody in the city works really hard. I think that everybody who works in City Hall deserves an ice cream social for their efforts. But I think that but please let me finish. Please let me finish. I think that if we're talking about giving staff what they're due for their hard work, what I'd really like to see for the parking department is a bargained contract, you know, the recognition of their union. I think that what these staff members deserve, because regardless of the outcome, we know that they're working hard. What they deserve is not an ice cream social. What they deserve is fair bargaining with this administration. You know, this is the chain of thought that's changed my mind. I don't want to keep more grief upon an embattled department, as flawed as it may be, but this isn't what they deserve. You know, parking is not what we deserve, but this isn't the reward that they deserve. What they deserve is fair working conditions, not a, a little pool party. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate you putting this forward tonight. I'm glad to support it. And I think related to this, I want to note that I think on some of our previous meetings, if I seem oddly sympathetic to the parking department, when there's a lot of justifiable... I think there's been a lot of, um, angst going around because of you know how how that work is going so far. I think a lot of that is lodged in what I heard about the condition that the parking department was left in by reef technology at the outset of director Morrison's tenure in the city of Medford. Um from various people within that department. I have really very grave revenue that was who knows how amount and who knows how much of that actually ended up in the city of Medford protocols that seemed Um, just just deeply, deeply far from best practice. And that, you know, does trace back to our city's mount on a blind, both in terms of what we were being compensated when brief was doing this work. If it was fair, if we even have a yardstick for how close to fair it was, um, and how that contributed to the high mountain that we now have to climb to get to a good place with parking. Um, so I'm very interested in seeing this investigated. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'm going to withdraw this motion. I think we better take it up closer to election day.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. This speaks for itself. Rosh Hashanah began on Sunday night this year. To all my fellow Jews, I just want to say Shanah Tovah to everybody. Hope the year ahead is a sweet one. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you very much for reading those URLs. My apologies. It's my hope that maybe some of the folks tuning into the meeting or reading the agendas might recognize themselves in the eligible groups and follow those links to state support of their work. Thank you for reading them out loud. I just wanted to flag these two opportunities for fellow members of the Medford Arts community, individuals and organizations alike. The local cultural council program is annual. It happens every year. It's a wonderful local program wherein our Medford Arts Council members of our own community get to dole out state resources to support the arts in Medford, for Medford, by Medford artists, and the cultural sector recovery grants is new this year. It was part of the state's COVID response. That's a way for both individuals and arts organizations to get a little much needed stimulus in that sector to support the work of the creative industry as we come out of the pandemic. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I just wanted to help signal boost this latest offering from the Board of Health now that the bivalent boosters are available, you know, as we're heading into the fall months, you know, I think it's especially important for everybody to consider getting the new booster now that it's available so we can keep, you know, all of our community members as safe as possible should they choose to make that choice. And I also want to thank the Board of Health as they continue to roll out these booster clinics as they've been doing all throughout the past two and a half years, you know, really big expansion of what their work is in the community. It's so important and it's so appreciated. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I had the opportunity to talk with our Director of Traffic and Transportation, Todd Blake, at some point during the past month on a totally unrelated project, and he was telling me about how the MBTA shutdown has just magnified the workload that him and his colleagues have to already take on. you know, adding a huge layer onto their already very large workload. Now that the orange line is running again, I hope that they're able to turn more of their attentions onto their already full plates and extend, you know, ask my Councilors to join me in extending our gratitude for their hard work during this really turbulent, deeply unprecedented time in our interactions with the MBTA. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I don't want to belabor this point because we're going to have the whole meeting devoted to parking tomorrow. But I just wanted to say in advance of that, you know, I know we've been fielding so many resident complaints about parking, and we've been hearing indeed from the parking department itself about the challenges that they're perceiving and working through. And I know that logical thing that anybody does is when there's a problem, you look, where did this come from? Who's responsible? Whose fault is this? And I know we're gonna be hearing it directly from the horse's mouth tomorrow, but I just wanna, I feel like we need to lay the foundation for that conversation with, was our parking department, you know, whether it was right or wrong to bring them in house this year when we did, were they set up to succeed or were they set up to fail? You know, because that decision was made before anybody got hired. That decision is unattached to anybody currently in that department. And I'm not saying that the department has done everything perfectly because we all know that's not true. We've gotten the phone calls about it, but I think it needs to undergird the conversation that we have with the people in that office directly. The context has to be, what did they know before their work began? What did they know about the scope of their work? What did they know about the Park Medford that was there before? Were they given the true and authentic lay of the land? Were they given the resources that they really needed to succeed? That's part of the equation too. I just want to put that out there.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, President Burrell. Just in light of I think it's really helpful to get all these comments out in the open in light of the fact that we have a meeting on this tomorrow with city staff present. I just I just wanted to remind folks about that opportunity, and also to, you know, kind of bringing it back to the conversation on, you know where actual authority and. decision making power lies and where it doesn't lie. You know, I think it's really, really important that the council be sort of a filter through which we could hear what do people need from parking? What don't people need from parking? At the end of the day, the question of you know, do we have the capacity to think through parking policies, to contemplate parking policies like a commission did two years ago? Do we have the capacity to implement those? Those aren't decisions that this body makes. And I think we have to keep advocating for citywide capacity to not just think through those questions, but then to follow through on the findings. you know, I see that being a really important role of this council, our ability to take in these comments and use that to fuel our advocacy for, you know, a level of city capacity that can both ask the question and then act on the answers that it's given. And, you know, I just sort of wanted to end on that note, you know, in terms of my contribution to this conversation, knowing that we'll have a better format for this conversation tomorrow. with some of our parking department representatives here as well. Thank you. Mr. Paris.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Rural. I just wanted to say, I think this is a prudent and proactive measure. I thank Councilor Tseng for putting it forward.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Roberta, for being here tonight. It was helpful to have the recommended changes and the current ordinance language in front of us ahead of the meeting. Looking over it, it all looks very common sense to me. If it makes more sense to discuss it in detail on Committee of the Whole, I'm certainly happy to do that. Um, but you know, I appreciate the thoroughness, you know, getting a chance to see it at a time, and it looks like something I'd be happy to support. So looking forward to discussing it further.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you so much for being here today and to all of you who are here today and for speaking to the public and for speaking to us about what you've been going through and what you're trying to work on. I really appreciate this update as painful as it is to hear. Like my fellow councilors, I will heartily stand with you and for your right to collectively bargain. To the idea that we can't find the money to pay some of our essential workers a living wage, that that would somehow cause a dire financial situation for the city. That's hard to hear because I think we all know that the work that you do is what keeps the essential functions of the city occurring. And to blame financial hardship on a reasonable cost of living adjustment, much less the raise that you so richly deserve is, a pretty bad faith argument to make. You know, there's a lot of situations where it feels somewhat unfortunate that all the city council can do is advocate and insist and stand with people who are campaigning for things. And this is one of those scenarios, as Councilor Knight mentioned, there are places that our jurisdiction doesn't go. Things that we can't make the administration do, but for myself as another councilor, please know that we stand with you and please keep us updated and know that we're standing in solidarity with you.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to suspend the rules and take 22500 and 22502.
[Kit Collins]: Sure, I just know that my director, Director Hunt can't stay too long, so I wanted to make sure that we got to her.
[Kit Collins]: All right, so on the motion of Councilor Collins to take 22-500, 22-502, and 22-503, correct?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I've been enjoying serving on the Solid Waste Task Force so far this season. We have some exciting opportunities for resident and business feedback on the work that we're doing, and Director Hunt is here tonight to share more information that my fellow Councilors and residents should know about the work ahead on re-evaluating the solid waste hauling contract. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Morell. I just I think it deserves to be repeated. I don't think that Medford can currently say that it's delivering the city services and the civil services that the residents deserve and it's not delivering the workplace atmosphere compensation and benefits that its staffers deserve, and that makes these inscrutable dismissals, just all the more challenging to. to see and to understand when we are already struggling to serve our residents the way that a 21st century city should, why we would dismiss city employees who are willing to forego greener pastures in the private sector for the mission of trying to do good work in a municipal setting in the city of Medford, it just boggles the mind. And I thank Vice President Bears for putting this forward tonight because it needs to be said.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I thank Vice President Bears for putting this forward tonight. You know, the council is expected and empowered to provide financial oversight for the city, sign off on major contracts, transactions, appropriations, but there isn't any sort of binding or consistent structure for what kind of information we are to be basing these decisions on. Putting these needs and expectations on the books as an ordinance. that could help enforce that the council actually gets the relevant information and on a timely schedule that we need to make these major decisions. The only body in the city government that gets to sign off on these major decisions. And I think that could help enshrine more of the transparency and accountability that our constituents expect of us. And I appreciate you bringing up the comprehensive plan. I think that applies to all of the, you know, I've said it before, we're very, very rich in plans. We need, some sort of accountability structure so that we can navigate towards them and not just say, well, how do we end up here? And just navigate from that point year by year forever. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Yes, I think reviewing our pilot agreements, the status of our pilot negotiations should be a routine procedure, especially after the budget season that we just went through, knowing that the belt is already pulled so tight or our budget is so austere already. It's as crucial as it has ever been to make sure that our pilot agreements with our large institutional members are fair, holding these institutions accountable to paying their fair share, just like all other Medford residents do.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Morell for reading out the entire resolution. The city council was contacted by the directors of the Kids Cancer Connection and the American Cancer Fund for Children. And so I was happy to put forth this resolution on the request and elevate the issue of cancer, affecting children I think this resolution. spells out the sad facts of the prevalence of this disease on this young population all across our nation and here in Medford as well. So I asked for my fellow Councilors support in the statement and saying that our hearts go out to all the children and families affected by this difficult illness and that we applaud all the children and families going through this hardship and all the healthcare workers and caregivers who help heal these children and also help provide moments of joy and relief. in this moment.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President real and actually just earlier this afternoon I heard back from director O'Connor with an update about reviewing and updating the coven 19 information on the city website so it appears that as of today a lot of that information about the coven 19 resources that are available to Medford residents. the status of health orders, the new boosters, the ending of the USPS free test kit supply, the revocation of the mask mandates, that's all been updated to no longer display updated information, which is great. Very grateful to Director O'Connor and her staff for their quick work on that. And she also let me know that she is indeed already in contact with the State Department of Public Health on how to secure more of those test kits from the state's most recent offer. of free ones to municipalities that could augment the tests that the Board of Health is already distributing at City Hall, the West Medford Community Center, Medford Housing Authority, the library, and the Council on Aging. The second point that I wanted to make with this resolution which has nothing at all to do with the Board of Health. I just think that it has to be said again that the city website remains in very dire need of an overhaul. and it's not just so that updates and new information may be added in a timely way, but also so that the city website can be simply readable and legible and navigable and looks like the professional website that one would expect to exist for a city of 60,000 people. And I don't mention that as, I feel uncomfortable mentioning that because it's not a dig at any city staff worker or any department. This is just one of the many things that falls by the wayside when the city lacks the capacity to fully implement its projects, any project. And I think that's one of the many reasons that we need to keep up the drumbeat about municipal resources, because the lack of resources, the lack of bandwidth that translates into residents not having the services they deserve. And that includes a website that remains untranslated. And frankly, even for me, is frankly hard to read and hard to navigate and hard to find information on. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, thank you so much for being here. Councilor Caraviello already got to one of my questions. I was gonna ask, you know, with a 0% loan, why stop at $7.8 million? But if that's the cap, as I understand it to be from your response, then that makes sense. And then for my benefit, and perhaps for other less water meter savvy listeners at home, reading this, it sounds like phase refers to the phase of the project, tier refers to project specific Buckets of funding, is that correct? Is that the difference between phase two and tier two?
[Kit Collins]: So the tier represents when that particular bucket of money expires?
[Kit Collins]: I see. Thank you. Appreciate that clarification.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, on the point of this being advanced notice ahead of the loan approval, I just wanted to say that from one councilor's perspective, you know, having the opportunity to ask questions before we vote on it is very helpful. So I really appreciate the coming before us tonight, the foresight, it's very helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I just want to thank Councilor Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. I think that it's really normal. It's really healthy for us to reevaluate the ordinances that guide what our hospitality industries can do. And, you know, I've put things on the agenda in recent months to try and see how we can work with the Liquor Commission, work with our economic development director to see what needs to change so that our bars and our restaurants specifically can thrive in our square. So I hope that we can collaborate with the Liquor Commission and other relevant departments to see what needs to be changed and then go about changing it so that our business owners can cater to what people are looking for and do even better. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and Councilor Knight. I think that point is well taken. I was going to second the motion to send it to Committee of the Whole for a hypothetical future meeting on revenue with the expectation that, you know, when this meeting might occur, we can amend the paper. if we were to put the paper forward, speaking in very hypothetical terms here. In my mind, it's more of a placeholder move for now with the hope that we can have substantial future discussions on revenue with the mayor's office. And that's all, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Morell. I just wanted to thank Vice President Bears for putting this on the agenda. I know when I first took office earlier in the year and started getting those emails about the roads, I took a deep dive into the pavement management plan. I think it really is an encapsulation of a lot of the revenue spending issues that we're facing as a city. You know, it goes without saying, when we don't have the money to spend on a problem, the problem gets more expensive to solve in this case. by multiples. We all think the roads are bad enough now. Certain roads I bike down, I feel like I'm gonna fall in and never hear from again. I think that this really just drives home the point that we need to see a plan for how we're going to get on top of this, because it's hard for me to fathom the roads being what they are, and we all hear about it all the time, how that's gonna be in three years if we don't find a way to multiply our investment. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and we have a couple of representatives of the Bradley Road Tenant Association here tonight. I'm sure my fellow Councilors will remember hearing from some of these folks starting back in April. Really, I wanna let these tenants speak for themselves and give us an update on what they've been going through. Thank you for being here.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Marillyn. Thank you so much, Liza, for being here and for speaking for your association. My fellow Councilors will indulge me. I just want to, again, thank you, Liza, and just draw out a couple things from what you said. As we had this discussion back in March, back in April, you know, I didn't want Liza to be here tonight on behalf of the Tenants Association because there's some action that we can take to materially change their position right now, this week, this month. They're well aware of the process. They've been working with professional housing justice organizers. They know the score and they know what they have to do next. But as I think we're all very acutely aware, this is a phenomenon befalling our community. It's been falling our community. It's happening right now on Bradley Road. It's happening on Fells Way. It's happening at multiple properties in Medford. We need to keep our focus on this. we need to keep shining a light on everywhere this happens in Medford. Specific to the story on Bradley Road, I just want to draw out a couple of points to make sure that they're heard. Firstly, that the line was these vacancies are being created so that we can renovate. Renovations didn't happen. Secondly, I think we talk often about the value of collective bargaining. unionization and various circumstances. And when this group of tenants sought to do that, they were punished for it. Materially, legally, they were punished for seeking to band together, to be in community with one another. And it strikes me as a real double standard for who's allowed to exert pressure over a situation. Given the state of the housing market regionally, not just in Medford, but regionally, tenants and all sorts of residents are impacted by economic pressures. When they seek to do what they can to stay in their homes, to stay in a community that they've invested in, that they have students in the public school system, that they've lived their whole lives here, that type of pressure is allowed to be penalized. So again, I reiterate, I know there's no motion that we can pass tonight, to make this expense, to make this anxiety, to make these months of work and trauma go away for these residents. But I felt it was very important to put Liza's story and the Bradley Road Tenant Association story on public record. Again, so thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And thank my fellow councilors for putting this forward and allowing me to co-sponsor. I think that President Morell put it perfectly. And I think, you know, In my mind, there's no need to defend why these local policies are necessary. But, you know, where there is a need for explanation, I'd say, and this goes for anything, your rights exist until they don't. And I think it's easy to feel in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of the, you know, overall bluest states in the nation, that this doesn't apply here. That's true until it isn't. And it's true in Massachusetts until it isn't, it's true in Medford until it isn't, that's true everywhere. And I think that the only responsible thing to do, I think I said this the last time we talked about reproductive justice and protecting medical care for women, for gender non-conforming people, for all types of people was on the agenda. The way things are going, the failure to be progressive is regressive. We need to be proactive. All types of people's lives are at stake, so thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Yes, just echoing that, you know, this would be good to know where to start with this sense and figure out our next steps from there so that we can have a usable through way for pedestrians. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Um, yes. Thank you. Vice president bears first. You're hurting this resolution. have been hearing a lot about these power outages. For me, I mostly hear about it from folks in hillsides. I'm shocked it hasn't affected my apartment building yet, which probably means in the next couple of days, since I'm saying that out loud. But, you know, we were just talking earlier tonight about poor communication, you know, a feeling of lack of respect from some of the entities that affect life here in Medford. To me, National Grid is top of that list, especially lately. I think we deserve to know why these problems are happening more frequently. And as Vice President Bears just said, in the past time to be thinking long term, I wanna know, even if it's in the beginning stages of strategy for how we're going to protect our utilities, protect our increased load for electricity, protect against increased vulnerability because of increasingly intense storms that we know are coming, that are only gonna get more intense in future years, what is the plan? I think that municipalities should be included in those discussions. and I'm eager to hear it. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you for the discussion on this resolution so far. I think that, you know, I'm glad that this motion will be discussed in the committee as a whole. I think there's a really robust discussion to be had here. I think that, you know, these revisions are made in good faith. I think that a lot of folks on the historical commission are also acting in good faith. And I think there's certainly a path forward to make sure that the Values of this ordinance are enshrined and it really works well for the community.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Raul. Thank you for being here today. Just could you clarify how long has your business been in business at this location? How many years have you been at this address, or is this the first time you're applying?
[Kit Collins]: Eight months you've been in business here?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Sure. Thank you, President Morell. Not to belabor the points that Vice President Bears has already made, but just to underline a few of them to further expand on my perspective and why I was interested in co sponsoring this motion. What I hear about the most from my constituents are roads, the library, the schools, trees, city services, as was discussed as we said ad nauseum during the fiscal year 23 budget process over the past month. We have a structural deficit. we can't do more with less. We can't continue to keep asking our city staff or city services to do more with less. I don't find it acceptable to continue cutting city services to the bone and asking our residents to make do with fewer and fewer resources and services, asking our city staff to do more and more with less and less support. We heard during the fiscal year 23 budget process that next year's budget will likely be even leaner. I don't think personally, I'm not willing to accept cuts that are even deeper for next year than what we were asked to contemplate for fiscal year 23 because we saw, and we heard from the residents and the staff of the city, how that would affect our city's operation. I also want to emphasize as was already explained if the mayor approves this resolution if this resolution proceeds. as it's currently designed, it would become a referendum on the fall ballot. It would be left up to the voters to decide yes or no. This is not a matter to be taken lightly. This is a big question. I want to see it put to the voters. This isn't something for the seven member bodies to decide. I want to see this put to the voters to decide how we invest in the future of this community. And I also just wanted to shore up Vice President Bears' last point. I think that developing a reliable, sustainable, appropriate revenue plan to fund our communities urgent deserved needs is an urgent matter. I'm also willing to collaborate and be flexible on what exactly that looks like, and including some other proposals that are on our council agenda tonight. I'm also open to exploring all of the options to mitigate the potentially painful effects of an override, for example, the proposal to increase the senior exemption to the maximum allowable for now. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'll keep this short. I just wanted to add a little bit more elaboration around my perspective on the issue and to follow up on some of the points that my colleagues have made. And I wanna thank all my fellow Councilors for the thoughtful dialogue around this. I really respect your points of view. I hear where you're coming from. And I know that I think where we're all coming from is aspiring towards fiscal responsibility and doing what's best for the community. And I appreciate all of you for speaking from that perspective, though our opinions differ. I think we all want to make sure that we're taking the best course of action for where we are right now. And for me, just to explain my own perspective a little bit more. When I think about timing and process, I think back on the past six weeks and I think, well, the clock just started, it's 12 months until another level funded, level service budget that is going to be harmful for the schools, for the library, for constituents who don't know when their road is gonna get paved, not to mention all of the needs, housing stability needs, environmental needs, that we have no timeframe for when those are going to start to be filled. and our community. And I agree that so many other measures are a crucial part of that formula, growing the commercial tax base being among them. And I also know that those chickens aren't gonna come home to roost within the next 12 months. And so this is why this issue to me is so glaring and so urgent that I want this override to be seriously considered because the needs going unmet in our community, to me, they're just that urgent. So the people that I'm hearing from, they're just that urgent. So I just wanted to circle back to that point to share more on my perspective on why to me, that's the part of timing and process that I'm most preoccupied with. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to make a point of information and not to clarify only your point, Mr. Penta. I'm a renter, so when people talk about Councilors foisting things off on renters, I'm not going to speak for all of them, but I just want to state again, as I have many times this term, that I am one, and I pay taxes through my rent, as does every renter. Please continue.
[Kit Collins]: All of my points have been made. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I've been hearing from constituents complaining about the uncleanliness of the area around the pedestrian bridge and credit bridge by the Mystic River. I also ride my bike along that path to get to every city council meeting. So I'm particularly attuned to the broken glass that's frequently on the path there, bit of a safety risk. I would love to hear an update from the administration about whose jurisdiction this public space is under and how we can support it being maintained for everybody's enjoyment.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. We'll skip over the part where we recount the funding issues we've been talking about tonight and for the past six weeks. Given that our short-term municipal revenue growth is uncertain and we have so many needs already going unmet, and that the lack of accessible, affordable childcare is something that we've been hearing about from constituents all term long, I felt that the least I could do as a Councilor is to try and urge our state leaders to help the communities out with providing for this critical resource. The point I try to make every time I put a state bill on the agenda is that state issues are local issues. I wish that we could fund all of these services in-house with municipal revenue, but until we can, I will continue to advocate for state resources to leave Medford families less in the lurch. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President real, not a question for you, Director McGovern but thank you so much. I just wanted to circle back quickly to the hundred $65,000 free cash appropriation for the three hybrid hybrid police cruisers. And first just thank you to all the department heads who have provided context around these appropriations more just a comment I know earlier in our budget process, you know we've. in the scope of other useful amendments to the budget process just to add some accountability transparency legibility for this council and also residents. You know as Councilors probably said this wasn't something that I think was included in the. budget presentation for the police department. It's good to know that this is typically a free cash appropriation when we buy new police cruisers. I just wanted to reiterate an idea that was floated earlier in budget season that we do a more thorough job of separating out capital expenses, operating budget. I think that it's useful for this council to be able to have a full accounting per department, even where those severances are the norm. And I think it's helpful for residents as well. to be able to get a fuller picture pre cash appropriation operating budget capital expenditures to get a fuller picture of the breakdown per department. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President, I just, um, I just wanted to note for for context. I don't have an opinion either way on if this is a good use of ARPA funds it's an acceptable use of ARPA funds it's an eligible use of ARPA funds, but I just wanted to make the point that it's a $7.2 million bite out of a finite $48 million Apple, and this was brought up earlier in the budget season I just want to reiterate that. The narrative around use of ARPA funds is that there's four categories of eligible uses and there's going to be a robust public process for determining the use of some of those funds. And I think the fact that we are leaning heavily on one of the, you know, I'll be eligible uses revenue replacement for salaries, which is a perfectly fine compliant use of that money. But I think that the residents deserve a more transparent and frequently updated view of where we're dispensing our funding, especially since The story that's told about ARPA is that everybody gets to weigh in on how that money is used. And I think people need to have a really clear insight as to when they'll get the chip in, how meaningful that input will be because of how much we'll have left. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Now that we've come to this part of the budget meeting, I want to say I know I've been a little on the quiet side this meeting. It's because I think that most of the important points have been made by my fellow councilors and by department heads and by residents who have spoken here in person and on Zoom. And I concur with so much that has been said. And, you know, I think that this is a moment where, as Vice President Paris just said, this is our last chance to advocate for our council priorities, which are the priorities that we hear from our constituents. So with that said, you know, it's my hope, you know, with the cut to KP law, with other cuts on the table, it's my hope that the mayor will return if, depending on how the budget vote goes tonight, that we can return to an amended budget proposal that maintains all existing funding for all of our critical municipal departments, pending meaningful negotiation with the city council about the council's priorities as it was said there are several we've been clear about them. We we didn't see those listen to responded to in the budget that was noticed and given to us for consideration tonight. And I do want to say, while I really appreciate the proposals that the mayor floated earlier this evening, I hope that she could empathize with the feeling that I cannot in good faith reconsider my feelings on a $200 million budget in light of proposals that are being raised at the 11th hour. So to that end, I feel that I need a guarantee that our council priorities will be revisited and taken seriously. And so with no joy at all, I want to turn to line item executive full-time salary. That's line item 0101025110, and suggest a cut of $202,887. or 202-887. I know that this funding is in the budget because it's critically important, but I want to get across in no uncertain terms that there are other critically important needs that are not in this budget. There must be room for both. I wouldn't make the suggestion if I didn't know that there is room for both. And frankly, I don't accept the paradigm that there aren't options to make room for our council priorities, which are the community's priorities, and all of the departmental needs that are already in this budget. So that's my motion to cut line item 0101025110 by $202,887. And what line was that for? For the executive. It's on page 75.
[Kit Collins]: That is correct and it's my hope that this would galvanize a process of negotiation with the city council that would also include expediting returning those monies to an amended budget proposal that also includes more city council priorities.
[Kit Collins]: I believe the proposed amount for fiscal year 23 is $458,185.
[Kit Collins]: That comes from a proportion of aggregated salaries within that department. And again, I just wanna emphasize, it's not my intention that this money should actually disappear in the fiscal year 23 budget. As I said, I feel that I need some sort of guarantee that City Council's priorities will be meaningfully answered, answered in earnest, responded to in a potential amended budget. proposal. And I want to reiterate, it's not about individuals. It's not about positions. It's my firm conviction that we have space to add these positions back and add back our City Council priorities. And I wouldn't put forth this proposal, I know it's a controversial one, if I didn't think that this City Council would swiftly approve a supplemental appropriation pending negotiation on our other priorities.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Moran. Before I take the vote, I just wanted to say to Councilor Caraviello, I'm happy to review a friendly amendment if you had a different number in mind. It's the spirit of the cut that I really feel strongly about keeping on the floor. Though I do want to just reiterate again that it would be my full earnest conviction to approve a supplemental appropriation as soon as it came to us. And this, I just, to be clear procedurally was not, would not delete any positions. It would just reduce the amount set aside in that line item until a supplemental appropriation. Just to make that clear and I'm happy to hear your feedback.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I just wanted to take the opportunity to make a statement on explaining my vote on this budget. And before I dive into it, I just wanted to make it really clear. My no vote is not personal. It is not a referendum on the skill or the integrity of anybody in this administration. It's because I see an unambiguous need for a bolder budget. and I have to save my support for a bolder budget because I feel that's why I was elected. Since before I sought office, I've been feeling alarmed by our city's lack of capacity for vital basic services. If I knocked on your door during my campaign last year, You probably heard me talk about my aspirations, for example, for the city to start an Office of Housing Stability and Office of Immigrant Outreach, for the city to be a leader in net zero development, invest in local public health resources, grow our tree canopy, fund a fully modernized website and on and on and on. And my conviction that it is necessary that we push for more and better and more equitably distributed services in our community is why I'm sitting in this chair today. I'm well aware that list I just mentioned comprises some pretty ambitious policy goals and I am very, very well aware of the constraints that our city, like all cities, operates under. We always have to be realistic about what is achievable in any given term or any fiscal year, but this budget goes far below just being realistic and achievable. This budget does not, to me, address the bare bones, basic, uncontroversial fundamentals. We're not looking up at the ceiling. We are looking up at the floor. I believe that all of us are painfully aware of just how much we have to build up just to get back to baseline, to recover from the past two and a half years, to repair our roads and sidewalks and municipal infrastructure, to support those who are at risk of getting priced out of this community, to build a more resilient future, to take care of all of our residents the way that they deserve. And it is all urgently necessary work it's urgently necessary work that feels to me unacceptably out of reach, because this budget doesn't even address the basics that our community needs and deserves this year right now. just to restate some of what's been already put on the record tonight. While students, teachers, and education staff are yearning to recover from the trauma and the substantial learning loss of the pandemic, the schools are level funded. And in an environment of 8.5% inflation, level funding means less. Less support for staff, less staff in the buildings, less support for students. We spent years building a beautiful, brilliant new public library, and everybody chipped in, all through their taxes, and many with extra generosity on top. And under this budget, we can't fully staff it. Again, level funding means less service. Thanks to community advocates translation services did occupy a place in the city's operating budget, which brought us closer to the goal of enabling all Metro residents to start to participate in city meetings, be equitable, equitably served by city communications, a goal which is still not really fully realized. but in this budget proposal, there wasn't even room for translation services anymore. It's been shifted to one-time funding, ARPA, which, as has been stated, expires in December of 2024. Something so fundamental as making sure that what comes out of City Call will be receivable and intelligible by all constituents has no place being relegated to one-time funding services. Finally, this City Council is where residents come to advocate for any number of issues facing the community, from potholes to public safety to public health. The channel that we have to respond to those issues with is our power to legislate, to craft ordinances and zoning that reflect our city's wants and needs, to enforce our standards for a safe city and organize for a livable future. But with no dedicated legal staff for the council, after many, many requests, and our critical phase two of zoning going, you know, without a commitment, we aren't being given the necessary tools to do this job. I want to know how to be an effective legislator when we have to join a week's long queue to get a legal opinion on an ordinance, which has been my lived experience in the first six months of my term. I want to know how to craft smart and thoughtful zoning reforms that will protect us in the climate change future when we don't have $50,000 for a zoning consultant, which for context is .025% of our current operating budget proposed for next fiscal year. These are not To me, trivial or petty matters, matters of convenience for me and my fellow councilors. It's more important. Those hampers are the only channel that this body has to address issues like housing stability, tree canopy, environmental standards, language accessibility, infrastructure safety, and on and on. When the city council is denied tools to be effective, the community loses its advocate. I know that even under ideal circumstances, we cannot do or even start all that needs to be done in a single year. But this administration had told us explicitly that this year, the city is expected to do more with less, and that the plan for next year is to make do with potentially even less than that. I cannot condone that plan, and I cannot condone that trajectory. The stakes are too high, and the needs are too great. I know that because we've been hearing from you and not just about the library and the schools and how hard it is to give our municipal workers the pay and the support that they deserve. I hear from you about afterschool and infrastructure and basic constituent services and housing stability resources that you need and we cannot provide. I need a commitment. that the unassailable values that this administration promotes, like equity, security, sustainability, inclusion, that these are values in practice and not just awards. And this budget does not yet make that commitment. I desperately wanna see a budget proposal that makes a good faith effort at exemplifying those values that goes further. I wanna see a proposal that says, we will move heaven and earth to fund our schools and our community spaces and acknowledges that we cannot afford to defer on climate change and represents a real plan for making this community better every year, supporting all Medford residents the way they deserve. But I haven't seen that plan yet. When I do, and I hope I see it soon, I will vote yes on it. And then I will work with my fellow Councilors and this administration to make those values manifest in our community. Because throughout this term so far, I can confidently say that this council has sought a collaborative approach with this administration. But this is a moment where we must insist on reciprocity and collaboration in the service of our critical goals for the community. Because what I'm waiting for is what the community is calling out for. In sum, this budget, less than we deserve, less than we need. I wish that we had the opportunity to negotiate about this, to dive into these questions. weeks ago, months ago. This is not the process that I wanted. This is not the tone that I wanted. I don't like any of this. But I know that we have options for doing better for next year, but also for fiscal year 23. And that's why I can't accept this proposal. And that's why I'll be voting no on the budget. Thank you for letting me take the time.
[Kit Collins]: It's five minutes. It's just five minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you so much, Madam Mayor, for being here. Process aside, everything that's happened in the past aside, I'm happy that we're here and having this discussion, even though I think we all wish it were happening at a different time. I have a question for my fellow councilors, and I have a question for you. The list that you've laid out sounds good. And I can hear that it reflects the priorities that we've articulated. My question is what procedurally is the process that we can do right now having a budget on the agenda? My understanding is we cannot make appropriations to that. My understanding is amendments cannot be made to that because it's already on the table. What is the process for confirming these appropriations.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that. And then my question for my Councilors is, well, on the one hand, this checks a lot of my boxes, which I clearly said earlier, were red lines that I didn't feel I could cross. It's late in the night. A lot of people have dropped off. This isn't ideal timing, but we have this before us. So I'd really appreciate to hear from more members of this body about how to go forward from here. Thank you again, Mayor.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'll keep this as short as possible. In the remarks I made earlier, I mentioned solicitor for the council zoning consultant schools libraries from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the mayor and her team for coming back to the table for making sure that we cross back over those bright lines that I had and many of my fellow Councilors had this this has been a wild evening, it's been a wild but season. when describing the mayor, you know, during last year's campaign through this term, I've said she's a good faith actor. I really, I want to thank her for providing evidence of that tonight. I hope that we can have this kind of direct line of communication and exchange more often. But for now, I just want to say thank you to the chief of staff. Thank you to mayor. Let's pass this.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move for approval. Second.
[Kit Collins]: Motion to suspend the rules to take petitions, presentations and similar papers, and then public participation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears and thank you, Mr. rainy for being here tonight. I would definitely concur with everything Councilor cardiologist said I hope that this could be the start of a really positive flywheeler feel feedback loop between bringing good jobs to our community, updating or using our updated zoning code to really grease the wheels of that, and then following up with making sure that we have the developments needed to house all this positive new development and movement in our community. So if this is, I believe if our next move is to report this out to the Community Development Board, I would make a motion to do that. And then I would look forward to hopefully approving it when it comes back our way.
[Kit Collins]: While we're under suspension, motion to take paper 22400 followed by 22408.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much for being before us today. As a small business owner myself who's done pop ups I, you know, I respect you for what you're doing I appreciate the spirit of reconnaissance to see if a brick and mortar community is kind of the space that you'd want to grow roots and. I'm interested by the potential issue just with the permit that's before us. Obviously, if it's not appropriate, there's something to figure out there. That's something that I think procedurally we should run down. But in terms of next steps, as was stated, if we table this for one week, we're in July. And then if we're thinking about Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays, that windows it down to 12 or 13 days that are potentially when you'd be overlapping with hours of service at other brick and mortars locally. My inclination would be if we get the procedural kinks worked out, you know, I'd love to see you pop up, especially since you have a demonstrated interest in seeing this as a community that you could grow roots in. I think that'd be great. You know, I like that you're a nonprofit. It sounds great on paper. I guess I'm curious to hear from my fellow Councilors procedurally, what's the next step? If it's really limited to less than, you know, two weeks of business days, how we can go forward from here to give you your shot at sussing out if downtown Medford is a place that you can, that you can grow in and to make sure that we're, you know, giving our, giving credence to the, the shops that are already, already in Medford square.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. The full electronic copy of the budget may be online right now. When I left my house at 4.30, it was not. I haven't had a chance to review the budget. you know, goes without saying, I respect the state deadline for issuing this budget to us, but I haven't had a chance to look at it. And so I don't feel comfortable voting on it. So I'd motion to table for one week.
[Kit Collins]: I'd like to withdraw the motion.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President Bears on my also look forward to supporting each of these tonight. I just wanted to make two points in in support, the first around the measures to get some measure of transparency greater measure of transparency into our budget process. So often and not even just kind of constellating around this year's budget process. You know I hear from constituents saying. Why is it the roads aren't getting better? Why can't we improve our infrastructure? Why is it like this? Why is that like that? Why don't we have this resource that our neighboring communities, cities that seem similar to ours, do have? And I think a lot of the time, not all the time, a lot of the time, constituents, when they pose these questions to our administration and department heads, a lot of, much of the time, the answer boils down to, well, we're doing the best that we can, and that's true. Like, no grievance that we or constituents have about the operating of this city comes down to a lack of skill or lack of dedication or lack of energy by any of our city staff that are tasked with taking these projects on. But when we say we're doing the best that we can, that's not descriptive. We need a better accounting of, well, why is the ceiling right here? And is it actually enough? We need to get specific on everything that we're deferring, every project that we're deferring, all the priorities that we can talk about and write about and plan about but failed to implement because we don't have the funds. Like I said in our committee of the whole earlier about the school department budget, our values don't really matter for much if we can't act on them and we can't act on them if we can't fund them. So I think that I think that these are essential tools for both. being more transparent and informative with our constituent base who ultimately see the decisions that filter through or don't filter through are at a real capacity. And then secondly, to follow up on that, I think over the past couple of years, year and a half, the specter of ARPA has been cast over our community like it has so many. And I think that I think that there's been real room for improvement and how this funding has been talked about how it's been speculated about. And that's not something that I would attribute to to any one person at all, to be honest, I think that, you know, a real historic infusion of one-time funds. So rapidly evolving during a rapidly evolving time, there's always gonna be ways to imagine that and then the rubber hits the road of how it can actually be implemented. But I think that the past couple weeks have made it clear that we need to start getting much more specific, much more concrete about how much of these funds we have left and how much will be left to implement community articulated priorities. I know that we have, you know, an excellent staff member who, you know themselves is ARPA funded, working on this very project of making sure that we're being responsible with our ARPA funding, but I also think that there's been a lot of competing narratives about how much money is available, how much will be directed with the input of the community, what goes through the council, what doesn't go through the council. I just think that there's a real lack of clarity that, again, is not the fault of any one person at all. But I think we need to start cleaning that up right now, because this is such a live issue, not just in this funding cycle, but clearly for the next one as well. So I thank you for putting these forward. I think they're essential. And I hope that we can partner with the administration on really seeing these through.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I also want to join in thanking Vice President Bears for his presentation tonight. I think that maybe one of the definitions of leadership is being willing to say what is unpopular, what you know people don't want to hear because it's the right thing to do. And I'm glad that we have that coming from somebody. The budget proposals that we've received so far have demonstrated, I think this is clear to anybody paying attention so far have demonstrated their operating budget. It not only cannot support the current level of service that for example our library patrons and staff infrastructure, public school students and teachers and staff. crumbling infrastructure already has a need for. It also, as has been demonstrated, at least bear the reliance on one-time funding that's needed just to balance the operating budget. And it's been made abundantly clear that we have no concrete plans to look forward to to better our mid and long-term future to navigate out of the situation that we find ourselves in. no plan except to hope that things will get better on their own. This administration has already divulged that the next year for fiscal year 24, it's likely that the belt will be pulled even tighter. It was wishful thinking to assume that we had the level of revenue replacement that the original proposed budget proposal was based off of, and the revenue replacement calculation for fiscal year 24 will only be smaller. This is not our plan. This cannot be our plan. And I want to acknowledge it is true that the administration is uniquely and solely responsible for balancing money in, money out, coming up with a budget that keeps the entire city afloat. This is a huge cross to bear. That is a heavy burden. It is a huge responsibility. I acknowledge that. I don't envy the task of putting the budget proposals together. I think everybody here understands that. But at the same time, that branch of our government is the only one that is empowered to do those things. It's the only branch with that power to make those decisions. And we knew going into it, we knew going into this term, that the situation was never going to be easy, that these circumstances are bad. You cannot go through a pandemic and emerge unscathed. But I think each of us knew exactly what we were getting in for when we ran for office two years into a global pandemic. The circumstances are real, but allowing these circumstances to justify what we do or don't do to better our future, that doesn't help us. That isn't what we need. That isn't what our constituency deserves. When this administration is ready to take the reins to collaborate, I am ready to collaborate. I know that this entire council is ready, enthusiastic to collaborate. I feel that starting with the very first meeting of this year, this council has gone to bat for the administration's priorities. We've supported personnel appropriations and sought to codify ordinances that would all further this administration's goals and priorities in addition to the goals and priorities of the people that we were elected to represent. And I believe that we've made every attempt to have a proactive and organized budget process. There's a lot to say, but there's a couple, to me, key points that I just want to underline from what's already been said. It's not to me just that our very thin, highly curated list of council budget priorities didn't fit into this budget. Priorities like an assistant city solicitor, a code enforcement officer, a zoning consultant, nothing sexy, nothing expensive, all of which are directly tied to the ability of this legislative body to do what it's elected to do, which is to legislate and in legislating to support the goals of the administration and the goals of the people that we were elected to represent. And it's not just that this budget spells out a reduction in services for, again, just for example, library patrons and staff and public school students and teachers. It's not even the opacity of this budget process, that it's been so disorganized, that it's been so late breaking, that it's been hard to read any transparency into the process, even though I know, I'm sure that was an intention, it's been hard to see that there at all. The point to underline in all of those frustrations is this, that this plan, as the administration has stated, is to pass this austerity budget and follow it up for one for fiscal year 24 that will be even worse. When I talk to constituents, this is what I hear. roads and sidewalks, a better Medford public high school, better outreach to our marginalized constituencies, an office of housing stability, affordable and accessible afterschool, and on and on and on and on. We have many needs. That's what a government is for, to support its constituencies. Many of these are matters of the most basic constituent services, again, potholes, but they are also a matter of equity and of justice, of properly serving the constituencies that we represent. And if we are to implement our city's many laudable plans, the social justice roadmap, the climate action and adaptation plan, the pavement management program, et cetera, we need to fund those values. So these cuts to the school and the library budget are just a glimmer of what's to come if we don't change course. I'll end with a quote from something my dear old dad loves to say, people don't fail to plan, people don't plan to fail, they fail to plan. And to follow up on that, I also wanna note one of actually my favorite quotes which comes from our mayor, which is, A vision without a plan is just a hallucination. I know that this council is ready to partner in planning. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Not knowing if it's already on the table, I just wanted to make a motion to approve the recommendations included in Vice President Bears' presentation.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you vice president bears and thank you councillor knife for putting this forward. As you just said, I'm not sure of my stance on this so far I'm not sure I agree with giving city employees retirees preference over equally eligible people but until far as this is just a request for information. I'm all certainly supported tonight.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Rowe. Thank you for the presentation. Just one question. You said that the whole building inside and out will be renovated. Will the remainder of the interior space be used as offices for Needham Bank? Will all of the interior space be used for the drive-through? I'm just curious how the rest of the building will be used.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Marillyn. Thank you for being here. Just one question I saw under the conditions that our chief engineer attached to this petition. Just the first one said the recommendation that the grant of location be revised to reflect the accurate location as shown in the plan, just to make sure that the paperwork reflects where the work will actually be done. I just wanted to ask if that revision had been made or if not, if it could be what the process would be for making sure that the location is reflected accurately on the grant of location. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Thank you, Councilor Knight, for putting this forward. I was happy to see this on the agenda. I think this is, you know, obviously just the type of structure that we all want to be seeing and, you know, our conversation starting at 5.30 just shored up how critical it is for us to be getting much more regular communications, you know, and as the term goes on, my belief strengthens that, you know, the way to make sure we see something is to put it in an ordinance, even if the path to getting it there is more difficult than it should be given the resources at our disposal. And, you know, I think this goes for other this is not just for this administration or this term, it's a way to declare this is just how it should be going forward, not contingent on any administration or any council CFO relationship, it's just how it should be. So I was glad to see this on the agenda and I appreciate you putting it forward.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. So this is my attempt to resurface a paper that was put forth by former Councilor Falco in February of 2021. It was referred to the subcommittee on the elderly and housing. So I just wanted to add this to the lengthening queue of projects that will undergo in subcommittee and the housing subcommittee in particular. I've felt it's important for a long time. For a long time, I've been excited for us to draft a proposed ordinance around the idea of housing stability communications. And the events in this community of the past three months have unfortunately only solidified my sense of the urgency for this. In the past two weeks, I've heard of two separate buildings, not including the one that we all heard from in person in March that are encountering landlord-tenant strife, where there are potential issues of tenant exploitation. And regardless of the circumstances and the outcomes of those particular cases, what that says to me is we need to have, we need to set up a system in our community like those that exist in other communities where when a landlord-tenant relationship is established, the rights and the resources and the rules that govern that relationship are made clearly known to both parties. This type of ordinance can be tailored however we see fit. I know some communities set it up so that When a lease comes to an end, a tenant receives a city-approved memo on things you should know when you're terminating your lease in other communities. It's that, as well as within 30 days of moving in, your landlord has to provide a city-approved memo on your rights and resources as a tenant in your language spoken at home within a month of moving in. It's just a great way to make sure that everybody is on the same page and knows everything that they should know to be empowered in that relationship. So I think that this is something, I don't think that this should be a big lift for our city, and I'm excited to discuss it further when the housing subcommittee is able to get around to it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I thank my Councilor Tseng for working with me on this idea. I think when it comes to, um the general topic of, you know, we're in a national moment where in some parts of the nation, the civil liberties of the LGBTQ plus community, including those seeking gender affirming care, those civil liberties are being questioned, they're being threatened, they're being attacked. So I think this is the moment in which, you know, the failure to be proactive is actually regressive. know, the anti-LGBTQ plus operatives in our more conservative parts of the nation, they want our neighbors seeking gender affirming care to feel isolated and atomized. That is their political angle, that is their power play, so we have an opportunity to distort that narrative by promising safety. That is how we can be an ally to our neighbors and other parts of the nation and stand against these threats to civil liberties. And I also want to note, you know, there's precedent for this sort of ordinance, this sort of resolution. The Medford Police Department entered into a commitment of non-compliance between the police department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So there's, I feel like there within our community and others, there's broad precedent for standing up for protection of rights where we have jurisdiction to do so. And I respectfully ask for the support of our colleagues and discussing this ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, if I may, I just want to, I want to. to go back to the text of the resolution, this would forbid the city of Medford and municipal entities not to recommend or provide any medical care at all. Obviously that is not what we do at this municipality. What this does is forbid us from assisting out of state requests for civil or criminal action against those who are seeking that type of care. So that is simply saying we will not participate in bounty hunter programs to keep additional legal trouble upon people who are trying to make medical decisions for themselves. I just wanted to clarify that point.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Murillo. I was going to make the same point.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President, we're all thank you Councilor Carvial for putting this on the agenda I just wanted to note I saw maybe it was last week or two weeks ago, some looked like planting flower planting work being done in some of the bump outs or center islands. Off of made a mystic and South Medford and just to your point it really is an issue of a little goes a long way. So I think it'd be great to get an update on is that going to be done throughout the city where can we expect for it to be done next. You know, towards your point, you know, really helps a lot to improve the appearance of our main streets.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And yeah, I appreciate this topic being brought up and much of what my fellow Councilors have already said on the topic. And I just think it, not to be repetitive, but I think it really bears emphasizing and repeating that there's not a, I don't think there's a single department head I've spoken to in the six months I've been in office that hasn't said directly or insinuated that they're operating with less staff than they can use. And I think that very much includes our code enforcement officer, singular, you know, for all of the issues, pretty much all of the topics that we've talked about. tonight. And so I think, you know, I think President Bears hit the nail on the head. I think that, you know, obviously, every every budget season, we're talking about the upcoming fiscal year. But if we don't make and save time for these broader longitudinal priorities, then, you know, every year, we're going to keep fighting over individual traffic islands, individual parks patrol, you know, we're going to every low hanging fruit is going to be a fight. And so we, we need to tackle that, or we're going to be fighting over the smallest issues, and we should be figuring out how to increase our constituent services to give people the experience that they really deserve. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President real and thank you for putting this on the agenda tonight, I have to say, advocating against each 1234 is something I thought of as one of my priorities for this entire calendar year in our capacity the city council in my private life to restate some of what's already been said, I think this constitutes one of the biggest assaults on workers rights that to my knowledge that we have seen in years and years, it's an issue that it's hard for me to contemplate without getting emotional because it is such an insult to the people of this Commonwealth to incite a campaign of, as Councilor Caraviello said, voting against the interests of our neighbours. It's an insult to the workers who perform these jobs, who do these gigs, which has become one of the backbones of our, you know, modern, local level economy. I don't think that these apps are going away anytime soon. I think the horse is out of the barn. And what these companies are trying to do through these ballot questions is to enshrine the chipping away of essential protections, protection from liability, fair wage, just and safe working conditions for all of these people who are doing the rides, delivering the food, you know, often, you know, to people who, you know, they need that that sort of mobility service in order to make their life work. Um, so I'm glad for this city council to have the ability to get to advocate for this. And, you know, as stated this is this is a state issue but it's also of course an issue on the most local level, because We have gig workers in our community, and we have people who are on the consuming end of these companies in our city. And I think one of the other things that propositions like this do is they complicate that question of how do we, as a city, as a constituency, have a relationship with these companies if know, wrongdoing is going on. And so, you know, if people know, this is a quote unquote, small business owner, who's, you know, wrong is blocking the sidewalk, who's, you know, performing badly in our community. And they know they can't take it to the appropriate person, which would be the company, they know that if there's a finger to point, it's pointing an individual who probably this is, you know, they wouldn't be, you know, doing this job if they had a better, more accessible option. So for so many reasons for protecting you know, generations long hard one workers rights workers justice to make sure that we can have a proper working accountable relationship with the companies that are doing business in our city. I think that this is a resolution that we need to pass that we need to follow that up with making sure that h 1234 isn't allowed to distort worker relationships throughout our state. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President. Thank you, Councilor Tseng for elevating this issue. I think that this decision really provides an opportunity for us to be proactive for us to clarify the city's policy. I think that it is not a great position for our city to put itself in, that any person can use our flagpole for any speech at all. I think that's a huge Pandora's box. But to take the first step first, I think that we absolutely need to see a clear policy or a clear response on what our current policy is. And if we don't have one, I think that's a huge Pandora's box. Let's take this opportunity to make one to close the door on legal troubles or more back and forth diatribes further down the line, whether that's through an administrative policy or through a clear ordinance that dispels out what our flagpole may be used for and by whom. So, thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you so much for being here today and giving us this. thorough overview of the work that this bond could help to facilitate. I'm looking forward to supporting this tonight I just wanted to say I think that the direction that the DPW and the engineering department is taking us in now, both with the sidewalk improvements roster as well as things like the pavement management plan if I'm getting that name right that was released last year I think that those have been very helpful tools for myself as a representative and also for the communities who are sort of trying to get our arms around these as you say multi multi year projects of addressing the backlog kind of trying to chart that arc of how, where do we go from here and how long is it going to take. you know, speaking anecdotally you know and when folks reach out to me and say, you know, my street looks like this, when will that get fixed. It is not a task I enjoy to look at the plan and say well you're rated a yellow. So unfortunately that means that it's not this year. That's a painful thing to have to share at the same time it's helpful, and to go to Vice President Bears this point. I think that it strengthens the case for taking a very thoughtful focused look at how are we going to get to a place where we can sustainably fund capital improvements on a you know, non geologic timescale, and also how we're going to fund a more robust city payroll, so that over time we can bring more and more of this work in house if that's what's best for the community and best for infrastructure. So, thank you again and I think that this, as you say, data driven approaches, very useful for us and at least for me, and metabolizing it and sharing it with the community.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate the questions that my fellow Councilors have brought up so far. Since we have our election coordinator here, I'm interested to hear from Coordinator Gale on her perspective on the appointment. I think that the election commission is going to be under her purview, so that's kind of a perspective that I think is valuable here. I do want to say, Clearly, robust participation in municipal elections is extremely important for somebody who can be serving on a board where that is the whole point. You know, we live in an environment where participation in municipal elections is at a baseline, incredibly low. So I think that there's perhaps something to be said about this candidate bringing a perspective that could help us to, you know, look at that problem and perhaps, you know, bring the perspective of somebody who's been less involved and looking to get more involved and shed some light on that. But, you know, we'd love to hear from Coordinator Gale on this. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell and I want to thank Councilor Tseng for putting this on the agenda tonight. I think we're, this council is, you know, enriched by his proximity to the youth community here in Medford and it's always by his proximity to the data, the numbers, because of course, you know, this systemic look at the issue, you know, is exactly what should be guiding our resources as a city, our policy directions as a city, and, you know, I think that the city administration in conjunction, put emphasis on, you know, in conjunction with the school department is exactly who I'd like to hear from on this issue from those involved with the Medford Public Schools community and see how we might design policies um to go forward from here you know I think it it doesn't need repeating but I think especially with the issue of mental health mental health crisis which I think over time you know our society like all American societies is coming to reframe it's an issue that has been for a very long time individualized it's been atomized it's been made to feel like people have to deal with this on a very individual level but I think um probably all of our lived and anecdotal experience reveals that this is a systemic community wide problem. And, you know, that's how we have to be addressing it if we want to be taking care of our whole community. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I know we've talked about this many times in every type of convening body that we have so far. And I don't want to repeat myself, but I wouldn't want to give the impression to my fellow Councilors that I happen to disagree with or anybody who's tuning into this discussion that it's been anything less than a thoughtful process for me as well. I think that, you know, especially as a newcomer to the council, respecting the process that predated me, you know, I thank everybody for their comments, for the perspective on this. you know, I think that when we talk about where we want to be growing as a community, like anticipating more growth in our community, you know, if we get our wish and Medford continues to evolve in positive ways and welcome more people and do all the things that I think we want our community to do to improve our curb appeal to continue to revise our zoning to keep pace with, you know, our evolving demographic trends and, you know, what an appealing community this is to live in. All of the things that we wish for our community require the substantial work that we do with, you know, this more targeted use of our time. So, you know, when thinking about how I deal with the community members that come to me as a Councilor. I tend to hear from those constituents about issues that can be resolved through policies and ordinances. Just for me as one Councilor, the things that I hear from my constituents about the answer to their issues, if there is one that the council has authority over, the answers typically an ordinance. And that's why my perspective on this has been so heavily weighted towards freeing up additional regular meeting times, reliable meeting times for subcommittee. So I just wanted to put that on the record again. Wouldn't wanna leave anybody with the impression that this was a less than deliberate decision process for me. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I'm excited to recognize Walk, Bike and Roll to School Day, which is the first Wednesday in May. It's tomorrow. It's a project of the Massachusetts Safe Routes to School program. I was thrilled to be contacted by one of the community members who's organizing celebrations in the form of, you know, group walks to school routes over the course of this whole month on Walking Wednesdays, so I think it's a great time to reflect on how important it is to, you know, in terms of the program goals and still healthy behaviors in our youngest constituents, and also a time to reflect on what we can do on an infrastructural and policy level to ensure that there are always safe, accessible, convenient walking, biking, and rolling routes to schools and every important public place in our community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Yeah, I just wanted to note, in general, I actually really do agree with points raised recently by Councilor Knight, I think that in general, you know, if something comes before us for approval, it shouldn't be a rubber stamp, it should be a reasoned and intentional decision. That said, in this specific case, because we didn't hold a Committee of the Whole for the three applicants that were approved last week, I don't know that it would be fair in this case to hold a Committee of the Whole for Ms. Imani. I would support the motion to table this for only one week to take it back up again in a regular meeting next week. Just to maintain the consistency, keep things moving along because that's what our newly minted election commission needs. But in the future, I would support having more intentional process for approving commissioners for anybody. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda tonight. This is, you know, as we know from last week, an issue that I'm very passionate about as well. know, and I think when we're talking about, you know, looking ahead to the opportunity to have a new contract with a waste and recycling hauler, you know, I think you raise a great point, which is that it's not just, you know, what they're doing on their end to make sure that we're recycling and disposing of waste with maximum efficiency, but also making sure that constituents have the knowledge that they need to really take full advantage of that. So I think it's really important that, as you say, an education campaign be a part of wherever we go from here. So just be happy to support this tonight and really looking forward to getting more clarity on the scope of the Solid Waste Task Force from here on out. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Chris Emeril.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell so pretty self explanatory this resolution is just meant to, you know, begin an investigation in subcommittee, you know, with working with members of our business community with the director of economic development to investigate the work that the city and the city council can do to accelerate the growth of our, our downtowns are many squares our business districts, you know, as I think everybody would agree we have some incredible options for for dining, for recreation, for nightlife throughout Medford Square, South Medford Square, West Medford. But at the same time, one of the things that I hear repeatedly from constituents is, you know, how can we take better advantage of our downtowns? How can we take better advantage of Medford Square? How can we make it so Medford Square is really more of a destination for people within our community and also for people from outside of our community? I think people would like to see more and different options and really build upon the wonderful base of businesses that we do have in many of our business districts. You know, so there's a lot to do in the project of transforming our business districts into, you know, even more vibrant and bustling squares obviously that takes into account transportation, it takes into account cycling and pedestrian access, parking, a whole host of issues. This resolution is not meant to get into all of those, but rather just to begin a conversation with the Director of Economic Development, with our business community about what changes this body could potentially investigate, consider, potentially act on to make it easier for new establishments to start and to thrive in Medford.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President real. So over the past few weeks we've had discussions in these chambers about how the housing market is playing out in Medford ways that is displacing residents of Medford, and what the city can do to better protect its residents and specifically tenants, you know, and the need to target specific protections at, you know, buildings that are held by commercial corporate landlords. So the ordinance that I'm hoping that we can have the chance to discuss in subcommittee would be targeted at codifying protections specifically for tenants of large commercially owned apartment buildings in the event that they're converted into condominiums. That is the gist of a condo conversion ordinance, which exists in many communities throughout the state. For example, everywhere from Amherst to Brookline, Malden, Marlborough, Somerville has one, Salem is working on one right now. These exist in places where there's an imperative to make sure that in the event of a large building being converted from a rental into a condo, that the people that are living there just have appropriate, reasonable protections for having a safe and stable off-ramp from that living situation. into their next one. So like many of the housing measures, like many of the tenant protection measures that we've discussed in this council, this is the type of thing that can be tailored to suit this community, can be tailored to suit the needs of our city. And I'm really looking forward to beginning that conversation in subcommittee with some of the very knowledgeable housing staff that we are lucky to have here in Medford. So I humbly ask for my fellow councilors support in beginning to consider this. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President real, and to the center and thank you for being here and thank you for discussing this with us. I'm wondering to Councilor to Vice President beers first questions question I also had sort of the the estimate of how big of an impact this loan could make in terms of number of streets number of sidewalks number of you know, areas of ADA compliance where there previously wasn't compliance. I'm curious if you think that's the type of thing that we could find an answer to in the next couple of weeks. I know for myself, that's something that it feels like an important detail. And I understand there's a lot of details to parse through.
[Kit Collins]: If you could just lean in a little bit more. Certainly. Thank you, sorry about that. Oh, now I hear myself echoing. I was wondering to the question of, you know, what the impact of a load of the size would have in terms of sidewalks repaired, new areas of ADA compliance where there previously wasn't, if you thought that was the type of detail that we could have an answer to within a week or two, or if you think that's part of the further down the line type of answer.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Rowe. I think where I'm landing on this issue personally, you know, I think my fellow councilors, councilor Caraviello and councilor Scarpelli make many points that I actually really agree with. I mean, in general, across many, many city departments, I'm, you know, passionately believe in bringing more things in house to, you know, to the greatest extent. I think it makes sense fiscally. I think it's the right thing to do. You know, whether that's DPW or even our housing resources, I think that these are goals that we need to be holding the administration to. At the same time, we've already talked about navigability, sidewalk accessibility earlier this meeting in the context of the snow removal ordinance. And I think that that is a really pressing issue that affects many residents of the city. And I think when we think about accessibility, when we think about equity, navigation accessibility has to be a big part of that. So while I think that there's a lot of very important consideration to be had over the topic that this brings up. I would support a motion to approve for first reading tonight because, you know, while there may be a hypothetical better scenario for addressing the issue of our dilapidated sidewalks across the city, I think that, you know, we do have crumbling sidewalks right now that do need to be addressed this year. So, you know, I would support a motion to approve, but I would also say, you know, for going forward, I think that a better approach is something that we need to continue to prioritize and develop a strategy around. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I have a motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I just want to echo Vice President Bears's sentiments. I'm so excited for the fair share amendment to finally be on the ballot. You know, and I think looking at this through the lens of how this would affect the city like Medford, you know, is the perspective that I, you know, that I hope my fellow Councilors and, you know, really every resident and voter in Medford beyond to take into account, you know, public education, public higher education, roads, infrastructure, hopefully climate change resiliency, you know, these are areas where we need new revenue sources. We can't do the things that we need to be the kind of community that we want to be, to live in the kind of community that we want to live in, without revenues for these incredibly important projects. And, you know, the source is right. When there's so much need spread throughout our communities, you know, we need to shift from a model of wealth hoarding to a model of making sure that we bring up the baseline for the parts of our communities that are in most need of investment. So I thank Vice President Bears for his advocacy of this, and I'll be excited to vote in support and then vote in support in November as well. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And thank you, Vice President Bears, for letting everybody know that this is going on. For anybody who's interested in learning more about it, I took the survey myself today. It took under 10 minutes. They have a box to check. Are you a constituent from Arlington? Are you a constituent from Medford? I think this is a great thing for our community members to weigh in on. It will affect this community. And even going beyond that, this is the type of project that I hope that our city administration can really look to and be inspired by. You know, I think we talk a lot about how much more we could be doing with our riverfront, how much more we want to be doing about traffic calming, pedestrian safety, expanding pedestrian and bike access along our beautiful scenic waterfront. So I'm excited to see how this is spearheaded by the community of Arlington, how it affects our community positively. and I really hope that we can see projects like this unfolding along the, you know, the riverfront that we control here in Medford as well. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Vice President Bears, for going through the resolution so thoroughly. And I appreciate you bringing up the context of the mass displacement that we're already starting to see in Medford over the past week. We had residents from the building on Bradley Road, some of whom are in attendance tonight, who were telling us about what they're currently going through with that exact type of situation, with where we are currently in the housing market, the housing crisis coming out of the pandemic as we seem to be doing. You know, mass mass displacement of tenants from our community from the community that they want to live in. And what really shapes me about this whole situation is the fact that, you know, our hands are so tied as Council as a city for what we're able to do to protect the people who live in our community who want to stay here. protect our constituents, the people that we represent, and that's because of these many, you know, potentially more impactful tenant protection, really just constituent protection measures that we're not allowed to do because of because of decisions affected on the state level. That's the reason that these tenant protections are being considered as home rule petitions. For anybody who's unfamiliar, measures such as rent stabilization are illegal in Massachusetts. And I think this has been said by others before me, but I think it's a very frustrating position to be in, to be hearing from constituents saying, We want to stay in this community. We want to continue being a part of this community and to be so very constrained in what we can do to effectuate helping people stay in this community. With just the situation that we're currently seeing on Bradley Road, I think it's been incredible coming together of housing advocates, people who've been through this type of situation before, residents coming together to see how they can help one another, mutual aid volunteers, just trying to alleviate a really painful, traumatizing, expensive situation for a lot of people, but there's a limit to how much you can volunteer and advocate your way out of a situation. And that's why we need to be advocating for changes to what we as a city are allowed to do to help people stay in our community. And that's why I'm excited to take up these potential home rule petitions in the housing subcommittee. And just to briefly touch on, I know it's a, It's not a four letter word, but it's a four letter and numeral word. I understand that, you know, some of my fellow Councilors would, you know, totally understand my fellow Councilor's perspective on advocating for things at the state level. But, you know, I feel strongly about this one in particular because it directly relates to our authority as a council. It's saying, please give us authority back to make decisions about what's right for our community here at the community level. Um, well, and I'll leave it there. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: That's it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I just wanna echo something that Vice President Bears said. Again, not to belabor the point, the discussion tonight is only whether or not to send this to subcommittee to discuss further. What if any, hopefully many, in my opinion, I think everybody knows my opinion. home rule petitions to send to our state delegation in order to say, you know, we need more tools to protect the people who want to stay in this community. To echo Vice President Beard's point that he just made, you know, for situations like the ones that we're seeing very recently in our community, any one of these would make a difference in the experience of a person who all of a sudden they have to move out of their home, you know, their home. Any one of these could, alleviate that experience of something traumatizing and heartbreaking happening that you didn't know was going to happen and you had no role in it. And I also want to say, you know, in the aftermath, and I know these home rule petitions are not about the specific situation that's going on on Bradley Road, but I know that when, you know, myself and my other Councilors first heard about it, I think I'll assume that we all felt sympathy, you know, felt distraught, felt, you know, my gosh, I can't believe that some of my constituents are going to have to leave you know, not because they wanted to, but because they were forced to. And I think it's important to know. We heard from our city housing staff just last week that we can expect this exact same situation to happen again very soon at another large apartment building that was also recently sold elsewhere in Medford. And so I just, you know, as perspective for why I feel very passionate about this being on the agenda, being able to discuss this further is because, you know, we can feel upset over and over again. We can feel sympathy for our constituents over and over again. We can feel heartbroken over and over again. But yeah, it's not in my theory of change to not try to do everything that we have in our power to do, even if sometimes we're tilting at windmills, what else can we do? So I thank my fellow councilors for their consideration, and I hope that this is something that we can discuss further. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Collins. I just want to note for the record, I think in a lot of tenant right to purchase policies that have been enacted or discussed in other communities, exemptions for small owner-occupied properties so that it would be germane only to larger commercial landlords.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. I just wanted to quickly make a point for if it's relevant to Councilor Knight's first point that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think during our discussion and committee of the whole, we established that this would only pertain to establishments serving prepared food. you know, food for immediate consumption. So it's my impression, I remember we brought this up because we brought up supermarkets in Medford, Wegmans, you know, wanting to make sure that this wouldn't disrupt very large scale supply chains in our neighborhoods. And so it's my impression that this would, you know, I understand that the effects on restaurants and smaller businesses are extremely important. And that's why we voted to make an implementation date of July, 2023 with implementation, you know, a year out from that date, but on the point of it affecting these larger retailers, it's my impression that it simply wouldn't apply because they don't, they don't serve prepared food.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on the agenda. As somebody with one marathon under my belt, albeit not very fast and not in Boston, unfortunately, maybe one day. I just want to salute all of the runners. I hope you have a great day. And I hope that everybody has a wonderful Patriots Day wherever it finds them. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Resolution speaks for itself. I know that we're coming up on, you know, we're a bit more than a year out from when our city's waste management contracts will be up. So I think it's, you know, about time that we start, you know, making sure that the administration is looking at how things are going with our current contractor with an eye towards how we can improve our overall waste reduction and efficacy of recycling in the next one. That doesn't necessarily mean a new contractor, but I think it's a good time to start re-evaluating. We're always overdue for evaluating how we can be further accelerating towards a zero waste future, evaluating how good we are at recycling all the things that we think that we're recycling. I also want to make sure that that also takes into account any private waste haulers that are operating on properties in Medford to ensure that across the board, we're doing what we can to dispose of waste, recycle as efficiently as we can in line with our climate and pollution goals.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Marillyn. Thank you to our AV wizard back there. What I was saying is that, you know, we appreciate the tenants keeping us informed of your situation and, you know, speaking only for myself and probably for Many other, if not all of my colleagues, we stand in solidarity with you. We're sorry for what you're going through. I think that we need to make sure that you're advocating to the right people, the people with the power to adjust your situation. As it's been stated, since this is proceeding legally, there's nothing that we can do in these chambers know, to wave a magic wand and give you what you deserve, you know, what you need, what you're asking for. And I think that, you know, I'm certainly speaking for myself, I want to be in contact with, you know, this tenant group to make sure that you're connected with the right people. I know they've already received some very helpful, you know, what I seem to be like helpful pertinent information from our Office of Planning, Development, Sustainability. I hope that to the extent that's helpful, you can remain in contact with our housing staff, other resources around the city, you know, and I hope that, you know, on an individual Councilor basis, we can stay in contact to make sure that you're accessing the resources that are available to see what can happen here, you know, to appeal to perhaps this property owners that are angels. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I found them in order and I move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Just briefly, thank you for putting this before us. I think, you know, So far in my short tenure, it seems like sometimes financial questions have to be considered with haste. I think to the extent that we can not do that, it's a good thing. So I love the idea of getting ahead of this and having an overview before we have to make such a decision. And I'll look forward to hearing from Chief Assessor Rideau about this in the future.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng for your initiative and putting this on the agenda tonight. Like Councilor Tseng mentioned, this was in response to direct constituent outreach that I think both of us and possibly others received on this issue. Again, of constituents just saying, this is an issue we care about. We've seen demonstrated attention to this from the administration. We've seen commitment to this from the administration of getting to a place of better representativeness and parity in the people that make up our city administration at all levels. and looking for an update on how exactly is that playing out? What are we doing specifically? What's working? What are other strategies that we can pursue to continue, to use your word, creating that pipeline of getting representative diverse talent into city positions from the rich variety of backgrounds that exist in Medford. I think it's critically important and I'm really looking forward to an update on the strategies city is pursuing to put that into action. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you President Morell. And thank you Director Morrison for being here. Thank you for having me. You know, to me just looking at this appropriation request that's coming from the mayor's office just strictly what's before us today. We have a note of approval. from Chief Buckley. I think it's helpful to hear how he puts it. Transferring these funds will alleviate some of the work that's on his staff to do parking enforcement. We know we need enforcement. We know it's a lot of work to get a brand new apartment up and running. So, of course, there's more conversations to be had as the parking department continues to get up and running, but I would motion for approval so that your department can do the work it needs to do to move forward.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. and thank my fellow councillors for all the discussion so far. I think this is really useful. And to me, it sort of reinforces how much of the need there is for a follow-up conversation so that, you know, to direct, to invite Director Morrison back at a convenient time so that we can, you know, I too have lots of questions about our upcoming parking enforcement, you know, as a South Metro resident, I have lots of questions from, my constituents, also my roommate about parking in South Medford, just joking, but actually, but you know, I want us to give you an opportunity to come prepared for that kind of a conversation. We can really explore parking writ large, you know, give you time to prepare for that conversation. We can really go deep and sort of get ahold of what's to come over the next three, six months. So, you know, I would, you know, perhaps offered as an amendment or a B paper to invite Director Morrison back maybe in a few months for a discussion about how things have been going, what to expect later in the year. Hopefully we can go over some of our questions. I'm sure there'll be, you know, even more of a list by that point. Hopefully we'll also go over some of the wins that the department parking department has seen by that time as well. But for the moment, you know, I just wanted to thank you for your time and going over, you know, the details of this proposal and know, a motion for us to take up the matter on the table, um, you know, and then reconvene to, uh, get what I'm sure will be a very comprehensive update, uh, in a few months.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. I heard about it from the councilor and just really second to hear about what's befalling these tenants. You know, obviously I think that, you know, broader matters of policy will be cold comfort to people dealing with something that they have to act on within 30 days, potentially. That's just a really horrible personal situation that I wouldn't wish upon anybody. But I think, you know, as points that were made by Vice President Bears and Ms. Catalo and others, you know, I think that this underscores the work that we urgently need to do as a council to make sure that our city is better insulated from phenomena like this when they happen. I mean, there's a possibility that this is or will turn out to be going forth legally. And I think that we have to consider that, you know, perhaps one of the best recourses that we can offer our constituents is a more robustly funded housing stability resources in-house, a mediator, better housing stability resources. I would love to see a whole office of housing stability, as I've said, since I launched my campaign. I think that we need that. because as noted, this housing scarcity crisis is not going anywhere anytime soon. We need to do what we can to increase affordable housing citywide. We need to do what we can from a policy standpoint to make it less catastrophic when things like this happen in the community. So again, that doesn't solve a problem happening right now, but I think that it really makes acute the work that we need to do this term. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, I'm sorry to jump in, but I raised my hand because I was emailing with a constituent about this exact same type of frustrating issue just earlier today. Shelby, I'm so sorry for your frustration, but because of a similar concern that was brought up on a different street, have the opportunity to check in with our engineering department about this where we're at, you know, what's the plan where's the queue. And, you know, I certainly empathize with the frustration of looking out on a street that's full of potholes and saying when is this going to get attended to my curiosity was also you know when are we going to see an order of which you know streets are going to get addressed. um, got a helpful, if not satisfying response from our engineering department, which is just, you know, there's, there's a plan in place and due to, you know, systemic funding issues, it's going to be meted out over, um, a fairly long timetable. So I think this is perhaps something that it would be, you know, a service to many constituents on many roads throughout our city to just check in with the engineering department, maybe get a report back to give some constituents a sense of, you know, who's in the short term queue and, uh, you know, who's more in the midterm in terms of getting their streets addressed as to the question of how to get a single pothole filled. I'm curious whether councilors think that'd be more of a see quick fix issue that might be a shorter term solution that councilors, or sorry, that constituents can use to get a more one-off problem addressed.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Alicia, thank you so much for this very helpful thorough presentation. I have just two clarifying questions to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. So looking at this map, to become eligible for these grants, we would need to create zoning that would allow within each of these circles for say 6,400 units of single family housing to be built within each circle. Is that my understanding?
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. And that gets at my second question, which is, you know, we have these radii here, but you also said the districts don't have to be contiguous. So it sounds as though that gets us the confusion that you just mentioned, which is it's not necessarily clear that all of that as of right housing has to be encompassed within that circle, but maybe start there. And so, of course, that's something I'd also That's that's part of what it exists, right?
[Kit Collins]: Gotcha. Thank you. Appreciate that.
[Kit Collins]: I just wanted to thank Director Hunt for coming before us and explaining all of this. And as you said, if you could follow up with these slides and how to submit comments, I think that'd be really appreciated. But thank you again.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Last week, myself, Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Tseng, along with Police Chief Buckley, members of Medford People Power, some folks they've been working with at the ACLU, and Attorney Austin from KP Law met to discuss the proposed community control over public surveillance ordinance. We had a very productive first discussion, and I look forward to further meetings of the subcommittee to continue going over questions and concerns related to the ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up tonight. I was interested in this resolution because, you know, over the course of particularly in the past couple of years with the pandemic, from my work in the community, I've heard about different sorts of energy and fuel assistance programs. So I went on the city website to see, you know, what's current, what's available, what's easy to find, and it's not easy to find. So if those fuel assistance programs are available, we should make it really easy for people to find them because as you note, more and more people are in greater and greater need of them. We should make it easy, we should make it navigable, make it visible. So I'm really interested to hear that update from the administration, not just on what's available, but also on some of the programs that were really broadcasted during the peak of COVID, what's still relevant, and if not, what's taken that place. So looking forward to getting this update from the administration. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And thank you, Molly, for that very thorough presentation. I'm excited to hear that the slides will be available online because there's a lot to plumb through and I'm sure I'll be revisiting it to get caught up on all the nuts and bolts. You answered a lot of the questions that I had in terms of what specific programs are and aren't eligible. One of the things that's on my mind, which I'm sure is one of the many things that isn't yet set in stone is kind of a more specific timeline for the community engagement piece. Some of the questions that I've been hearing from residents are, you know, it's so great that this is going to be a participatory process, but what is it going to look like and how will I know that my feedback is being, you know, really incorporated, not just received and then put in a filing cabinet somewhere. So I'm sure the timeline for making those decisions is still being finessed, but do you have any sort of preliminary thoughts about, you know, if there's lots of ideas that are compelling and meet the requirements and perhaps are mentioned in a previous program like the social justice roadmap or the Medford comprehensive plan, what the what the decision process will be like for prioritizing among many good ideas. And if that's not a today question, that's also fine.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you for reading out the entire list exhaustively. You know, we had the pleasure of hearing about all of these projects that are Committee of the Whole last week. We approved them unanimously, find them all very meritorious, a lot of them really exciting projects that I think we're all excited to see unfold in the community. So if there's no comment or question at this point, or, you know, borrowing any comments from members of the public who are here today, I would motion for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you and thank you for outlining you know just how recurrent this issue is in some of the neighborhoods that we and I'm sure many other Councilors also frequent. Obviously our engineering department and our DPW have a full queue of traffic mitigation and repaving projects that they're actively working on. We're lucky to have them on the case. Still the area that we've described is very pernicious one for traffic jams as already touched on. creates buildups at every peak hour, spills over onto these cut through streets like Bonner Avenue and others, degrades the road surfaces, increases air pollution for the residents of these neighboring streets, and creates very dangerous driving situations like blind turns, impatient behavior behind the wheel. So obviously there's no magical solutions, but looking forward to getting some updates from our city staff on what's currently going on to address these issues and hopefully explore what more can be done. Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Favrello.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Was Vice President Bears first? Okay, great. Thank you. Well, thank you, Councilor Svang for putting this forward. Thank you for the comments so far. And I just feel the need to say off the top, you know, I think, you know, given the fact that this is data that's been reported by the state, you know, I think it's a little unfair to call it a fishing expedition. when this is data that, you know, is now out in the open, you know, it's not something that Medford requested, it's just something that we have access to. And, you know, to me, since this is out there, it's a state report, greater transparency and dialogue around the issue can only be positive for the whole community. Just having the data and not following up on it doesn't help anybody. So I'm encouraged that the report recommends reflection and conversation about the potential causes. of these disparities and gives us a lot of opportunities. It's the opportunity for the public to follow up on a concerning issue, you know, demonstrated in the data and get more insight. It's the opportunity for our city to investigate and better learn what is the cause of the patterns. As Councilor Tseng said, you know, it's not about blame. It's about asking what's behind this data, going with an open mind and saying what's behind it. And it's an opportunity for the MPD to share its perspective, share what goes into its work. I completely agree with you. I know there's been a lot of new hires. I've heard from the chief firsthand, you know, how dedicated he is to really comprehensive training. And we know that that's genuine. And I think it would be great to have a forum to share that with more of the community. So, you know, to me, building and improving ties between MPD and the community. That's an existing stated goal that I've heard from many people within the administration. And I think that, you know, a conversation like the report recommends is is walking the talk, you know, following up on the issue holding a forum. I really do think it could be a win win because at the end of the day building trust keeps the community safer and it also keeps our public safety professionals safer on the job as well. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I'm very impressed by Councilor Tseng's French speaking, so hard to follow that. But I just want to amplify what Councilor Tseng already said and want to thank him for taking initiative on this resolution, as well as for liaising with the other Greater Boston elected officials that are connected to the Haitian community and this coalition, who've been making similar appeals to our federal administration. I would be really proud for us to use our voice as a council. to advocate for a more just and fair and legally compliant immigration system, instead of seeing excuses be used to turn away people who came here in a time of need. And as stated in the resolution, Medford has very long served as a place of refuge for immigrants, immigrants from many, many different places. And federal immigration policy impacts the ability of communities, welcoming communities like ours, to open our arms to new community And of course, it is very relevant that so many Medford residents are a part of the Haitian diaspora. Kind of anecdotally, one of the most memorable conversations that I had when I was out talking to voters last year was with a Haitian man in my neighborhood in South Medford who, when I asked him what was on his mind with the city of Medford, said, I have relatives who want to come and join me here. And because of our immigration policy, they can. And I could see that it was a really heartbreaking issue. um and it was it's it stuck with me more than you know most other conversations So obviously it goes without saying that cities cannot directly affect federal immigration policy, but especially as representatives of the city with such a robust Haitian population, I think that the very least we can do is speak up and to hope that with other local leaders across greater Boston, Metro Boston speaking up as well, that these calls will accumulate and be heard. And, you know, just to recognize that this policy is still affecting people in our community, even when it's left the front pages of major national newspapers. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to everybody who's commented so far and yeah I just really wanted to you know again just focus back on the, the language of the resolution and just I think what I found, of course it's a somewhat complicated issue what I think you know the important thing to focus on is that the. Yeah, kind of the ask here is to say, you know, let, we should be letting all immigrants, especially those applying for asylum to go through that process. If that process is not being allowed, that's a problem all immigrants should have the right to go through the asylum seeking process so it's not, you know, any sort of. blanket this one action should occur for all immigrants this one shouldn't it's just the option should be open that's what it means to be an equitable and welcoming country and to, you know, do right by what we say we say we're trying to do as a country and as society and just you know also just to focus in on the text of the resolution I don't think this is you know an attempt to re litigate any of the actions of past administrations or even present ones, but just to say, you know, because of the trickle-down effects of all federal policies on our local ones, this is what we're advocating for. And on a more personal note, you know, I completely appreciate and respect, you know, councillors who want to keep the purview of what we put on the agendas here to just super local issues. I really do understand that and I respect it. As I've stated before, you know, my personal posture is that I do want to take the opportunity to advocate for policies that affect our community, even if they are things that we do not have authority over. So I take that as an explanation for why I put on and co-sponsor resolutions like these. And I do hope that in some indirect way, declarations like these do have a cumulative effect in getting the ear of people higher up in government to say, this is what I need. This is what we're seeing on the ground in our community. And this is how to make our local levels safer for everybody. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Just one last thing before I move for approval I just wanted to state for the record you know that I, I've stated my explanations for why I support resolutions like these but I think you know, personally I think that there's like, There's no reason why a genuine commitment and passion for service showing up for the community can't co-exist with a decision to not want to put forth as many advocacy resolutions. I think I chalk it up to a difference of strategic opinion. So I just wanted to put that out there and for my fellow councilors.
[Kit Collins]: I found them to be in order and I moved for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I just like to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on the agenda tonight. In my view, you know, there's no, there's no bad opportunity to thank and commend the healthcare workers in our midst, especially right here in our community. And I think it would be our honor to commend them here in the council chambers. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you and thank you for coming to speak with us tonight. And just to give you, you know, I think I was the one that put 22059 and some others directed at our state house delegations leaders in the state house on the agenda. So just to give you a window into my thinking, I want to see the council advocating for measures that I think would improve life for people. in Medford, in my view, and I know that not even all the other Councilors on this body feel the same way, but to me, part of my role as a Councilor is advocating for measures that will improve life for people who live at Medford. Often that's going to include things that we can do within this body, within our purview, in the form of a resolution or an ordinance. Other times that's going to mean advocating for something that is the state's authority. So, you know, to me, I think it's analogous to, you know, when I call up my representative, you know, and tell her how I think about a bill. I hope that she takes it into the count. When we happen to send a letter that we vote in favor on to our state delegation, we might hope that they might take that into account. We don't know. There's no algorithm, but we hope so. Thank you. You answered the question.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd support the motion to move this to a committee of the whole. I think Councilor Scarpelli raises a point that I've heard from multiple sources that, you know, our best chance for passing a home rule petition for charter review is to pass it with unanimous vote from the council. You know, respectfully, I hope that we're able to get to seven zero because as, you know, as Councilor Scarpelli, as President Morell already said, It's been a long, long time since we've reviewed this foundational code of our city. I've heard from a lot of constituents just over the past week about this and a lot more ever since I started campaigning. I think this is a really top priority issue for a lot of people. who live in Medford, you know, one raised, I think, you know, perhaps the most salient point of all, which is, you know, any important binding legal document, it's a good idea to review it every once in a while, kind of like we're currently doing with our code of zoning ordinances. To me, there's simply no reason not to do it. And, you know, this home rule petition is just to the question of, do we give Medford an opportunity to review that charter or not? it's not, you know, we're not weighing in on what should come out of that Charter Review Commission. So, you know, I hope that we can take steps to give a strong vote on this. And, you know, I know I'll be voting in favor and excited to present this opportunity to the city.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you and thank you President we're all we're putting this forward. I want to concur with a lot of Councilors have really just said, I also just want to note I think that this is a problem that's felt differently in different neighborhoods. I live in South Medford renter most people on my street are renters. I think that this is a very I think that you know the parking enforcement during snowstorms is felt really differently like depending on the character of a neighborhood. A lot of my neighbors did not move their cars because they had no idea that we're having a snow emergency. I've had people reaching out to me on Twitter to ask about parking policies and I think if people are reaching out to little old me on Twitter it's because they have no idea where to look for that information. I can sympathize because as a digital native almost, as a millennial, I struggled a couple of years ago to find where to sign up for city alerts. And I'm probably about as plugged into city stuff as anybody in my age group. So I agree, I think this should be coordinated with other citywide communications because I think the need for signage, and I do think there are some neighborhoods where it would be kind of the only thing that people see about it, shows that we have a pretty big communication gap. in our city for alerts like this in general.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And thank you, President Morell for putting this forward. I'd certainly second your motion for approval if there's a motion already. I think that it's a good idea to put this forward, you know, regardless of the recent change in the proposal, you know, as articulated by councilors already, the plan has changed. I think it's a good idea for us to say in one voice as a council, you know, we need to stand up for the spirit of the Community Benefits Agreement that Wynne entered into. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I'll be brief, but as a person who in my other work, Sorry. What was that?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, wait, is that a rule?
[Kit Collins]: Well, you made me lose my train of thought. I was going to say, thank you, Councilor Knight. As a person who does public art professionally, I thank Councilor Tseng for bringing this forward and I agree, you know, from my own experience and from talking to other people in the field, you know, public art can really seem like a black box to people, you know, amateur artists, professionals who are trying to get into the field. I also think that with so many other things, equity is a huge issue in the public art field. you know, anything that we can do to further our efforts to be transparent about the process can help more people in the community both take on these opportunities and also weigh in on what kind of public art we wanna see in our community and where, so I think it's a great idea.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to move to approve this measure. I was pleased to testify in favor of H3080 a couple of weeks ago. I think it's an extremely important set of bills. They just provide a local option for municipalities to receive a more fair compensation rate from their large resident nonprofits, as we're all very aware. Municipalities bear a very heavy governmental load for the amount of resources that they're able to command. And these bills will help straighten our city municipalities like ours by providing a framework for wealthy resident nonprofits to pay their fair share. So I think it would be a great idea for this council to send a strong message to the state delegation of, you know, what an asset this framework would be to communities like ours. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President. enthusiastic readers of the Massachusetts Municipal Association weekly newsletter already now. We are predicted to have a huge uptick in state tax collections for the upcoming fiscal year compared to the current one. It's a particularly dramatic increase compared to original projections for the fiscal year 2022 tax collections forecast. And even if you only consider the calculation of the tax base that was used to actually create the fiscal year 2022 state budget, it's still over a 7% increase from that number. Meanwhile, the level of state aid afforded to municipalities barely keeps pace with inflation. Again, I wanna note how the past couple of years have highlighted just how much responsibility for policy and governance rests at the most local level of governance, particularly when it comes to public health, resiliency, roads, environmental maintenance, really essential services. that we need to not only maintain but actually expand if we're going to do right by our community and our residents. So I hope that ours and other municipalities can successfully communicate to our state leaders the need to increase the level of local aid in next year's state budget. I hope that other municipalities will join with ours, hopefully, in advocating for this. And I respectfully ask for my fellow councilors' support in advocating this to our state leaders. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President. So as many folks are no doubt already aware, February 3rd and 4th marked the two-year anniversary of our city's pledge to become hunger-free by 2028. Really grateful to the school committee, city council that were in effect at the time in 2020, as well as Mayor Lungo-Koehn for making this commitment. And also, you know, just want to express gratitude for the members and collaborators of the Medford Food Security Task Force for their work behind the scenes raising this issue of food security in Medford, you know, both prior to the pledge and, you know, in the time after it. As everybody who's working on the issue of hunger and food insecurity and Medford, you know, knows as well as anybody, there's a lot of work that we still have to do to reach the goal of actually being, you know, free of hunger and food insecurity. in the next six years. We've had some great gains, the Mystic Community Market being among them. There's still a very far way to go. So, especially given that budget season is, you know, going to be upon us before we know it. I just think that this is an opportunity for us to state that this is a very strong priority. There's no quick fixes when it comes to eradicating the issue of hunger. But we need to, you know, invest what needs to be invested convene the groups and conversations that need to be convened to figure out what exactly are the obstacles to eradicating hunger in our city. and then, you know, hopefully make haste to do the work of the economic development and programs and policies that will make going hungry in Medford a thing of the past. Thank you for your consideration.
[Kit Collins]: If I may, motion to take from the table papers 21-631, second 21-631, and 22-023. On the motion of Councilor Collins, same papers 21-631, 21-631, and 20-... Sorry, one second.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and thank you, Vice President Bears for introducing this resolution. Just want a second. Thank you. Yes, just a second everything that Vice President Bears already said this resolution is to create a public process. You know, so to create, you know, a routinized way to have a clear routine process for any agency that wishes to deploy a public surveillance technology to outline why they would like to use it, for what purpose, how this information will be collected and used to make sure that we have a very clear and structured process to bring the public into that deliberation and decision process when surveillance technologies are proposed for use in our community. I think it's a great transparency measure, and I'd like for it to be taken up by the Public Safety and Community Health Subcommittee.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a bill that I've heard about from many Medford residents, and I see it as being very in line with our community's values so I'm glad for the opportunity to request my fellow Councilors support in endorsing it. For a little bit of background, this act would shore up basic civil rights protections for undocumented people throughout the state, and of course, by inclusion, our community as well. You know, currently, insecurity about immigration status and the specter of deportation keeps many people from seeking the help and support that they need from police, from medical providers, and in other settings. So this act would restrict the circumstances during which law enforcement is allowed to inquire about a person's immigration status. Um, you know, essentially the act would make it so people less feel like they have to, uh, you know, avoid calling for help when they're in crisis because of what that call could result in in terms of an arrest or deportation. Um, so I see the measures of this act as being very aligned with our community's existing goals of making sure that our public safety and health resources can actually reach every and any person in Medford who needs it regardless of their background. And I respectfully, uh, ask for my fellow Councilors approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Mr. President, thank you, Councilor Tseng for putting this forward and just want to echo all of that and also add that I think one of the reasons this is you know important and relevant to our community here in Medford is, as Councilor Tseng mentioned this bill would require that electric bus fleet to be expedited for routes that go through environmental justice communities. including some of our neighbors in Somerville and Everett, and so adjacent communities close to those cities in Medford or those that share bus routes through those neighborhoods would also reap the benefits of this priority electrification for those transit routes. So respectfully ask for our fellow councilors support for this bill, especially as Vice President Bears mentioned during this final week of pushing bills out of subcommittee.
[Kit Collins]: I'm not aware that it is the assessment for any of the impacted communities at all I think that this is a statewide plan for procuring and implementing in a staggered way the electrification. of the buses, the bus charging stations. To my knowledge from reading the text of the bill, didn't mention anything about the assessment of the community's fees to the MBTA.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, I'd like to thank Councilor Tseng for bringing this forward. You know, I think you said it very well. Black history and Medford's history are inextricably woven. So I'd be proud to see Black History Month be celebrated even more loudly in our community and to have this be a moment for recommitting to investing in black voices, black futures, standing together against bigotry and systemic injustice. And I'd move for approval.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng for putting this forward. This was very interesting to read through and learn about, and I appreciate your rundown of the resolution. This is something I'd very much like to see our administration work towards. I think it's very aligned with our social justice roadmap, our goals of becoming an ever more equitable community. And as you very helpfully described, disaggregating data into more specific national, racial, ethnic groups. This arms us with better data to act upon through policy, through planning. You know, essentially the point of having all of this demographic information is so we can look beyond the line of best fit and see what's underneath it for really specific populations, you know, and respond appropriately through our governance and our program. So I'd love to see a response from the administration about what it would take to adopt this improved data, improved reporting. Thank you. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Not sure if this should go before or after public participation, but motion to take from the table papers 21-631 and 22-023 for third reading.
[Kit Collins]: I just want to, of course, if any Councilors need another week to review it, I don't want to rush the decision. But being as a lot of the positions under these ordinances are related to public health, the public health nurse, food security specialist positions are included in these amendments. These are positions that I've heard that the community is really clamoring to be filled. I think it's really urgent that we get these processed, be able to hire for them really as quickly as possible. These are some positions that are really addressing urgent needs in Medford. If it's possible even to, you know, maybe review the documents in this meeting and then move forward, you know, I don't want to be ham-fisted about this, but if there's any way to move forward with a measure of urgency, I'd really, you know, appreciate it.
[Kit Collins]: Is there a question? Is there a way to motion for these to put on next week?
[Kit Collins]: If you withdraw,
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and thank you Councilor Caraviello for bringing this forward today. I think this resolution is important, obviously we need to make sure that every city vehicle is a safe vehicle, and I support measures to ensure that. I also want to thank Councilor Tseng and President Morell for their amendments, you know, of course, as we all know, resources are finite, needs are many, so I support, you know, I'd be interested to see this purchase plan, a phased in purchasing plan in the context of an overall capital budget, just to see how it interacts with other funding priorities, including other funding priorities within the MPD, which I know are many at this point. I also wanted to note, you know, kind of to President Morell's point, of course, yearly vehicle purchases, even if they're phased in, they're no small thing environmentally. And, you know, there is a huge emissions cost baked into high volume vehicle manufacturing, you know, even for EV vehicles. So regardless of how this goes forward, obviously, patrol cars are a bit of a non-negotiable. But I think that that's something that I'd really like to see acknowledged and accounted for in our overall path to net zero emissions. So just wanted to note that for the record, regardless of how we go forward, I think that'd be a valuable thing for us to, for the administration to consider in their purchase plan of these vehicles. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: I was also just seconding but I agree with everything and I'd said I think these are four extremely worthy projects, very excited to support them.
[Kit Collins]: Mr. President, if I may, motion to take from the table papers 21631 and 22023 for the purpose of surgery. Those aren't eligible till next week. Next week?
[Kit Collins]: It's already February in my mind.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Ortiz, for being on the call and answering our questions. I was wondering, and I apologize if you're not the person to whom this question should be directed, but I was wondering if there's a standard protocol that you follow for informing the residents that are adjacent to your work site of the work that you're doing, work schedule, what they should expect from the work being done on their street. if that's something that is usually farmed out to your city liaisons, sort of what the residents can expect if the permit is to be granted and if work goes ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, just wanted to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this up. I also have questions about how this contract overlaps or intersects or otherwise with the provisions laid out in 30B section 12. What's changed by it being grant funded? What parts of that provision apply or not? So I'm looking forward to receiving a determination on that.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and thank you, Councilor Caraviello for bringing this forward. As you said, you know.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Before we vote, I'd just like to voice, you know, one thing that I heard from Chief of Staff Nazari in our discussion on this proposal last week was a concern that failure to quickly pass this budget amendment would leave the administration short on legal counsel in the short term or maybe for the rest of the fiscal year. So that is a concern of mine because I could see a lot of circumstances where having, you know, any department in the city having insufficient access to legal counsel on a variety of matters could really hold us up and, you know, any numerous important issues that we're trying to work on. over the next five, six months. So that is a concern of mine. And that's why I'm leaning towards trying to pass this expediently, because I totally agree. I'd like to see us lobby for independent counsel for this council going forward. But I do have pretty strong reservations about, you know, delaying passage of the amendment and ripple effects that that could have for the administration in the short term. If I can point information with that.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: from the chair uh oh sorry councillor collins sorry i was a late breaking hand raised yeah um i just wanted to to also note that i really appreciate the discussion around this and to my fellow councillors i hope that my willingness to approve quickly i would never want for that to come across as indifference to the frustration that's been built up over the years and i've want to acknowledge and respect the fact that there's been back and forth on this issue for years that I wasn't behind the rail for, and I want to know that that's heard. And I'm glad that Councilor Tseng earlier brought up the need to advocate for a fiscal year 2023 budget in which these concerns are really taken seriously. So I think I'd like to motion to approve. But, you know, again, want to reiterate, um, you know, I have a concern that this could ripple out into a interruption in service for the residents of this city that's behind my position tonight. But, you know, I'm hoping that as a council we can advocate for independent legal counsel for going forward is obviously that's very important.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Thank you for reading that whole thing. So this resolution is not intended to point fingers or rehash an incident that we already know about. This resolution is intended to follow up on the work that the administration has begun in the wake of the offensive menorah display. at the holiday extravaganza in December. We're aware that the administration has taken some good first steps and to move forward from that event, including starting the conversation with representatives from Temple Shalom da Marion Ryan, the anti defamation league and city hall staff and beginning to plan some trainings. My intent is to affirm that the goal here should be to create a culture of inclusion and broad community engagement within City Hall, and with the planning of city events specifically, so much so that offensive incidents like the menorah display are just not possible to happen anymore. aspire for this administration to have such strong relationships across our many faith and cultural and ethnic communities and be so and get so good at inviting people into City Hall and to our event planning processes that this kind of unfortunate yet human error wouldn't ever make it into the final version of a city event. So I'm happy to see that the work to move forward has begun and we want to confirm that this work is really necessary. not just because of the menorah display and to heal ties with the Jewish community members who were alienated by it, but rather that, you know, to say that it's necessary in any case to make this city hall a place where people from any background can feel represented and feel belonging because that's what a city hall really needs to be to be successful. So finally, you know, we want to request that update from the administration on what the next steps are to continue improving inclusion and engagement with the community. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you and thank you councillor saying for bringing this forward. I think that this is a great thing to see the city lead on. I too have heard the recent guidance about how it's true, and 95, but you know more to the point KN 95 are more protective and surgical masks they're certainly more protective and cloth masks. And I think at the point that you know we're trying to the administration is trying to do all it can to keep our residents, safe, correct masking is a huge part of that. And we have to evolve our guidance with the evolving nature of the virus with the infection levels in our community and I think Councilor Tseng brings up a great point that it's increasingly difficult to find masks. And I think people are feeling kind of out in the wind when it comes to being able to source masks that will protect them, that will help them not keep the virus, not bring the virus home to their families, you know, kind of regardless of vaccination status, because that's where we're at in this pandemic. So I think if there is a, if there's a way for this administration to source masks so that we can better protect the people in our community, that are most in need of them, people who can't work from home, people who work for the municipality, work for our schools, people who are disproportionately likely to be in infection prone scenarios. We need to be doing all that we can to help protect those community members. So thank you, Councilor Tseng, and I'll be strong in support of this today.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And, you know, I think some of the last points that you raised really speak to the heart of this, which is, you know, what being able to track and assess what are we doing, what's left to do, how can we help more? And I also want to echo a comment that President Morell made on the previous paper. regarding how truly tragic it is that so much of the pandemic response has been left to local governments. And I certainly hope that we can take these lessons forward as a nation for our next, God forbid, public health emergency. But as the case is that a lot of responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of our local boards of health nationwide, we still need to be saying, how can we bring up the baseline? How can we make sure that we're achieving an equitable response how much more can we be doing? So I'd love to see this administration look into keeping up the vaccination clinics, continuing to reevaluate our mask mandates, ability to share and distribute medical resources, looking into PCR testing for our community, the things that are very, very hard for residents to find on their own. So thank you again for bringing this up, Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: I found them to be in order.
[Kit Collins]: And I move to approve them.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Bears?
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Capiello? Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Schell-Kelley?
[Kit Collins]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears??
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor, thanks. not to drive the conversation out further, but I just want to thank President Morell, Councilor Bears for bringing this forward, Councilors Knight and Scarpelli for their words of affirmation. I think that this is an issue that really deserves a lot of affirmatory words. I think this is a really essential benefit. I would love to see this council embrace it, encourage the city to embrace it, because this is a measure that could, through extending this benefit for our city and school employees, help to make the city healthier and stronger and more resilient community, which is what we're here to do. So thank you for bringing it forth. I'm excited to advance it.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Knight for bringing this forward wholeheartedly support this resolution, as indicated, not only do these leaks account for an outsized amount of methane emissions, particularly potent greenhouse gas. These leaks inhibit our ability to deliver on our public health goals to the community of Medford. They also threaten our ability to demonstrate our seriousness about climate change mitigation. So I look forward to supporting the city administration and holding National Grid accountable and seeing what we can do to sustainably address this issue. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Through the chair, I guess I'd like to ask for a clarification. I'm not sure if that would be from Councilor Caraviello and Scarpelli or Chief of Staff Mina. It's my understanding that the $2,500 that the mayor is requesting the appropriate is for a distinct attorney to represent.
[Kit Collins]: So- Understood. I think my confusion is around, is the sticking point here, whether this is attorney that's contracted with the city of Medford, or if it's an attorney that we are in effect sharing.
[Kit Collins]: I'd like to hear from the Chief of Staff, thank you.
[Kit Collins]: No further questions. Thank you very much for the clarification.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, and through the chair, thank you for your response tonight for being here to help clarify some of the issues surrounding this in considering this paper I think for me it's a matter of balancing or what's in my mind is the short term necessity of not having a service interruption when it comes to having. legal counsel available to the city available to the city council, even if in an inadequate way with the long term need to deliver on the priority to have more readily accessible legal counsel to the city council which I agree fully agree should be a priority and in general strongly. proponent of bringing more services in-house to the city. I do plan on voting in favor of this paper tonight, but I do just want to say that I think that doesn't take away from the very strong need to reconsider where access to council lies for the city council going forward. I don't want to see a service interruption or a greater lack of access to legal counsel for anybody in the city administration or the city council through the remainder of this fiscal year. I think that would be, you know, harmful. I don't think that would be productive in the short term, but in the long term, I do agree that we need to, you know, support the city administration, support the mayor in figuring out how to get to a more sustainable situation in terms of the city council's access to legal counsel. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And yeah, I just want to begin by thanking the Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli for your comments on this so far. And, you know, I'm very aware of my position as, you know, this paper coming before me and I haven't been behind the rail for the previous discussions on this. So I understand that your perspective on it is seasoned with more meetings than mine. And I just want to be really respectful and observant of that. you know, looking at this paper before us and hearing Chief of Staff Nazarian's comments on it, some of the analogies to me that come to mind, and especially having heard from some constituents, you know, even just before my first meeting about, you know, the impatience and eagerness to see a lot of these positions get filled, including positions that have been tabled in previous meetings. coming into the meeting with that perspective and I think with some of the plans that we do really urgently need to see and I know people are very impatiently waiting for. I know that in certain cases we need the people behind desks in order to make efficient progress on those plans and I feel that perhaps the finance director slash auditor is a great example of that perhaps. You know I'm not I'm not privy to the nuts and bolts of the reclassification study, to what extent the auditor would actually be involved in that process. But it strikes me as the type of thing where we kind of have to make some steps forward to accelerate our steps forward. So I'm, after some reflection, I'm planning on voting in favor of these papers tonight, because I think that that is our best, it seems to me that's our best way to make efficient progress forward. And I think that that is, know, certainly what we need to be clamoring for. At the same time, I fully respect the, you know, the sense of wanting for a plan. And I hope that having, you know, kind of reacting to the market forces that we're observing, and perhaps the difficulty of finding applicants for these positions could help us get to a place where we're getting that communication information that we desperately need and have been waiting for. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, 11 Strathmore Road, number two. My name is Kit Collins. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. So really grateful that this resolution has been brought up tonight. Thank you for creating the opportunity for residents and Councilors to speak about it. I just wanted to echo some of what's already been said before by Councilors and other community members and say that I really feel strongly that conversations are so important. I think that we need a really discreet programming and funding and concrete channels to continue conversations about race and racism in Medford and white privilege and white supremacy in Medford and how to systemically unweave those realities. And I think that also, you know, it's so important that we not allow these conversations to get derailed from the focus on addressing structural inequity as it exists in Medford, as it does, you know, in in almost every community across the nation. And I think that we've had some really great outlines of things that we can do to begin to, to address those and to think in those directions. And some of that some of that thought is already underway. which, you know, is good, is encouraging. It might be overdue, but it's good. And, you know, I think that to say, you know, we've reached the end of our road here because, you know, the buck has stopped somewhere else, you know, just means that we're wasting time. I think that, like, we must be reflecting on the spaces that we occupy, especially for people who already hold power in city government, for those who have plenty of spaces in the city where they already feel comfortable and feel comfortable talking about race, which certainly doesn't apply to everybody and doesn't affect people of every race equally. I think that we have to do the work of looking inward and saying, if there does seem to be a communication breakdown, if we feel like we're not hearing these stories, let's first look at the environment that we're perpetuating and creating. What can we be doing? so that we can be receiving this communication? Is there things that we could do to make these spaces ones in which everybody can feel comfortable talking about these uncomfortable and sometimes outright dangerous topics? I think that there's a role for the city council to have in being a really full-throated proponent of anti-racism measures. And I think lots of constituents would be really eager to see the city council take on a more bullish approach to advocating for anti-racist dialogue, as well as, you know, as Councilors have said, policies that address structural inequities. So just to sum up, you know, I agree, we all have the responsibility to start these conversations. And I think that, you know, we need to be creating spaces where people feel, everybody can feel comfortable talking about these issues. And if we're observing the fact that we don't yet have perfect communication about these issues, I think that we also have to consider that the fact of white supremacy and racial divide is a reason for that. So thank you for the opportunity.
[Kit Collins]: Hi there. Yeah, my name is Kit Collins. I live at 42 William Street in South Medford. Thank you to everybody who's spoken so far. Thank you to Councilor Bears for bringing this resolution. I too support the motion to hang a banner reading Black Lives Matter on City Hall. And just to echo some of the sentiments that have already been stated, but just to reinforce them with my voice, I believe that this is not a political statement. It is a statement in support of basic civil rights and the right of every person to enjoy freedom and safety in their community. I think that when we say Black Lives Matter, we're affirming in some way, you know, the same values that we affirm when we lobby the city council for safer streets. It's an affirmation that we're not okay with the fact that for some people, because of the color of their skin, their life is more difficult, it's more precarious, more dangerous for them. It's an affirmation that we are not okay with that being the case for anybody in the country or any of our neighbors here in Medford. It's an affirmation that we are a city where we want everybody to enjoy freedom, joy, safety, security. And to the point that, you know, I think that there are concerns about this message being controversial, it being provocative, it making certain residents feel uncomfortable. You know, I would say to those people and to anybody who's hearing from their constituents those concerns, if you think that Black Lives Matter means that white lives don't matter or that they matter less, Then you can just read up on it. Just Google the movement for black lives and like read over the website because that's really not what it means. And anybody who takes that kind of issue from this language is simply misinformed. It's really simple. It's about civil rights. And this is the language of a movement for civil rights. I want to live in a city where we're not afraid to voice our support for that. And then I want us to back it up with real substantive action. But like Nicole said, and a lot of people after her, We got to do the simple language thing first. You know, we got to prove that we can do that. It's simple to do that. We should do it. Let's do it. And then let's get on to the harder, more important stuff. Thanks. Thanks, Kit.
[Kit Collins]: Can you hear me? Yeah Great. My name is kip collins. I live at 42 william street in medford. I'm, just holding my mic kind of close because it's kind of bad um, I would just like to make a comment that I think that In this moment as the pandemic as much as we might hate to admit it is still very much ongoing It's going to be going on for a very long time, even though that's a reality that nobody is happy about I think that a really important part of the city council's leadership is to be a leader in how we are modeling behavior for how to act during a pandemic. I think it is, we're not even getting close to the time where we can begin going back to normal safely. And I think that the actions of the city council, not just in how the budget meetings turn out, but in general the tone of what is acceptable, what is enthusiastically participated in, should be considered modeling for the whole Medford community as how we should be conducting ourselves safely during a pandemic. And I bring this up, I think it's most important because it's not just for The health of the people who will literally be in that room and their families I really think that it's important for us all to remember that this pandemic And infectious disease and health health in general is a racial justice issue. It is an economic justice issue We cannot forget just because the pandemic is wearing on It's becoming increasingly inconvenient. It's becoming increasingly tedious That um, you know, they're the most vulnerable members of our community are still being put at the most risk when more people go out Become carriers without knowing it continue to spread this disease We are very far away along from having a vaccine and I think that even though it really stinks. We all need to dial down Remain in the mindset of protecting our communities and I would really love to see the medford city council embody that spirit of protecting the most vulnerable as well through what they are willing to enthusiastically do to support one another and protect each other from this disease. Thanks.