[Michael Marks]: Yeah, I mean, when I first got on the council, the council was known as the People's Forum. It truly was the only place in the city that residents can go up, and at the time it was once a week, which I think many people prefer that over every other week now, and residents could come up on a host of issues that impacted their daily life, and we as a council would open up, allow them to speak. You know, we had rules regarding time, but if someone took their time out of their schedule to come up there, We were very gracious with allowing people to speak, and we never shut off people. I think Bob can attest to that. We let people vent, and sometimes they just wanted to come up and vent, but we gave them a forum, and I think that's what's lacking now. Residents are frustrated because they don't have a forum to speak, and when you get to speak, You're cut off. You're rude. Members of the council, certain members, are very rude and condescending. And they really make people feel like they don't want to hear what they have to say. And when you get rid of the only forum in the city, I think that says a lot that people have nowhere else to go. And in my opinion, if I was back in the council, that would be the first thing I would fight for. Increase public participation, allowing residents to get up and vent any of their concerns, and make it truly the people's forum. And that was, as you remember, Bob, Bob Mayorko used to say that all the time. This is the people's forum. And, you know, I always remember that. And I said, you know what, this is the one place they get to come up and speak and be heard and, you know, by their elected officials and give them the opportunity.
[Michael Marks]: And if I could just add, John, they're using the agenda against residents. And when I say that, you could be on the agenda and not be heard for four or five hours. And to me, if you have a group of residents that come up all on the same issue, there's no reason that would have never happened under our watch, myself or Bob Penter or the other members of the council. If we knew there was a group of people there, we would always suspend the rules and allow them to speak first. They weren't waiting four or five hours to speak. Now it's being used, the council agenda is being used as a tool to stifle people. And that again is not right. In my opinion, these are the things that we have to look at. There were a host of changes that were made to the council rules, in my opinion, that do not benefit residents of this community. and allow for public input. And the new council that comes in, hopefully, will change a lot of those rules back to allow for more public participation, allow for people to get up there in a timely fashion and speak, and move the issues along. And that's not happening right now.
[Michael Marks]: So the major concern I hear right now, and there's a lot to zoning, if people don't know or not aware, zoning, in my opinion, is the lifeblood of a community. That's the backbone of a community, how it's zoned. And I think what's currently happening right now is The push from six members of the council, excluding George Scapelli, he's been very vocal about being opposed, not to zoning changes, but to the elimination of single family districts. That's going to have such a major impact on the neighborhoods. If you look at the Lawrence estates, if you look at North Method, if you look throughout the community that have single family neighborhoods, the Brooks estates, and all of a sudden now zoning for single families is going to be gone and you're going to allow up to three, four, five units in each lot. That makes for high density housing. It makes for increased traffic, increased congestion, increased lack of parking. There's a host of concerns that everyone in this community should have. And that's not to say we don't need additional housing, and in particular affordable housing. I think Chapter 40B, which is the state law that provides for building with affordable housing, that does increase the stock of affordable housing in the community. Does it do enough? That's up for debate. But right now, to change the fabric of this community, and let me just say, John, it doesn't just change single family areas. I live in Wellington, and it changes two family areas as well. So if you look at South Method, if you look at Wellington, Haines Square that has a lot of two families, they're talking about changing a two family into a four to six family. And think about it, that just doesn't impact your neighborhood, that impacts infrastructure, water and sewer, that impacts school size, class size. There's a lot of ramifications right now that I think every, that's the most pressing issue, I think every resident in this community should be concerned and should really pay attention to what's going on. And in my opinion, I was elected 26 years. By far, this is probably the most important, crucial issue that faces this community right now.
[Michael Marks]: Can I just add one thing, John? Sure, Michael. Yep. just because it's important to know, I think, for the viewing audience, that this zoning initiative was on the fast track. And there were countless meetings and so forth. And people have spoken up that they were not just opposed to it, but they thought it required more investigation and more community input. And it wasn't until the election started to approach that this current city council, six members, put it on hold temporarily. And when I say temporarily, I mean temporarily, until after the election's over. And in my opinion, if we reelect six of those members, This zoning is going to fly through. The very fabric of the city is going to change a thousand percent. So we have a unique opportunity to stand up and say, you know what, we don't support this current zoning change. We do support taking a look at zoning and how we can improve it. But we don't support this current zoning. And the only way I tell people all the time to send a message is to look at the candidates right now that are talking about, hey, let's take a step back. Let's carefully approach this zoning and see what we can do. And if you look at George Scarpelli, Rick Caraviello, Patrick Lurken, Paul Donato Jr. has spoken about it, Melody Tringali, Nate Merritt, Nick They've all spoken about it, saying that they're definitely going to review this and take a much longer approach to make sure every neighborhood's accounted for when any change, and every input is accounted for. So I think that's key. And when I tell people, because we still get calls, Bob Penter can attest to this, I get calls all the time. And I'll say what you probably do. If people say, Mike, what do you think? And I tell them, I say, you get the government you deserve. So if you want to reelect the same people, you're going to get this, especially the zoning, jammed down your throat.
[Michael Marks]: John, not to belabor it, but one other point because this is an important issue. Back several years ago when I was on the council, there was the housing production plan. This plan was commissioned by the city and we brought in a private consultant and they brought up creative ways in order for us to create more affordable housing. And one of the major pieces was to look at, I believe at the time, there were some 300 and something odd lots in the city. And most of them were under the buildable size that you can do in the city. And at the time, the housing production plan was going to take these lots, either purchase the city or approach people that own these odd lots that can't build, and turn them into buildable lots. for affordable housing and give an incentive. And so you're talking about a massive project, which would be another 300 or 400 additional affordable housing in the city on lots that are already there. People can actually sell their lot off if I had a little piece of lot and build affordable housing on it. And there's been no consideration by this current council. They only want to come in and create high density housing and just jam things into people's neighborhoods. That's not a way of doing it, John.
[Michael Marks]: So I understand this is somewhat of a contentious issue. And when I was on the council, I was the first member of the council to bring forth a petition to be sent to the state legislature for a charter review. And believe it or not, it passed four to three, I believe, at the time. It went up to the statehouse and sat in the, I think it was the home rule or local affairs committee. I think it was the local affairs committee and sat there. And we finally reached out after it was there for months and come to find out the chairman of the committee said he didn't think that the four to three vote was enough to move that forward. And, you know, it's a majority of the council. We speak to the residents, you know, initiate this process. But needless to say, it died within the statehouse. You know, I support the two years worth of work that was done by a lot of good people in this community that sat. They had countless hearings. They met with countless people, countless boards and commissions, and came out with what I think a good working document and something that, is it perfect? Absolutely not. But at this point, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I think we have a decent document to work with. And for instance, WAD representation. I've always supported that. I think it's important to make sure that every neighborhood, every ward has someone that you can say, hey, that's my city councilor. I see him three times a week. He lives in my neighborhood. I see him at Stop and Shop. It's really bringing the city back to a real small neighborhood level. And I think it's a good form of government. So I support most of what's in there right now. Am I happy with everything? No. But this also calls for a periodic review of the charter. It hasn't been looked at in 39 years. and I think this is a good start and hopefully it is just the starting point. So I'm going to support it and I'm telling people that I know to give it a shot and then we can always look to tweak and improve going forward.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information. Point of information. Yes. Does that still work? Point of information? Yeah, it still works. You see how I got Bob to stop talking quick? No, but that's okay. Right away, it went in his head. He said, point of information. Yeah, good memories, Michael.
[Michael Marks]: So I'm not advocating to increase the budget line for Councilors. It could be done very simply. Right now, councils make, on an average, $30,000. The large councils make $30,000. The ward councils make $15,000, $17,000. I'm not advocating to give them additional money. I just think it's a better form of government. So I don't want people to believe I want to increase their salaries. That's not what I want.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, I think it's great to propose new things in the community, right? I think everyone would like a new high school, a new fire headquarters. Even our elementaries and middle schools now are 25 years old and they're getting up there to an age and doing a lot of work. I think what you have to do is make a case for it, right? And if we need a new high school, you have to say, what is enrollment like? Do we anticipate enrollment increasing? That high school was built for, I think, 3,500 or 4,000 students, or maybe even more than that. It's at less than half capacity. right now. We just got a few years back school building assistance money, millions of dollars, like Councilor Penter said, to do science labs and so forth and rehab the high school pool. And I know they put a new roof on it. And we got 90% on the dollar. I was on the school committee when we actually proposed going from neighborhood schools to centralized schools. And at the time, that was a huge issue because people liked having the neighborhood feel, right? Your kids walk to school, everything's within the neighborhood. It was a tough decision, but it was one that I think was warranted at the time because of the age and condition of our schools. We were able to give our kids state-of-the-art facilities in these schools now. So I think, honestly, more due diligence needs to be had regarding the need for a new high school. And as Councilor Penta mentioned, there's a lot of needs out there. And I think looking at a new high school, you're talking anywhere from $200 million to maybe $300 million. And then displacing kids throughout the course of a whole school year and maybe even longer. So there's a lot to look at. It sounds great, but I think, honestly, we need to see what type of reimbursement, if any. You know, if you work for the state, and Bedford just got $20 million from you, and then they're coming back saying, you know what, the $20 million you gave us, we're going to rip that down for the science labs. to build a brand new school and say, we just gave you 20 million 10 years ago. Now you want to rip it down? So I don't know. I think there's a lot. I'm not opposed to a new school, but I really think that we haven't done our homework.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So you know what? Traffic calming, when I was on the council, I'd probably say it was my number one issue. And I fought hard to make sure our crosswalks were relined every year and so forth, to use thermoplastic rather than paint, because it lasts five years and paint fades away after a year. So you had a hard time on that. Yeah, there are a lot of issues, but one issue, John, that no one talks about, and it has to do with roads and sidewalks, is right now we have roughly 730-odd streets in the community, of which more than half are private ways. And on a private way, the city will not typically get involved with the repair of a sidewalk, the cutting of a tree, the maintenance of a road, and you pay the same tax as everyone else. So if I happen to live on a private way, I don't get any of those services, but I pay the same tax as the next person. And to me, that has to be a number one priority that every street in this city is treated the same, whether you're private or not. If the city has to accept all the private ways as regular roads, they have to go through a process in order to do so. And there's no reason when people would call me up and say, hey, you know what? How come they won't plow my street? Or how come they won't fix a pothole or cut this tree down? And I say, well, you live on a private way. That's unacceptable. It's unacceptable. I agree with Bob with the bump outs and everything else that's going on. In order to get federal and state money, Barbara will remember, when we did projects in the city and got federal and state money, which was good, it always came with string attached. And it was like on High Street, when we had to do away with all the parking, when we did all the different road safety concerns, we went up to the Brooks School and they made us put a bike lane there. And the bike lane led to nowhere, which was one of my big gripes. So all of a sudden you have a bike lane and then it ends when you get to the Winthrop Street Rotary. You're on your bike and you're like, what do I do next? Now I'm mixed in with traffic. So there's a lot of things that we don't put an emphasis, there's zero dollars in our budget to repave streets. Zero. All the money comes from whatever the state gives us. So there is zero money. So if we wanted to get serious, there should be a line item to pave a certain number of our 730 streets every year in order to, you know, make the changes that we want.
[Michael Marks]: John, the city implemented a pilot program probably 10 years ago for permit parking. 10 years ago, and we're still under the very same pilot program. It's the longest pilot program in the history of the United States. It shows you that we, not even a crawl, we're at a snail's pace in this city to get anything done. You know, it's really sad.
[Michael Marks]: Go on, street sweeping. We do street sweeping twice a year in the neighborhoods. Surrounding communities do it weekly. There's no reason why we do our thoroughfares, but the neighborhoods, I live near Wellington, the debris that flows up from Dunkin' Donuts and all the stores down there, it's incredible. There's no reason why we can't have a street sweeping program, really.
[Michael Marks]: Well, when I was a member of the council, myself, Bob Penter and the rest of the councilors, we did a tour of all the fire stations. Right. I would venture to say that there's not one council except for George Scarpelli that's been in all our fire stations now. And really, many of them were in deplorable condition. They're 90, 100 years old, some of the buildings. And, you know, many of them lack just the basic amenities, like the showers and the bathrooms. And these are places where we're telling a brave man and woman that spent 24 hours a day, you know, back to back days. you know, when you go in the kitchen, you know, is very close to the apparatus, which, you know, leads to a lot of different concerns, health concerns, fire safety equipment that they use, their coats and so forth, need the proper cleaning after a fire for the soot and everything else because of the carcinogens and so forth. So there's a lot of issues that really need to be addressed. And when it comes time You know, I've always supported our brave men and women in the fire and the police, and they're out there. When you need someone, they're there. When you have a concern, the fire department's there. When you have a concern, the police department's there. Our DPW, I mean, you could go through the list. You know, our teachers. We have a lot of good municipal employees, but unfortunately, I think, you know, A lot of their concerns are not heard. And even when it comes to properly paying them, I think there's a lot that can be done to, sometimes you can't show it monetarily, but you show it in other ways that you're appreciative of what they do for our community. And part of it is giving them a facility which they can be proud of. Equipment, cars, trucks, everything they can be proud of. So that's where I stand. I've always been a big advocate. Those are difficult jobs. In this day and age, they're even more difficult.
[Michael Marks]: John, can I add one thing, John? Sure. Can I add just one quick thing? You know, I think we have to remember, we elect Congress people to go up and work on national issues for us. We elect our U.S. senator to go up and work on national issues. We represent our council to work on local issues. And as far as I'm concerned right now, this present council is more concerned about working on national issues and has forgotten about local issues. So in my opinion, on November 4th, If you're looking for a council that's going to reunite and take back and work on local issues and make that a number one priority, you have to look at Melanie Tringali, Nate Merritt, Nick Giurullo, George Scapelli, Rick Caraviello, Patrick Clerkin, Paul Donato Jr. Those are the people that are going to protect our neighborhoods and put Method first and work on local issues. And just my last point, John, I really want to thank you and your team for providing one of the only local access programs. I know you work with Bruce Patterson, who's been awesome to work with, Paul Garrity, yourself, Marco Cronali. What you guys are doing, really, I can't thank you enough. We don't have a local paper. We have no other way. We have a council that doesn't work for the people. Your show is doing yeoman's work and just getting out. Like you said, this is a show for the city, for the people. There's nothing more to it. And you welcome everyone on it. If they don't take advantage, that's their problem. You welcome everyone on your show. And I want to thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Go on the Charter Review Committee. The Charter Review Committee, comprised of residents of this community, spent two years of their life working to put together the charter. Whether you like it or not, it's different. Two years. They finally got all their recommendations. They went up to the council, and the president of the council told the two chairmen, when they were going to go up there and speak after countless meetings, two years worth of work, you have two minutes to sum up what you did in two years. That's a disgrace.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much. And I just want to start my comment by saying I've never been so disrespected in my 26 years as an elected official in this community. To allow Verizon, an outside company, to speak and not allow an elected official to speak that represents this community for the past 26 years is a complete disgrace, a complete disgrace. I do have comments to make, and they're site-specific, 43 sites that are on your agenda tonight. And I totally disagree with the way you're handling public comments tonight. This was a continuation meeting. Nowhere does it say that additional comments and public input cannot be stated in an additional continuation meeting. Nowhere in my 26 years as an elected official. If you would, Mr. Chair, I would appreciate the fact, if you would indulge me, because over the past two years, I've received hundreds of emails, phone calls, people stopping me at stop and shop and around the community asking, Mr. President, and as their elected representative, I should have the ability to speak on their behalf. Thank you. Comments of April 6th council meeting. These were my comments and I'd like to read them into the record. And it applies to all 44 applications, not just the 43 that are on tonight, but 44 and any other future applications, which we all know we will see from not only Verizon, but other providers as well. After attending the March 31st Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee public hearing, I am concerned that corporate greed and commercial benefits of 5G will outweigh the potential long-term health effects of 5G on our residents, home values, and environment. MEFID must delay any wireless build-out until the law and public policy catch up to the science. The Federal Communication Commission declaratory ruling effectively tied the hands of local municipalities to make decisions best for their community. The city is prohibited from taking any action that is seen as prohibiting Verizon's 5G rollout. Verizon representatives at one point during the last hearing told Methodist residents unequivocally that the FCC regulations would not allow for health concerns to be discussed as a reason for not approving their applications. This comment, true or not, is outrageous. and requires a formal complaint be filed with the FCC and our congressional representatives on behalf of our community. The city, in my opinion, was ill-prepared for the much-anticipated 5G hearing, not presenting one subject matter expert to represent our city's interest and its residents, and only relied on one-sided Verizon paid expert witnesses in which there were many. The city has not requested any potential mitigation from Verizon to address further disenfranchisement of the communities in Medford who can least afford Verizon's new 5G. At the very least, Medford should request Verizon provide free Wi-Fi to our communities of need, as well as schools, senior housing, and low-income housing. 5G will substantially increase residential exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment. We need to engage the US government to require the FCC to do an independent study of radio frequency standards and health risk. We should support the recommendations of the 400 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand our government officials fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and the environment. Human exposure guidelines for radio frequency used by the FCC are more than 20 years old and address only thermal, not biological impact of exposure. Over the past 20 years, a robust body of independent science has emerged showing significant biological impacts from exposure to radio frequency microwave radiation, including clear evidence of cancer, neurological and cognitive harm, heart abnormalities, and reproductive effects. Populations especially at risk include pregnant women, children, the elderly, individuals with implanted medical devices, or cardiac or neurological problems. At the April 6th This past Tuesday, City Council meeting, I along with Councilor Scarpelli, co-sponsored docket number 21310, asking the city's 5G small cell interim policy be discussed. After considerable input and discussion between the council and residents, 10 amendments with six questions were offered, approved, and unanimously voted on by the Medford City Council 7-0, of which all four members of the small cell committee should have a copy in their hands right now, according to the city clerk. The vote requested a response from the city solicitor, the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee, the Federal Communications Commission, our federal delegation, the city administration, along with the Biden administration. The one amendment that requires immediate action prior to any action of this committee tonight is the following. motion requesting the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee not approve any more 5G applications until the city has ample time to review questions and policy comments submitted. Be it further requested, the city consult with its own 5G subject matter experts regarding issues of concern raised by residents regarding health and safety, setbacks, FCC 5G regulations, potential mitigation, and other issues of concern. I want to also recognize Council President Caraviello, who is on the call, Councilor Scarpelli, and Councilor Morell that are also on the call tonight. and all my other colleagues that voted for this this past Tuesday. I respectfully ask that this committee for request the continuation of the meeting originally begun on March 31st to a date certain to allow for additional community comment and input before any vote is taken. I thank you for allowing me to speak I thank you for allowing me to represent the 58,000 people in the community that elect me to represent them. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: This goes to the situation that our hands are tied and trying to do- Mr. Chair, with all due respect, with all due respect, we've been in a pandemic for close to 14 months. There were several meetings held with over a hundred residents that appeared at city hall that were canceled. So I realize there's a shock clock. I realize Verizon would like to see this happen yesterday. However, I believe we have to proceed with caution on this matter and there's no rush to judgment.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, no one's refusing to hear them. We're asking for a continuation so we can have the concerns that are out in the public, which are clear, addressed, and discussed, and don't have people feel that they don't have a say and they don't have the ability to have input with this. And that's currently how people feel. And I understand Verizon has their job to do. But we also as a community have our job to do. And that's all I'm asking is for some additional time, not to kill this, but to allow for more public input, more comment. Clearly, our policy is ineffective. if we have to put 10 conditions on it. So it speaks volumes regarding our policy. And if you look at the council's recommendations the other day, we have a number of recommendations to create a stronger policy that we're requesting. And I appreciate your time. I know this is difficult, believe me.
[Michael Marks]: I was told by the city clerk they would deliver it sometime at around noontime, or maybe shortly after.
[Michael Marks]: Benefit to who?
[Michael Marks]: I would disagree with that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just respectfully ask we have from what I can see, only five residents that have raised their hand to speak. I know there may be some other comments, sites specific, but I'm not sure why we can't go through the residents that raised their hand, listen to their comments at first, so they don't have to stay in a potential meeting for three to four hours. That would make more sense to me, but just wanted to put that out there.
[Michael Marks]: I'm here, Tim. I already spoke, but I would hope that you would just call upon the people that have their hands raised.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Tim. I requested about 20 minutes ago that we allow people that have their hands raised to speak. And you agreed with that. And then a representative from Verizon came on and said they heard enough public input. And then you sided with Verizon. I'm a little disappointed that- I sided with myself.
[Michael Marks]: Give them two minutes each, there's five of them, that's 10 minutes. It doesn't make sense to go through all these petitions. Let the people speak that want to speak.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to make sure what I heard was what I heard. Did you state that the city council did not vote in April of 2019 to add dwellings and that's why it was not added?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And I received one as well, stating that Alicia mentioned that this was going to take place in the neighborhood because the fact that the city council did not add dwellings to the interim policy. And as we all know, the city council does not create policy. The interim policy was created by the previous administration. And this council has been on record for the past two years, offering at least a half a dozen recommendations to the both city administrations, the previous one and this current one to update the current interim policy. So I just want to set the record straight, because what Alicia mentioned is totally incorrect.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, well, you just reiterated when they said it, you said it was the city council. So apparently, they didn't misunderstand, because you just reiterated what the letter said. So unless unless I'm hearing wrong, you did clear you cleared the record.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and if I could just add, Tim, it is almost 10.30. We're going on the same slope we did last week. We still have residents with their hands up that have been on the meeting for three and a half hours about their property. And with all due respect, I think this meeting should come to an end. And I think we should hear from those few residents that have their hands up.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question and I'll be very brief. If Verizon can explain how many of the polls that they plan on putting the 5G on were poll extensions.
[Michael Marks]: Whatever the city would consider being an extension to a poll, that would be an answer that, or a question that should be answered by the city. So whatever the city deems as a poll extension,
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. Chair, just if I could. Yep. Just so we're on the same page, and Sean may know this, or maybe the Superintendent of Wye is for the city, is that the only type of extension when a poll is actually extended beyond its existing height?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So the actual device, Mr. Chair, wouldn't be considered an extension. The actual antenna itself, the 5G antenna.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So the actual 5G antenna wouldn't be considered an extension of a pole.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So that's my question. Would that be considered an extension of the pole?
[Michael Marks]: I do, can you hear me?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Tim, and I would respectfully ask that, whereas I've received hundreds of emails and phone calls over the past year and a half, that I'd be allotted more than two minutes to make my presentation on behalf of the residents of this community that took the time to reach out to me. So I respectfully would request that. I want to thank the ad hoc committee members for their due diligence on this. I also want to recognize a few of my colleagues in city government. President Caraviello is on the call, as well as Councilor George Scarpelli and Representative Paul Donato. You know, just briefly, at the beginning of the presentation, I heard the words uttered we can't consider health concerns when discussing the applications. And let me just say in my 26 years in city government in this community, I find that to be outrageous, that health concerns cannot be discussed or considered by residents or a city public entity. If I could also, I appreciate the knowledge that we have through our building commissioner, city engineer, community development director, and the board of health. However, I would say that I think it would be a great opportunity for the city of Medford to have their own experts as well on the subjects as which was mentioned by the Verizon experts that we heard from. As a member of the city council, I am concerned that corporate greed and commercial benefits of 5G will outweigh the potential long-term health effects of 5G on our residents. 5G will substantially increase resident exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand our government officials fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and our environment. I'd like to just call upon an article that I read from the Americans for Responsible Technology. And this is one segment of the article, but the article is 5G technology versus science and freedom of choice. And it goes on to state, and I quote, human exposure guidelines from radio frequency microwave radiation used by the FCC are more than 20 years old and address only thermal, not biological impacts of exposure, which have now been firmly established. The guidelines have been the subject of an open FCC doc. docket since 2013 with no resolution, creating an uncertain regulatory environment. Over the last 20 years, a robust body of independent science has emerged showing significant biological impacts from exposure to radiofrequency microwave radiation, including clear evidence of cancer, neurological and cognitive harm, heart abnormalities, reproductive effects, and microwave sickness, among other serious health problems. Populations, especially at risk include pregnant women, children, the elderly, individuals with implanted medical devices or cardiac or neurological problems. I have a couple of questions I have regarding the policy. And I raised these at the last city council meeting and the city council voted unanimously to put out nine different amendments on my resolution. But my first question is, in the city's interim policy, under the application process, it states, for residential areas, guidelines on structure heights and lengths of minimum setback rules from dwellings, parks or playgrounds, or similar recreational areas. So my question to the committee is, what are the minimum dwelling setback rules set forth in the interim policy?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so that would be the first question that I leave for discussion for your committee, Mr. Chair. Also included in the city's interim policy is the following language. description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations from a community perspective, including number one, visual aspects, number two, proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, or playgrounds. If you go into the Verizon application, which I had the opportunity to, and look under their response for location selection criteria, They list, and I won't read it all, a laundry list of reasons why these are great locations. And at the bottom it states, it is not directly adjacent to a park or playground. And for some reason, does not talk about a dwelling. So I was just wondering if the committee had the opportunity to look at the location selection criteria and why Verizon omitted dwellings from the reason why they selected the criteria. Has that been looked at Mr. Chair?
[Michael Marks]: I just find it, Mr. Chair, ironic that the city interim policy states there's only two aspects, and one is proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, and they omit in their letter under the location selection criteria to add residential dwellings. They only talk about schools, parks, and playgrounds. So I find that kind of ironic. considering that, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, many of these locations are within yards of homes, within yards of bedrooms, within yards of where children play and children sleep, as well as seniors and so forth. Also, Mr. Chair, in the city's interim policy under the prohibitions section, it states, no small cell wireless installation shall be installed on poles that do not meet the sidewalk clearance requirements and standards. This includes horizontal and vertical clearances for pedestrian passage, applicable requirements and standards may include, but are not limited to ADA. My question to the chair is, has the city approved each installation for meeting the sidewalk clearance requirements that are spelled out within the interim policy?
[Michael Marks]: And does that include a review of ADA as well, Mr. Chair?
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate that response. My last just interim policy question is, Under the current interim policy, the applicant is required to provide a certificate of liability insurance. I noticed in going through several of the applications that the Verizon policies have expired. Is that something the committee is reviewing?
[Michael Marks]: So first hearing, but we typically hold a public hearing when portions of the application are not complete?
[Michael Marks]: And I thank the committee for their time. I would respectfully add that the committee's radio frequency regarding proximity to dwellings and a host of other issues that are out there that residents have in this community. And again, I thank you for your time. effort on this. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Chair,
[Michael Marks]: I apologize. It's my Verizon connection. And I apologize. Mr. Chair, my closing statement was more or less that I hope the committee on small cells does its due diligence and reflects upon the wishes of this community and also looks into their own expert. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much. I first would like to state that, as was stated earlier by some of the committee members, we're going a little over four hours now on a public hearing. And I think it's really doing the community disservice to proceed any further with a hearing that's already lasted four hours. And going through these piece by piece, potentially could have someone on the line for over five hours. which to me is unacceptable, and that's my own opinion. My question I have is regarding, and I asked this earlier and didn't get a response, was regarding the interim policy and the guidelines that talk about minimum setbacks. And I still have not received an answer regarding minimum setback guidelines. Have they not been established? Will they be established? What are we using for principles regarding setbacks from dwellings in parks and so forth?
[Michael Marks]: So the committee's moving ahead without establishing guidelines that the interim policy states there will be guidelines, or at least states, guidelines on structure height, lengths, and minimum setback rules for dwellings, parks, and playgrounds. So we're going ahead approving without, in my opinion, some of the major concerns we heard from residents was regarding the proximity of the 5G outlets to their property. So I'm not quite sure how we move forward I'm not quite sure what the rush to judgment tonight is, to be quite honest with you. You know, naturally, Verizon wants to get this over as quick as humanly possible. But in my opinion, you held a public hearing now, you should at least allow for several days after the public hearing for more public comment. And you're disregarding the community by not doing so. I've been involved with hundreds of public hearings, and that's no exaggeration, in the city of Medford over 26 years. And I've never seen a public hearing run this way, to be quite frank. And it's not a reflection of you, Mr. Chairman. I understand this is a tough task, but to put 44 applicants on one public hearing and then also have a presentation like we did earlier, I think it's too much for one public hearing and it doesn't allow for additional public input. So I would respectfully ask the committee to find out what the setbacks, maybe the committee has to meet again and talk about the setback guidelines and other guidelines within this before they move and start approving these one at a time. And I would respectfully ask that Mr. Chair.
[Michael Marks]: With all due respect, we've been in a pandemic for the past, you know, 15 months. So, you know, the shot clocks, in my opinion, go out the window.
[Michael Marks]: So you can't amend policy, but you can grant waivers.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, but the current interim policy states that there'll be guidelines on minimum setback rules. Where are those guidelines? Am I reading this incorrectly? I'm curious to read the guidelines.
[Michael Marks]: So you're not saying the committee has the ability to create these guidelines?
[Michael Marks]: I'm not stating creating policy. It clearly states guidelines. And as a committee that's appointed by the mayor, I would believe, and the attorney can correct me from KP Law, that your board would have the ability to set guidelines. That's not a policy change. It's requesting guidelines.
[Michael Marks]: And that's exactly the reason why I'm asking not to rush to judgment tonight and have this committee, the small cell committee, do their due diligence in their homework and create the guidelines that are requested under the interim policy regarding setbacks, which is a major concern for area residents.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I would respectfully disagree with that. I would respectfully disagree with that. Do we still have our city solicitor on the phone?
[Michael Marks]: Our city solicitor.
[Michael Marks]: I know that she is here. Mr. Chair, I'm very concerned that we're gonna be approving these applications now one at a time at a late hour. And I'm equally concerned that this body is not addressing the guidelines for setbacks that are part of the interim policy. And whether or not I understand what the attorney stating that would have no bearing on tonight. What I'm respectfully asking is that we don't vote tonight. And maybe we have to come back at another time. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, it was brought up by KP law. some months ago through the city administration that they didn't even think the interim policy that was created by the mayor was something that we should be working off of. And they asked that the city council create an ordinance to govern this. So KP law to me, you know, is jumping around on the issue to be quite frank. And, you know, I really believe this requires more attention than it's receiving tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Michael Marks, 37 Wellington Road, the great city of Medford. My initial thought is, just standing out in the audience, when many people hear about free cash, I think it's important in layman's terms to spell out exactly what free cash is. And it's an overabundance of taxpayer money. That's what free cash is. So free cash is not pulled from a cherry tree. It is the overabundance of taxpayer money. And the reason why I bring that up, Mr. President, is being a former member of the council for 20 years. One thing I do regret, and many residents probably feel the same pain, is the water and sewer bills. And the reason why I bring this up, Mr. President, is because so many years ago, we created a rainy day fund in the water and sewer. It's called the Water and Sewer Enterprise Account. It's not called the rainy day fund. And that fund was supposed to be, the intended purpose was supposed to be for infrastructure improvements or offset the rates. And the fund started out some many years ago with three, $400,000. And that's not a lot for a city this size, with an infrastructure that's a hundred years old, you know. But what happened over the years, unchecked, it turned from 300,000 to 6 million. So all of a sudden now, the bills that are going out now have a little bit of padding. Why? Because it goes back into the free cash. And before you know it, it's an end around about proposition two and a half. So you're bringing in additional revenue has nothing to do with proposition two and a half. And you're using that for purposes other than which it has been used over the years. I'm not sure if you were on the council, Mr. President at the time, maybe Mr. Scarpelli can remember for purposes non related to water and sewer, because there was that buffer. My concern about creating an additional account now is that that's also going to be unchecked. And it's going to mushroom into this large, large account of taxpayers money. And it's going to sit there until someone decides to use it on whatever project they want to use in the community. And I think that's a real concern right now. And if anyone behind this railing can tell me exactly how much we have in the water and sewer enterprise surplus account now.
[Michael Marks]: Does the city administration know what's in the account?
[Michael Marks]: All right, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Do we know how much is in there currently?
[Michael Marks]: Do we know how much is in there currently?
[Michael Marks]: I am all done. Stick a fork in me, I'm all done. The one thing I do want to caution the members of the council, in particular, I hate to say new members, because we all start somewhere, right? But the creation of a fund sounds good. But an unchecked fund is not a good thing. And unfortunately, that's what exists in this community, whether it's water and sewer, and doesn't require council approval, or rainy day fund that does require council approval. It's an unchecked account. And that's a problem, in my opinion. And you know, We at the beginning was mentioned that, you know, we all have rainy day funds. I'm not sure what the chief of staff makes, but let me tell you, that's not true for most people in today's society. We don't have rainy day funds that we can count on. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck, putting their kids through school, helping family members out, whatever it might be, housing, which we're going to talk about later. So I just don't want to be too cavalier when it comes to having rainy day funds sitting around with surplus money. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for to the members of the council for hearing us all so late. We appreciate it. Um The one thing I need to start off by addressing is the fact that it was mentioned by Councilor Callahan that this proposal may not have legs to stand on, you know, it may never get through the legislative process. And I would say with all the things that we need to do as a community, in particular regarding affordable housing, Why would we waste an ounce of energy on something that we know is not going to go anywhere? And the reason why I say that is under the current housing production plan, which is a five year plan that was signed by the council on September 27th, 2022. And it created by the city and is a state recognized planning tool, which establishes 18 housing strategies for the planning and production of affordable housing stock in the community. A transfer fee alone is not a plan to create affordable housing. It was never mentioned at all a transfer fee in the 117 page housing production plan that the city hired a private consultant to come in and work with many city agencies, state agencies, this council to develop. One strategy to create additional affordable housing outlined in the housing production plan is called affordable infill. And that may be a new terminology for people, but it's written right within the production plan. And I remember as a city council, we discussed this issue ad nauseum because at the time it had a lot of merit in creating additional affordable housing citywide. not just in Wellington Circle where I live, or not just in South Bedford, but citywide. Think about that. Think about adding affordable housing in all sections of the neighborhood. There are roughly currently right now 550 vacant city and privately owned lots that are non-buildable. Through zoning, through dimensions, through setbacks, through lot size, but they're non-buildable. We can create, through zoning provisions, an infill ordinance that would allow us, with these existing current lots, we're not talking about transfer fee, we're not talking about all these pies in the sky, the current lots, the city owns 128 of these 550-odd lots that are out the community. we could create a housing trust fund with those hundred and 20 think about 129 lots in the city that could be valued at 75 85 100,000. And the reason why I value that is because we're looking at creating affordable housing. Right. So think about creating a first of its kind, where we tap into these odd sized lots, work with the city, work with developers that do affordable housing, and start moving, not rental units, We're talking about home ownership, generational wealth that we would create in this community. And this right now is something that you have at your fingertips. This is something you can do tomorrow. And it's been in this plan since FY21. And there's been, you know what action on this? Goose eggs, goose eggs. And the low-lying fruit right now, councilor, is what a monkey would decide to do, is let's just tax people. That's the easy thing, right? We need money, let's just tax people. We have a way to create revenue, we have land, we have the will of the city, we have the will of this council, and we're not moving forward. So rather than waste time on something, a home rule petition that's gonna go nowhere, Let's start spinning our wheels on things that will produce results. And this is one of them. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. One last thing I'd like to mention, and this is important. I was involved with creating Method's first dog park. What does it have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. I was involved with creating Method's first art center that we just had a ribbon cutting. And I can tell you unequivocally, If we started off both those meetings, we would not have a dog park, reference for a dog park, or an art center, by saying, you know how we're going to pay for this? Let's go to the taxpayers. We went to the Stanton Foundation, and they paid for the entire dog park. Right, we got a fund in a public private partnership with fitness wellness fitness to pay for our center for the next 10 years, not one cent of taxpayer money went to this. So if we're looking at killing affordable housing this community, keep on this track, we're going to kill a dead. And if you want to have the opportunity to explore these other avenues that are already out there, there's already a plan. He's already been vetted. Let's move forward. I want to work with you. Let's move forward. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Madam President, Michael Marks, 37 Wellington Road. It's an honor to be here tonight, Rick, to honor you for your 12 years of commitment and dedication to this community. And, you know, I can honestly say, as has been eloquently stated here tonight, that you are a man of results. and didn't let anything get in the way. Didn't let politics get in the way, personalities. He wanted to see things happen. And as Council Vice President Bears just mentioned, the library, right? A little thing like the library came to fruition because Rick thought out of the box and said, you know what? We need this for our community. We need this for our residents. And it was you that pursued that dream and why it became to a reality. Another issue that we didn't even mention, and I don't even think we've touched the tip of the iceberg here, is an issue that was near and dear to me when I first got on the council in 2002. And that was to create an art center in our community. And I had the keys to the Swan School in my hands. And every Saturday and Sunday, I used to open the building and let the artists roam the building. And we were gonna put an art center in the Swan School. That never came to fruition. And I worked on creating an art center for 19 years after that. And I was responsible as one member, creating arts collaborative method. Our sole responsibility was to create an art center in this community. And for three to four years, we looked at the Heckner Center and realized that building would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring it up to a reality. And then one day we got a phone call. And it was from Councilor Caraviello that said, I have a community public-private partnership that's going to allow an art center to come on Mystic Ave. You're not going to have to pay anything for the first 10 years. They're gonna suit the building to your need, ample parking, we're gonna have community art classes, we're gonna have artist space, all for nothing. And by the way, January 20th of next year, they can have a ribbon cutting. Medford's first art center in this community came to fruition because of this man right here that put together a public-private partnership to make that happen. And I'm a little envious, it took me 20 years, it took him 20 minutes, but that's all right. It came to reality, and that's the most important thing. You know- Can I say something? Absolutely.
[Michael Marks]: Well, and I appreciate that. You know, you hit the nail on the head, George. It's almost like you stole my speech because honestly, I mean, you look at someone's character and we're celebrating Rick for 12 years. Rick's been dedicated in this city for five decades. Rick did the reverse. Usually people get elected, then they start getting involved in the community. Rick was involved for five decades and then got elected and continued to do what he did from the previous five decades. As you mentioned, feeding the most needy in our community, helping veterans, whether they had a leaky roof or needed accessibility ramp to their homes. know, those are the type of things that, you know, I think go unnoticed, because there's no print paper anymore, there's, you know, there's no really way of getting the message out. But those are things that Rick did, because he wanted to do, not for any fanfare. And, you know, I personally, Rick, you know, I have to say, when when I was on the council, and you were running for council, I said, this son of a gun, he's, you know, he was out there campaigning, I said, this son of a gun. And then when he got on the council, I said, you know what, He adds a lot to this council. He has a lot of integrity. He cares about this community. And as members said behind this reel, no matter what side of the issue, Rick was always respectable. And that's one thing that I take, Rick, and I'm proud to call you my friend. And honestly, I hope that you will maintain your leadership role in this community, because we do need leaders. You know, when the Chamber of Commerce didn't have a president, It was Rick Caraviello that stood up and took over the reins in order for small business to be represented. And that's a lot of work and a lot of effort. And those type of things go unnoticed. And I just want to thank you, my friend, and I'm sure you'll be active in the community. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Madam President, and I, too, wanna thank Councilor Knight for his friendship and his many years of service. As you stated, Madam President, there's been no bigger advocate for working families in this community than Councilor Knight. I gotta be honest, I learned so much regarding living wages and rights of workers from listening to Councilor Knight over the years. It made me a better councilor. And I know over the years, when he first got on, he was a young man at the time, and he's still a young man, but, you know, some of us said, oh, I hear some fresh meat coming onto the council. And before you knew it, we had our own parliamentarian. I mean, it was Councilor Knight, honestly, that knew the rules and regulations inside and out. And the only way I could combat his knowledge was I thought if I spoke louder that I would I would win the debate and that was my attack when I when we used to go at it he'd bring up rules and regulations facts and figures and I would mostly yell and raise my voice and I thought that I won the argument but I I knew all the time that I never won the argument because he was armed better than I was. And I just want to thank you for your years of service. Councilor, it was a pleasure getting to know you, the person who you are, the family man, the care that you have for this community, and I hope to see you around the community. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Madam President. It was an honor and pleasure. We only served for one term together. I can tell you the first six months that Nicole sat next to me, I don't think she said hi to me for six months. And I didn't know if it was me or she was new on the job and trying to feel her way around. And I think our very first debate was a difficult one because we were sitting next to each other and I may have taken some liberties at the time and you turned around and literally snapped at me. And like, after that, I think I was like walking on a tightrope the whole time. I was, what's she going to do next? You know, I was kind of in fear to be honest. I believe that when you've gone on the council, your intentions were always to move the city forward. I also believe that you were even-handed, you were willing to listen, which I think goes a long way. We may not agree, but if you know someone's at least listening, that means a lot. And, you know, the one thing that I didn't agree with, it was the leaf blower ordinance. However, I think you've surpassed that with the school committee race.
[Michael Marks]: At the very least. But I want to thank you for your years of service. It takes a lot to do what elected officials do in this community. I think people think, you know, it's an easy task. You come on a Tuesday night and attend some subcommittee meetings and they don't know the hours of reading, the hours of phone calls, the really that takes place to be an effective Councilor. And I think you've shown that over the last four years, and hopefully we're losing a lot of knowledge behind this reel. Hopefully some of that will be spread on with the existing members. But I want to thank you for your service, and hopefully you'll spend some more time with the family, which I think you'll find equally, if not more important. So thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I would just ask if one of my colleagues would be kind enough to suspend the rules to allow residents that took time out of their busy schedule in the middle of the summer, waiting for two hours, that we would allot them a little more than two minutes. So if we could suspend the rules.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, and I appreciate that, Madam President. Michael Marks for the record, 37 Wellington Road. It's been seven months since I've appeared before this body and in City Hall. And the reason why I'm here tonight is because of the petition that is before us, which I believe strongly will hurt many, many people in this community. And that's the reason why I'm here. You know, we've had discussions before this body for many years. And some of the council has brought up tonight about the process. And I can recall being part of subcommittees that have met 15 to 20 times to discuss snow shoveling ordinances or leaf blower ordinances. And here we have an issue of a prop two and a half override that's gonna cost the average taxpayer an additional 600 from the increase we just received in June on our taxes. And have we had one subcommittee or committee of the whole to discuss this particular petition? Have we had one? So we haven't had one. So when it gets brought up about process, I would agree that there has been no process. And that is a major, major concern for me and many other people in this community. I appreciate the dialogue. I know there's people on both sides and I appreciate the dialogue and I can see both sides. But I think many of the comments that have been made tonight, which I will reiterate some of them because my colleagues have already put out great comments. is the first is how much should a realistic budget be for the complete operations in the city of method? Can anyone behind this real that's in favor of this 12 million? state tonight, what is a realistic operational budget? Because if you're running a business, you know what your realistic operational budget is to run a business. So what is it? Can anyone behind the reel tell me what the realistic operational budget for this city? It's a tough question, believe me, I know it is. So we haven't answered that question. What is a realistic budget? Is 12 million on top of this budget realistic? Is this gonna bring us to where we need to be, the promised land? I don't believe so. The second point is, can anyone behind this reel refer to any budgetary study that outlines the complete financial needs of this community. Can anyone tell us of a budgetary study I'd like, and I'm asking this as a question not, not to be facetious, I'm asking I'd like to know, because in my 20 years on the council, I can tell you firsthand, I was never part of any budgetary discussion regarding the operational needs of this community so I'd like to hear from the council because I think that's an important question.
[Michael Marks]: Right, and I think that's an important question that needs to be answered before we put the cot before the horse, right? And these are the things I think needed to be vetted out before we say, well, let's just let the voters decide. I think as the leaders in this community, we all look up to you as leaders. These are the questions I think that need to be answered before we take the next step. When is the last time a complete and independent audit has been done of all city functions? The reason why I ask is because when I was a member of the council, this council has always been on record asking for an independent audit. And we used to always state that an independent audit is not done by the same firm that's been hired by the administration for the past 30 years. That is not an independent audit. And I think members behind this reel could probably appreciate that. So I think truly, if we're gonna move in a direction, and I'm not opposed to having these discussions. I think this is healthy to be quite honest with you. Put it on the table, discuss it. But I think this information has to be on the table. Have we had an independent audit? The answer is no. The answer is no. So when we look at, are there ways we can cut costs? Are there ways that we can work more efficiently? There absolutely is. Are there things that we're doing that may be duplicate in nature? Absolutely. And council and I brought up one in particular about duplicate positions. So there's a lot of that that hasn't been looked at. You know, when we say let's look at the charter, everyone's on board. And I was the first person to offer having the charter be reviewed. I offered about seven or eight years ago before this council. And it was sent to the state legislature and it died. But everyone wants to review the charter because it's the operational framework, how this city works. And it makes sense. You wouldn't run a business and not change a business plan for 30 years. You'd be out of business. This city is no different. Now we're running on a budget, like Councilor Knight said, that hasn't changed in 30 years. Yes, it increases every year, but the physical budget itself hasn't changed in 30 years. and throwing more money into the budget is not gonna solve any problems at all. It's not gonna solve anything at all. The following three questions need to be answered in order to support this proposal. The first one, and I think we've got somewhat of an answer is, what will the average increase be? And I think we heard tonight, we're looking at roughly 550,000 based on an assessed value of 650. So that could be seven or $800 depending on your assessed value. Coupled with the increase we just received when the council and the mayor voted for the budget. So the 550 is one portion of an increase. The other portion, you just approved. So when we look at the numbers, I think we have to put it in perspective. It's not 550. For many of us, it's well over $1,000 that the increase may be. Well over $1,000.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I think he said I was smart, so he can yell out any time he wants. I think that's what he said.
[Michael Marks]: No, I appreciate that. But this is a very important issue for a lot of people. I'm coming up here on behalf of the residents that reached out to me, to be quite honest with you. That's why you haven't seen me in seven months. This is a huge, huge issue. And I would appreciate maybe if we could suspend the rules because I don't feel like I've had five minutes and I feel rushed already.
[Michael Marks]: I've had seven minutes. I'm already over. Will someone suspend the rules to allow residents to speak before the podium?
[Michael Marks]: Right. But, but not fully, not fully. I think we were all, you know, listening to many speeches tonight and we'd like to be able to speak. It's important. There's only, there's a dozen people. There's a dozen people in the audience.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Well, I appreciate it. I'd like to finish. I only have a few more minutes left. I really appreciate finishing. So as we were mentioning, the 550 is not a realistic number for most residents in this community. So that's question number one. What actually will this cost the residents of this community? There was a comment made tonight. Each year, we're doing more with less. That comment can't be furthest from the truth. as a taxpayer for 30 years in this community, 30 years. This is my 30th year. Taxes have gone up each and every year for 30 years. So I don't know how we're doing more with less. The city is getting more money each and every year from the taxpayers of this community. It may be not spent wisely, but they're getting more money each and every year from the taxpayers of this community.
[Michael Marks]: Well, as Councilor Wright said, I think it's a spending issue. So I think that's what I'm trying to address. The other question is, what impact will this have, this tax increase on our most vulnerable residents? And I think that's the key and that's actually why I'm up here tonight. So when we talk about seniors on fixed incomes, which my colleagues mentioned, we don't wanna address that, but truly people are making decisions whether they eat, or take medication. And maybe members behind this reel don't see that. You don't experience it, but it's happening in our community right now. I'll tell you firsthand, it's happening in this community. And we're asking residents to make that decision. So I just want people to be aware of that. What about the young families that paid top dollar for their home and brought in this community recently and have to decide whether their child will play sports, whether they'll go on vacation, whether they'll save for their college tuition. These are the decisions that have to be made. So it's easy to say, hey, look what 12 million will do for us. But what's the collateral damage to that 12 million? It's the seniors on fixed income. It's the families. It's the renters that Councilor Caraviello has mentioned in the past. Many people, many landlords are going to pass this on to the renters. And that's what's going to happen. And as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, what about the seniors in this community that brought their home 25, 30, 40 years ago in a property rich, like Councilor Caraviello says, and income poor? $500, I would submit to you, is a lot of money. It's a lot of money for people on fixed incomes. So I think, you know, when you talk about a cavalier, cavalier saying that, well, it's only 500, it's only 550. And, you know, I think you gotta be mindful of who is living in this community. And my last point, and I appreciate the time, believe me, and I don't wanna take up any more time. We're in a time of uncertainty. We're talking about inflation. We're talking about recession. And here we want to raise additional taxes on top of taxes we just raised. How blindsided is that? We have to be living under a rock to say now is a good time to increase taxes again a second time. So I think this is what you're hearing from the community, at least what I'm hearing from the community. Maybe the council's tone deaf, certain members of the council, but this is what I'm hearing. Yeah, we all have a wishlist. Streets should be done and so forth and more teachers. We all have a wishlist, but we have to work within the confines of our budget. And when we start pricing people out of this community, it's not a community I want to be part of. I thank you very much. For your time, I thank you for your consideration, and I would only ask when you make your vote, make sure that those three subjects regarding the impact of people, regarding the cost, regarding how it's gonna affect each and every resident becomes part of your consideration. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: It was an honor and a privilege to serve with Paulette Vander Kloof for the six years I was on the school committee. Paulette, don't go anywhere. During that period of time, Mr. President, the school committee ushered in what we refer to still after 20 something years, the brand new schools in Medford. And that was a very trying time as a member of Vanderkloot remembers. It was a lot of time and effort put into that. And the one thing, Mr. President, I do remember is Paulette Vanderkloot gave birth to her daughter on election day. Is that not correct? And, you know, being a politician, I wanted to try to outdo Paulette. And I missed it by about six hours. My wife gave birth to our twins the night before the election. And I still resent that, Paul. I don't know how you held off. I don't know what food you were eating, but you did a great job holding off. And the other point I have to mention, Mr. President, that I still resent to this day, is that Paulette Van der Kloot stole George Scarpelli's slogan. Give a hoot vote, Scarpelli was the original slogan. And that was stolen by Paulette. And I hope someday she recognizes that, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: And if you can give a brief synopsis, I believe we have someone from the mayor's office on.
[Michael Marks]: Chair awaits the motion. Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but we had a committee of the whole meeting. Right. Which questions were asked of the administration. And I think we should at least get those questions answered before we go through the whole process again. But I had one question regarding frontline workers and first responders. And we were told by the city administration that there may be a salary limitation for those workers to receive APA money. And I was wondering if that question has been answered, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So from what I'm hearing tonight, that would not be a reason that frontline workers and first responders would not be able to attain some upper money for being on the front lines during the past 22 months of COVID. So that's encouraging to hear. I just hope the administration falls through, Mr. President, taking care of those workers, as I mentioned during the Committee of the Whole meeting. We're talking about workers that work at a convenience store. that were in the front line, Mr. President. We're talking about workers at stop and shop. We're talking about workers that worked in a doctor's office. We're talking about postal workers. We're talking about police, fire, EMTs. So I just hope, Mr. President, with this $49 million the city's receiving from the federal government, that we put our money where our mouth is and take care of those workers, Mr. President, that put their life on the line. and put their family's life on the line to make sure we could function as a community and as a society. So I would hope the administration steps forward on that, Mr. President. Amendment O, as I mentioned, Mr. President, it says that this is a CAF 12, which is the federal funds manager. I don't believe that it's a CAF 12. I would say that's more of a CAF 15, Mr. President, based on that salary. And I don't know if that's an error that was made by the administration, but if they can also talk to that, Mr. President, I'd be curious. Nina, can you answer that question?
[Michael Marks]: So that is an error that we're being asked to vote on, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And that's an important change, Mr. President. And the last point, Mr. President, I would like to bring up, and I brought this up during the Committee of the Whole meeting, so I've been very consistent on bringing up this issue, is the fact that we still have department heads in this community, non-union department heads, who for the past 22 months have not received a step raise. And I think the question was offered by Vice President Knight about whether that's contractual or not and so forth. But here we have a number of upper positions, Mr. President, at salaries that far exceed some of our department heads, existing department heads. So it's a tough pill to swallow when we're asking to bring in new positions, Mr. President, at a higher salary range while existing employees, existing department heads did not get their step raise. And we heard money was tight, Mr. President. And now we have $49 million of federal funding. and we have commitments out there to every non-union department head that they should receive their step raise. So I have a real tough time, Mr. President, voting for new positions for ARPA at a higher salary range without taking care of existing employees in this building that have been in here every day fighting through the pandemic. And that's an important distinction, Mr. President. We should take care of the workers we currently have. And as I stated at the community hall meeting, if we don't address frontline workers, first responders, as part of this ARPA funding, And if we don't take care of city employees, current city employees, I will not support this paper. I don't care how critical the administration says it is. They've been sitting on this paper for the past four months, Mr. President. We don't even have a federal funds manager, someone to oversee all of this. They could have put a federal funds manager, the first position on several months back. And now we're being told this is critical.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. President, just a point of information. The fire department has been without a contract, I believe, for close to two years now.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Before you call the roll, I'd like to go on record, Mr. President, stating that I will not be supporting this position until we find out about other city employees that have not received their step raises, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I will not be voting on this position as well. I just find it ironic, Mr. President, that when these positions were put forth for spending of ARPA money to assist in COVID needs in the community, that the administration was at the table, the Office of Community Development was at the table, and the Board of Health was at the table. who was not at the table, Mr. President, that would equally have needs for COVID spending, the Council on Aging was not at the table. Police and fire, first responders in this community were not at the table to seek what their needs are. The building department, DPW, the Office of Diversity, Mr. President, was not at the table. So in a sense of fairness, Mr. President, when we talk about not having a plan, as Councilor Falco mentions, he's absolutely right. Again, here we are going forward without a plan. I'm having deja vu. Two weeks ago, they asked us to vote to extend contracts so the city administration could take parking enforcement in-house. And this council said, what's the plan that you have to take over this program January 5th of next year? And the administration says, we don't have a plan.
[Michael Marks]: I understand there's a need for this. but there's also a need to follow a process. There's also a need to include all stakeholders, Mr. President, and that's currently not being done. When you have three department heads sitting around a table and omitting the other 10 department heads that have similar needs, I have a concern with that. When you're bringing in people off the street at a higher salary, Mr. President, then counting workers, I have a problem with that. When people aren't getting step raises and this council votes to bring people off the street at a higher salary, I have a problem with that. And we can always put things off. You know, I hear people fighting for people and people fight for this and that. When push comes to shove, they bury their head in the sand. And this is the exact issue right now when we talk about first responders and we talk about frontline workers. Again, we allow the administration to go off without a plan, and we refuse, Mr. President, to address the current needs. It's a sad state of affairs. Let me tell you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: You should stay home then.
[Michael Marks]: All right. We'll be soon enough. All right.
[Michael Marks]: Zero.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, as I stated from the outset, this is the truly the only one position Mr. President, the federal funds manager. that should have been put on first. This is how you get the ball rolling to then have your public meetings and input from stakeholders to then establish what you wanna do in the community. So we're kind of putting the horse before the cart by doing this after the fact. So I support this one position, Mr. President, getting the ball rolling. I still find it troubling that tonight, We have the Board of Health Director, who's the highest health official in the city, saying, I need a laundry list of positions because we're concerned about the increase in COVID. And we have members of this council tonight picking and choosing from the Board of Health Director saying, I need these positions, they're vital, choosing only to put on positions that currently have someone in that position. If there's no one in the position, Mr. President, members of this council are saying, we're tabling it for now. And then the health director saying, no, I need this position. So it makes no sense, Mr. President. And that's what happens when you do piecemeal, like Councilor Scarpelli said, when you don't have a plan, you make decisions, Mr. President, not based on anything other than knee-jerk reactions. And that's what this council's doing now, knee-jerk reactions, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this has been a long process. The connectivity, I think, is long overdue. It adds a safety element for pedestrians, cyclists, that I think will serve a purpose that has been needed in this community for a lot of years. It'll connect the east side of Medford into Medford Square and far beyond, Mr. President, in a safe fashion. The one concern in the neighborhood meetings that I attended back some time ago, probably close to two years ago, maybe even longer than that. time flies, is that we're now introducing a bike path slash pedestrian path within feet from the rear doors of many residents on Clippership Drive. And that was a major concern at the time of many property owners in that area that, you know, that support the project, but we're also concerned that now we're introducing people, bikes, foot walkers that have never been in that area before. And they were concerned about safety, public safety and rightfully so. So I was wondering, I noticed in the correspondence we received, it said the purpose of the easement is to install, construct, operate, maintain, repair the recreational non-motorized bicycle pedestrian trail. but it doesn't talk about who is actually going to provide the public safety and patrol that particular area, Mr. President. Now that we're introducing people along the river back there, that was never a path. So I didn't know if the woman from DCI can answer that question or someone from the city administration, but I have a concern about the patrolling and the safety of that particular area. And will it be lit, Mr. President, at all? We all took, at least I know I did, a tour of the whole area along the water back there, and it's a dark, isolated area. And I wanna make sure when we do this, I support this 1,000%, but I wanna make sure we're not introducing a public safety concern as well, Mr. President. So I would ask the representative from DCR or someone from the city administration to talk about safety and security of people using the path, as well as the direct above us.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So Mr. President, just so I understand, so there is a commitment that public safety will be provided either by the city of Medford or by state police when this is finally built out and so forth. So there is a commitment in that part of safety will be enforced, is that correct? If I understood that right, I think that is correct. Am I correct?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I truly believe we shouldn't recognize anyone if they're not here for over 20 years. that you can get in a disagreement and an argument with that was so nice that you didn't realize you were arguing with him. Really, John was nice about everything. I don't ever remember a bad word said about John Falco. And John, I refer to as someone that walks soft but carried a big stick. And this council, over the six years John served, made some major changes to things that people in the public may not know or didn't receive press, but it was John Falco that revamped our whole budgeting process. It was John Falco's expertise in budgeting and finance that led to major changes on how we review the budget and how we as a council request the administration to present the budget to us. And that was thanks to John Falco. And that wasn't press, that was anything other than John wanting to do the right thing and making the process transparent, which leads to my other point. It was John Falco during this COVID period for the last 22 months that stood up and said, we need to still operate government. We still need to have transparency. We still need to include the community, even though we may not have open forums or forums people can attend. And it was John that led the charge to make sure in our Committee of the Whole meetings and subcommittee meetings that may not be on the floor were taped and televised live. That was john Falco. Now that didn't get a ton of fanfare. But when you talk about transparency, john just didn't talk the talk he walked the walk. And that was a major change of this council, and it led to boards and commissions. and other entities in the community fall in suit. So for those two reasons, Mr. President, I wanna thank John Falco. I know this is not the last we're gonna see of John in this community. And he's a great family man, as we can see from his family and three sons and his wife in the audience. And John, it was a pleasure serving with you for the past six years.
[Michael Marks]: Beautiful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: This is bittersweet. It's been a long run and I've enjoyed it. You know, tonight's go around with all the Councilors, I would recommend for the next council, try doing that once a week. Try turning to your colleague and saying, thank you for doing this. Thank you for doing that.
[Michael Marks]: talk issues out has changed over the years. My temperament has changed, believe it or not. But one thing that hasn't changed is my love for this community. And I will forever be grateful for the honor and privilege to serve the residents of this community. for the past three decades, 26 years altogether. You know, when people put their trust and confidence in you, it's probably the highest form of respect someone can show, right? Someone that takes the time to go to the poll and say, I'm with you. Someone to put up a launch sign, someone to donate money in tough times. And that always meant so much to me that Why would all these people put their trust and confidence in me? I never realized it until it dawned on me that we're all in this together. We have a great community here. And what makes the community is its residents. It's not the city of Medford, it's its residents. It's the people that live here. It's the people that care. And, you know, I truly believe that what makes us a great community is a community that's united. And there are going to be many issues that may separate us. There are going to be many issues that we may have differences of agreement on. But I think the one thing we can agree upon is that we want to move this city forward and we love this community. And I think we're at that point now. I wanna thank my family. I have my three children here tonight. I didn't have kids when I first ran for office. And it's amazing. I have three children here tonight, my son, Evan. who's finishing up his studies at UMass Amherst. My daughter Olivia, who just took her test and is now a registered dietician. And my oldest, my daughter Gianna, who is a first grade teacher.
[Michael Marks]: And I just wanna thank them. I wanna thank for being there for me. I wanna thank for allowing me to participate at the fullest. I gave this job my everything for almost three decades. And no matter what people say, and I don't have to tell my colleagues, it takes from your family life. But I signed up for it. I'm not, I wouldn't change anything. I signed up for it, but my family was there every inch of the way through good times and bad times. And I want to thank my three kids. My biggest supporter, my rock, my wife Lisa is at home tonight. Anyone that knows my wife Lisa knows that she's not one for the limelight. She never has, never will. She's always been consistent. And the one reason why I was able to do what I did for so many years and do the research and study and do the things that I needed to do and be at events and everything a politician does is because I had that rock at my house. I had the foundation, the beacon that my wife served as raising the children and being the supportive wife and mother. And without that, I wouldn't be anywhere. So I'd like to thank my wife, Lisa.
[Michael Marks]: My mother started me off with family values back 55 years ago. And it was her guidance over the years that shaped how I voted. And I never realized that until I took a step back and said, this was my mother that gave me these particular values. This was my mother that raised four children as a single parent and did her best to give us a roof over our head and provide the opportunities that she did. And I will forever be grateful for my mother. and her support over the years. I wanna thank my in-laws, Linda and Vincenzo Federico. If you ever came to one of my fundraisers, they used to make the best thick pizzellis, not the thin ones, the best thick pizzellis. And when you came in the door, I'd go to shake a hand and they would go right over to my in-laws and get their pizzellis. And I think most people were there to get the pizzellis, which was fine. It was fine with me. And I just want to thank my in-laws, Linda, Machenzo, Federico, for the many years. I want to thank all the volunteers in the community that served on boards and commissions. Talk about being behind the scenes. Talk about volunteering, right? This is the very heartbeat of the community. It's the volunteers that are out there. It's the people that are doing this, not for any praise, but because they love the community because they want to do better in the community, and they want to see our city progress forward. So I'd like to thank all the countless volunteers that I've been involved with over the past 30 years. I want to thank the countless community groups, civic organizations that we all come in contact with on a daily basis. And as Councilor Falco alluded to, this was never about me, honestly, and I still feel the same way. Someone just looked up at the clock. I got a lot of pages ahead of me. I got a lot of, I got a page for each year, so just bear with me. But I want to recognize at this point, I've never done this before. I want to recognize the city workers. The city workers are the heartbeat. They're the lifeline of this community. And they get very little recognition. And they do tremendous work on a daily basis. This city doesn't operate by chance. It's because of the hundreds and not thousands of city employees that make this city function. And I'd like to take the time to recognize an office we deal with on a consistent basis, the city clerk in the registrar voters office. I'd like to recognize Clerk Herbise, who has been the city clerk for the last several years, and probably one of the best appointments that I've been involved with. And I appreciate you and everything you've done for the city clerk's office, Mr. Clerk. I want to thank Sylvia DiPasolito. I want to thank Jennifer Grogan, Janice DePace, Evelyn O'Rourke, Dorothy Donaghy, Janice Joyce, Sandy Gill, Joan Lamone, and Haley Brogan for their work in the city clerk's office. I wanna thank my good friend, Larry Lepore. Larry, you sat in that corner for many years. People would ask me, what is that guy doing in the corner? So he's the city messenger. He's a very important job. And Larry, I consider you a friend. You've held that position with distinction and I look forward to seeing you around the community. Thank you, Larry. I want to thank the people in the building department. Commissioner Paul Moki, a gentleman that's been in this community a number of years and handles the day-to-day operations of every building function, every permit. It's a giant job, and Paul Moki has done a tremendous job. I'd like to thank Amy Tanaglia, Dennis McDonald, Jeff Fago, Kenny Lanzilli, Mike Malabar, and Paul Smith in that office. I'd like to thank Director Pam Kelly and the Council on Aging, who deals with our seniors and provides senior programming and has done a tremendous job. I'd like to thank the people at the Department of Public Works and Engineering, Commissioner Brian Kerins, Mary Moniz, Phyllis Cerboni, Darlene Luke, Steve Tenaglia, who's in the audience, I've probably bothered Steve Tenaglia over my 26-year career than anyone else in the community. And Steve, I appreciate the attentiveness that you've done over the years. I appreciate your working on behalf of the residents of this community. And no matter how big the crack was in the sidewalk or the hole in the street, you were out there when we called. You made things happen. And Steve, I will always be grateful for your service. Thank you. I want to thank Mike Nestor, the park foreman that keeps our parks up to stuff to snuff Peter Kirga, Ron Baker, Tim McGiven, the city engineer, Mark Shea, Steven Brogan, Mike Wentzel, and Todd Blake. like to thank them for their service. The electrical department, Superintendent of Y is Steve Randazzo and Vinnie Scaramuzzo. I'd like to thank them for their service. Information technology. Mike Ferretti, the director. I'd like to thank the law department. City solicitor Kim Scanlon and Janice Spencer. I'd like to thank the police department. The first responders, as I spoke about tonight, Chief Jack Buckley, Patrol Union Representative Hal McGilvery, and all the brave men and women of the police department, our first responders that have done a tremendous job protecting the life and property of residents in this community. It's a thankless job. but it's a very important job in our community. The fire department, I'd like to thank incoming chief John Friedman. And I'd like to thank union president Eddie Buckley on his many years of support and camaraderie. I have to say, and I don't like to show favoritism, but the fire department, I consider them all brothers. I really do. I never met a bunch of gentlemen that, and women, that really cared for this community, that stepped up when needed, and I will ever be grateful for the fire department in our community. My one regret Um, and I have several is that we never acted upon a new fire station. And I would ask my colleagues, uh, as they move forward that we keep the commitment we gave to the fire department like we did with the police department to create a brand new state of the art fire headquarters and training facility that they all so well deserve. Um, so I hope that commitment is kept. I want to thank the health department director, Marianne O'Connor, uh, over the last 22 months, who has done yeoman's work with providing, um, health service in this community during covid. I want to thank veteran service director, Michael Durham, who in my opinion, over the last few years, has done so much work to put veterans on the radar in our community. Give veterans a voice. Make sure that you're out there looking for the services that veterans may not be aware of. Mike would be the first to step forward and have the ability and knowledge to get things done and accomplished. And I want to thank Mike Durham for his years of service. Farmer City employees that I had the privilege to work with. If I miss some, I apologize, but the ones that come to mind, Farmer City Clerk Ed Finn, Farmer Mayor Michael McGlynn, Farmer City Solicitor Mark Rumley, who I consider a dear friend and advisor. former DPW Commissioner Paul Gere, former Budget Director Richard Lee, former Fire Chief Larry Sands, former Fire Chief Frank Gilberti, former Police Chief Leo Sacco, former Board of Health Director Karen Rose, former Treasure Collector Fred Pompeo Jr., former superintendent of schools that I served with, Roy Belson, and former superintendent of schools, Phil DeVoe that I served with as well. I'd like to thank my fellow colleagues on the school committee that I served with for several years. We, as I mentioned tonight, I was part of building the new schools and talk about going from a process where we had neighborhood schools to centralized schools. It was probably one of the biggest contentious issues in this city's history. But as a school committee, we rolled up our sleeves, we had our public meetings, and we were able to build centralized schools, state-of-the-art schools. And that I am very proud of. I want to thank my colleagues that I serve with, Lena DiGentimasso, who talk about a fighter, There's someone that served three decades, never ran for any other office, but always cared about the community. And I'll never forget when we were building the new schools, we had to go look at the old schools. And I was behind every ladder to the roof. following Linda Gigentomaso with her high heels, climbing the ladder to get to the roof. This is the dedication. Jack Buckley. Jack Buckley, when I served with him, Jack was a very intelligent man. And I was very young of age. And he used to always say during the meetings, the TQM approach. And I'd be like, wow, TQM, this is something big. And he'd say it all the time, total quality management. And 25 years later, I have still not forgotten what TQM stands for. And that was the type of Jack Buckley was in charge of the building of the schools project. That was the type of dedication Jack had and his business acumen. that that's where he came from. And it's funny how the little things stick with you. And that was one thing that stuck with me with Jack Buckley, Paul Van der Kloot, who we recognize tonight. I served with Paulette for six years. Bob Skerry, Bob Emmett Skerry. I served with Beth Fuller, who was the best knitter in the city of Medford. would be at committee meetings and she'd knit a blanket while we were sitting there actually just listening, she would knit a blanket. I always felt that I wasn't doing enough with my time. She made me feel guilty. Ed Nolan, who's a great firefighter, and I happen to have the opportunity to serve with Ed Nolan. And last but not least, Bill Brady, who was a great school committee member and a tenacious advocate for the children of this community. Former colleagues on the city council. My colleague here, Robert Penta. You know, when I first got on the council, I'll be honest with you, I was intimidated by him. He was rough and gruff, but as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I come to know a gentleman that only cared and loved about the community. His delivery may be a little questionable once in a while, but he cared about the community. Bob always told me, stand up for your beliefs. You can never go wrong. And I would advise anyone coming into public office, that's the number one thing. Stand up for what you believe. You can never ever go wrong. Never. Robert Mayorko, no disregard to you, Mr. President, but the best president I ever served with on the council. He coined the phrase, at least he takes credit for it, that this city council is the people's forum. And that always stuck with me. because if you had an issue, there's nowhere else to go. And this has to be the people's forum. I would ask my colleagues to always keep that microphone open for whoever wants to come up on the public participation, whoever wants to speak on no matter what the issue may be, this has to maintain itself as the people's forum. Otherwise we will lose confidence in government and that's the last thing we want. Paul Camuso. You know, when Paul got on the council, it dawned on me immediately when we were debating whether or not to allow Wendy's on Middlesex Ave, which was my neighborhood. And we were debating it back and forth. And I'll never forget, Paul Camuso said to the representatives from Wendy's, all the higher ups were here, all the bigwigs. And he said, we have to have more fine dining like Wendy's in this community. And I said we're going to be for a long ride with this guy. Stephanie machini Burke, I mean, Stephanie's had a long run in this community as well. I had the opportunity to serve a number of years, became mayor of this community. was responsible for the police station and a brand new library and has done yeoman's work pushing this community forward. Brianna Lungo-Curran was the current mayor and I served with for 18 years and I wish her well in the future years. Fred Dello Russo, the last person to ever let you down. That's a little joke. That's a little joke. Fred Dello Russo gave a perspective of business owner. Every Councilor has their own perspective. And that's why you have to listen. And you may get in arguments, but everyone has their own ideas and their own perspective. And Fred came from a chamber of commerce and a business perspective. And that was always helpful for me because he was a business minded. Bill Carr Sr. I remember his slogan, nothing changes if nothing changes. But when I looked at the slogan, I said, well, how basic, but when you think about it, nothing changes if nothing changes. And he was absolutely right. And I'll never forget that slogan. And I consider Bill Carr a good friend. Jim DiGiacomo, I had the opportunity to serve one term with. And Jim was an excellent city councilor and a real people person. Macarena. I served just a short period of time when one council stepped down. Macarena took over for about 10 months. And he was a man of commitment and dedication. And I wish Mac well. State Rep Paul Donato. Paul got off the council to run for state rep. That's when I got on the council. No one has done more to bring in local aid than Paul Donato. Paul Donato's name is synonymous with local aid. I mean, I don't wanna go through the laundry list, but just take a walk into Chevalier Auditorium and look at the brand new seats and look at the air conditioning. And that wasn't done for any other reason than we have an advocate in the state house, Paul Donato. And, A little known fact about Paul Donato, and I hope you don't mind me sharing this, because I know you're not a vain person. Paul Donato was one of the original signees on methods incorporation papers in 1892. 1892, yes. And I want to thank you for your many, many years of service, Representative Donato. And I consider you a friend as well, Representative Donato, and always will be supportive. My present colleagues. And we have the two newest colleagues, Councilor Bears and Councilor Morell. With COVID, we didn't have a real opportunity to get to know each other. or know where you're coming from. And I think that may have been some of maybe, I don't wanna say tension, but maybe some of the misinformation. And I know you both have great intentions. I know both of you will move this city forward. I would ask that you just take a step back. And as I tell everyone, God gave us two ears, do twice as much listening than speaking. And I take that to myself, too. That's no reflection on anyone, but listen, because you learn so much when you listen and hear what people have to say. And I want to thank my colleagues. Anyone that throws their hat in the ring to run for public office, I think is an admirable cause. And anyone willing to do that, especially at a young age. I've always preached in this community. I've supported wide representation. I've supported initiatives to get people involved. Even though I ran for office, I want to see more people get involved. So I'm glad that we have young people in this community as my neighbor. Justin, while a lot of people don't know, he's my neighbor right across the street. He called me up several months back and said, Mike, I'm running for office. And I said, oh, you moved out of the city? And he said, no, I'm running for Medford City Council. And a funny fact is that when I moved to Wellington Road some 30 years ago, I got a phone call from Angelo Morata. And that may not sound familiar from a lot of people, but he said, I just want you to know, and I didn't know him from a hole in the wall. So I just want you to know that I was the original resident on Wellington Road. and I am therefore the original councilor on Wellington Road. So Justin, just so you know, I am the original city councilor on Wellington Road and don't ever forget that. And don't ever forget that. I'd like to thank my colleagues, Council beers Council morale for their dedicated service. I'd like to thank Councilor Falco, who I stated earlier, made meetings, more transparent in this community, made the budget process, a far better process in this community, and just lent a sense of calmness to this council that I am appreciative for. And I wanna thank you for all your years of service and years of commitment to our community. Adam Knight, I mean, who's done more for working families? I didn't know half about what he was talking about unions and about living wages. But it was Adam Knight that brought the issues up and Adam Knight that fought for the unions in this community and fought for working families. It made sure that they were at the forefront. And there were many issues that I learned about listening to Councilor Knight. And I have to say, I will forever be thankful for opening my eyes up to those issues in the community. Talk about a parliamentarian. I mean, when he first got on the council, I said, oh, this kid's in for trouble. Oh, I'm gonna get him until he start calling rule seven, section 1630. So what's this guy doing? But when did he learn this stuff? And sure enough, he was the parliamentarian and I have to give him credit that he picked up on that second nature. Maybe it's his legislative experience and his commitment to this community. But I wanna thank you for your friendship and years of service as well. George Scarpelli. I mean, I refer to him as Coach Scarpelli because George has done more for youth sports in this community than anyone in the history of the city. And I'm not just saying that because he's sitting here. You know, George to me, George was working with underprivileged students before there were people working with underprivileged students. George was the one that reached across the aisle. George was the one that lent himself to getting out there and looking for those in need. So I refer to George as coach Scarpelli because George, the Councilor, yes, great counsel, good friend, great advocate, but it's George Scarpelli, the man. And I think it says a lot about a person that's involved in a community behind the scenes. You know, and then gets involved maybe in politics or do something else. So, George, I wanna thank you for your many years of service to this community, but also to the youth and the disenfranchised and to the people that didn't have a voice. You stood up, Councilor Scapelli. It was you that stood up and made sure that this happened in our community. It made sure that everyone felt welcome. And I wanna thank you and I'll forever be beholden, Councilor. Council President Caraviello. I've had more people say, when you talk, why do you say Mr. President all the time? And I say, that's out of deference and respect to Council President Caraviello. You know, talk about someone that's been involved in the community. I mean, Rick Caraviello was involved in the community back 45 years ago. I remember when I first ran for public office, it was Rick Caraviello that was sponsoring students, that was giving out part of all the civic organizations, giving out certificates and scholarships. It was Rick Caraviello that worked with families, that worked with families that had food insecurities and still does to today. He didn't stop it when he became a council. It was Rick Caraviello was out in the community and he kept on doing it. And that says a lot about a person. He didn't drop and say, ah, now I'm a Councilor. He kept on doing what he always knew and that's helping people in the community. You wanna talk about helping people. You turn around and it was Councilor Caraviello who led the charge to make sure veterans that were in need of home repair, that maybe couldn't afford to fix a leaky roof or add a handicap ramp to their home. It was Councilor Caraviello without any fanfare. He wasn't looking for any fanfare. It was Councilor Caraviello that stood up and made sure these things happened. And I will forever be grateful for your leadership over the many years, and I consider every one of my colleagues a friend, and I hope we maintain our friendships. At this particular point, I know I'm getting long-winded, but I wouldn't be myself if I didn't mention my friends for decades. And this is probably where I get into a lot of trouble, but I'd like to recognize to the best of my ability, people that have been with me for three decades, or very close to three decades. And people that put their trust in me, and I still don't understand why. But people I consider my friends, and people that have been with me for many years. I wanna thank in the front row, Bill and Jeannie Wilder, been with me for many years. I want to thank Jim Silva. I want to thank Ray Cipriani, who's in the front row. I want to thank Ray Scarfo, John Puccio, John Pompeo, Gwen Blackburn, Bill Polcari, Bill Carr Jr., Henry Milleran, Charlie Cohen, Tony D'Antonio, Mo Sheehan, Mark Frangillo, Marsha and Dennis Karen, Gus Napoli, Milva Ricci, Maureen Kaczynski, Sharon Diesso, who's in the audience. Johnny Amari, the mayor of Salt Medford, the Mahoney family. the Cangiano family, the Albanese family, the Bailey family, Steve Ionesa, Marie Rizzo, Joanne Crotty, Marianne Howell, Betty Rawson, Diane Incanieri, Alan Maturana, Andrew Castagnetti, who is in the audience. Anthony Crescenti, who is in the audience. George Sacco, Tony Insaldi, Kathleen McCarty, Dolores Neary, May Macubreck, Adele Trevisano, Mary Briley, Patty Papa, Vincent Federico, and Howie Cohen. If I miss some people, I apologize. I wanna welcome the incoming members of the council, Justin and Kit Collins. I wish you good luck in the upcoming two years. I'm proud to be part of such a great and welcoming and inclusive community. I wanna wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year. May God bless our nation and may God bless the city of Medford. So long for now.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Ellen, if you could just clarify, out of the 6,500 properties that are above the break-even point, do you have a breakdown on what type of classification those properties are? If I live in a two-family, am I eligible if I own a two-family?
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, how are we counting? If someone has a two family and they live on half the two family and they rent the other side, that rental would not be considered, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right, and is that state statute or is that just how each community handles it?
[Michael Marks]: Right, I'm just trying to figure out what the number that 6,500 is compromised of.
[Michael Marks]: The breakeven number, the number of properties that are above the breakeven point.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So someone has a three family, they rent out two of the units, they're still eligible for a residential exemption.
[Michael Marks]: Even though it becomes a moneymaker, right? I mean, the property is now a moneymaking property and not a residential type situation.
[Michael Marks]: We all know the cost savings would probably not be passed on to the renters, correct? If someone received a residential exemption, I'm sure they're not gonna lower the rents based on what exemption they're receiving.
[Michael Marks]: We would hope that's the case, but I don't think it's the case. I support this. I support having this reviewed. I've mentioned in the past that because this affects a number of property owners that currently live in their property, they would pay a higher rate. That's one reason why in the past I did not support this. But I think at some point we're getting close to a number that may make sense in this community to give people, you said $636 savings. And this economy would go a long way to assisting those people, seniors and people on fixed incomes and so forth. So I think, you know, maybe not this go around, but eventually I think we're going to hit that point where this makes all but sense to support in this community. And if you look at the surrounding communities that probably have a higher rate of, you know, non-owner occupied, it makes sense for them, like Malden and Cambridge and Chelsea and Everett, it probably makes sense for them. I don't think we're quite at that point quite yet. So that's why I will not be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Mr. Castagnetti. He's been consistent over the past 19 years about bringing this residential exemption forward, Mr. President. And I want to thank him because I think I'll speak just for myself. I won't speak for anyone else behind the real. I think the intention of this particular general law has great merit. However, in our community at this particular point, due to the breakeven point, it leaves thousands of people that live in owner-occupied property to pay a higher tax. And I just find that unfair. And even though it benefits the majority, which Mr. Cassidy is correct, it may benefit the 80% that will receive a property reduction, tax reduction, I am concerned equally about the 20% that live in their property that may be property rich because they bought their home 40 years ago and their assessed value is over the $705,000. However, they're going to pay a higher tax because of that. You know, so I still have a concern with that. The numbers, if we were talking, you know, a handful of people that were above the threshold, it would make that decision much easier for me. But when you're talking thousands of people in the community, that are above the threshold will pay a higher amount, I have a problem with that. And I hope Mr. Cassidy can understand that. And I'm hoping someday I'll be joining him on the other side of the real advocating for this and pushing for this at the right time. And, you know, so I want to thank him for his advocacy. Anything that helps seniors and people on fixed incomes, I think is a worthy cause. And I know this is why Mr. Castagnetti has pushed this for many, many years. So I just wanted to thank him, but that is my reasoning, Mr. Castagnetti, that I will not be supporting this tonight because it leaves out far too many residents that I think are in the same boat, that deserve some tax relief, and that will only experience a tax increase with this change. And I'm not willing to do that at this point. But I thank you for your advocacy. Thank you, Councilmember Max.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and Faye, I wanna welcome you to the city of Medford. Thank you very much. You have a very large endeavor before you. Sure. And I wish you well. Thank you very much. The question I have, the first one is very basic. When do we anticipate for the city of Medford to officially take over parking responsibilities?
[Michael Marks]: So we don't have when this contract, because it was a 10-year contract.
[Michael Marks]: The way I understand it was the 10-year with at year seven, the option to renew for three years.
[Michael Marks]: Okay my understanding is that it was a 10-year contract with a option to renew on year seven, which we're at right now at the end of December. So the contract, as far as I know, ends January 1st, 2022.
[Michael Marks]: So is it safe to say that they will no longer be providing any type of resident permit parking or business enforcement as of January 6th, 2022?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so we don't officially know when the city is going to take this over.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And I appreciate it. I know you've only been here six weeks. So that's correct.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So just a point of information that on the last contract, that happened to be part of the last contract. And when we were presented with the contract, it was then Mayor McGlynn at the time, he asked us, I believe it was a 10 year contract, but if you say seven. It is seven. That's fine too. And the one, honestly, one regret I have in public office for all the years I've served, was the fact that I voted on that contract prior to knowing, let me just say, prior to knowing what the actual program rollout was gonna be. And if I had the hindsight before I took the vote, knowing that the mayor was going to do kiosk on the streets, and the mayor wasn't gonna take it in-house, and the mayor was gonna do a number of things that were outside of the original recommendations by the committee that he formed, I wouldn't have voted on the actual terms of the contract. And I think what we're facing here again tonight, to be quite frank, is the administration coming to us saying that they're allowed to do a three-year contract on their own. They don't need the approval of the Medford City Council, but we wanna extend it to five years because it makes more financial sense to do that. And I don't doubt that, and I don't question that. What I do question is that the longer we extend the contract, the longer this council
[Michael Marks]: And I don't doubt that for a second, Faye. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we really don't know, other than the two contracts that you're asking us to approve tonight, we really don't know what this parking program consists of. other than the fact that we did receive a report back so many months ago from the Parking Policy and Enforcement Commission who did Yeoman's work. I know there's a couple of the co-chairs. Jim Silver is in the audience, Mari Carroll, and they did Yeoman's work putting together a report. So in many of the recommendations, they put together a laundry list of recommendations. So I just want to caution my fellow colleagues that a vote on this tonight, asking for a five-year contract, the vehicle end of it may be a little different because it's strictly vehicles, but the agreement number two, which deals with the management system, hardware, enforcement money, and so forth, really gets into the nuts and bolts of how to run a program. And I've been down this avenue once before, and I just want to caution my colleagues that I think we're going down this avenue again prematurely, even though you need this to take place to move forward. I understand your position. from my standpoint as someone that fielded the calls and someone that ultimately had some responsibility in the last program as someone that voted for the contract. I regret doing so because of the many things that I did not support in the rollout. And it's unfortunate that you have to vote for this and then hope that you are in line with the rollout because you may be in total disagreement with the rollout, but then your name is going to get associated with Well, you supported it. So I just want to caution my colleagues on that. And, you know, they'll do what they like, but I just want to caution them on that. Fay, I don't expect you to answer this, but Oh, maybe you can. As Councilor Falco mentioned, there were $350,000 put in last year's budget for the creation of a parking management program in the city.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So during the budget deliberations, I asked the then Chief of Staff Dave Rodriguez, was this figure of 350,000 just a placeholder, or do you really think you can run a parking program in the city of this size? with 900 and I think it's 87 business meters and hundreds of permit parking streets, which someday may go up to the full number of 750 odd streets that we have. Do you feel he could run a full fledged program? And he unequivocally said no. And this was a starting point. Knowing we're already six months into the fiscal year, what would you envision a full-fledged parking program cost in this community. Given that any thought, do you have any idea?
[Michael Marks]: Right, right, but again, from an administrative standpoint, If I were gonna say, you know what, we're gonna take parking in-house and we're gonna do it in-house moving forward January 6th, you would think you would have an idea of an actual cost. You think you would have an idea, is this program something that's self-sustaining? Could the city run this program based on the revenue they bring in? you know, what the actual cost may be. So I think it's hard for me to understand that the mayor said, you know what, we're moving forward with the parking program in the city of Medford. I just have no idea how much it's gonna cost.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. And you've been on board for six weeks. This has been in process for almost two years. So just so you know, this has been in process. I know you've only been here a month and a half, but this has been in process for almost two years. And the report was issued by the commission that the mayor put forward almost nine months ago with a lot of different recommendations. I'm just a little troubled at this point that we don't know when the program may start. I mean, we're three weeks before the contract four weeks before it's gonna end. We don't know when it's gonna start. We don't have a plan to roll out the program as of yet. We don't know what the actual costs may be. So it may be cost prohibitive. Maybe if we looked at this six months ago.
[Michael Marks]: If I could just finish.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, well, I'm just saying, we don't know that.
[Michael Marks]: You couldn't tell me when the program's gonna start, you couldn't tell me what's gonna cost, but now you're sure of that it's not gonna cost labor. I could just finish.
[Michael Marks]: That wasn't a question, I'm speaking. Okay. And I'd appreciate it if I have the ability to finish my comments. Sure, sure. Because it throws my comments off when I get, interrupted. And I appreciate that. So I guess the concern I have at this particular point is that we're moving forward on a parking program that residents have been accustomed to for the past seven years. And come January 6th, Mr. President, there's no one behind this rail that's gonna be able to tell any resident or any business owner that currently gets enforcement that that enforcement is gonna be continued. There's not one person behind this rail that can state that. And that is a real concern of mine at this particular point, Mr. President. So I want to make that known. I want to make it known back in the budget, when I brought it before the chief of staff at that point, that we weren't fully funding this program and that we were setting it up for failure at the time. He said it was only a placeholder. So I just want to let that be known too, Mr. President, that there was an ample funding in the budget, even for a six month program, if we start in January. The other point, Mr. President, I want to raise is the Parking Policy and Enforcement Commission. Their report that was issued to the mayor in March, and I believe formally came out in April, came out with a laundry list of recommendations. Section 2.1 had a laundry list summary of recommendations. And some of the recommendations that were made by this commission over the last nine months, I think should have been at least reviewed by the administration and potentially worked on by the administration. And I'm not sure if Faith can speak to any of this tonight, and I don't expect you to, but there were a number of recommendations, Mr. President, that spoke about GLX parking recommendations in the Hillside and South Method area. that the city should be working on, including business parking as well in that area. Pursuing meters, not kiosks. The commission recommended a cost-benefit analysis on refurbishing the kiosk, replacing kiosks, or investing in new meters. Now, over the last nine months, I assume some of that work could have taken place, and I'm not sure if it did or didn't, but I'd like to hear from the administration over the last nine months if any of these recommendations were actually worked on that were put forth by the mayor's commission on parking policy and enforcement. There was another recommendation, Mr. President. As we all know, Medford has 31% of our roads are private ways. And a private way is the city is empowered to enforce safety violations like hydrants and handicap spots, but otherwise not permitted to enforce parking on private ways. So if you have a third of the roads that the city can't do enforcement on, those residents deserve some type of plan before this gets rolled out. They also deserve the right to be at the table to make sure their concerns are heard, Mr. President. The recommendations that were offered by the commission, bullet six under 2.1, was to create a communication plan for residents living on private ways to clearly outline the city's traffic and parking safety enforcement responsibilities. So based on the GLX parking recommendations for the hillside assault method and the businesses in that district, Whether or not the city was going to pursue the meters or kiosks, fix the existing ones, replaced existing ones or add new meters, and then the creation of a communication plan for residents living on private ways, I think are very important items that this administration has nine months to take a look at. And Faye, I don't know if you are familiar with that or if the interim chief of staff is familiar, but I'd like to know if there's been any action on the commission's recommendations.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So Mr. President, and thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. Currently right now, the parking enforcement office does not handle every street for permit parking. We don't have citywide permit parking. So it's my understanding and members of the commissioner here, but their recommendation was to look into citywide permit parking. And, You know what we're asking now is to have Faye. and her team, which is Faye, right, it's Faye, to expand from a model that is already established, that already has a manager, underlings that do the enforcement, underlings that do the maintenance of the machines, systems already set up, and now we're asking Faye to take over a whole system and also increase the system by adding more than half the city. Right. So, so phase, not going to do what Park Methods doing phase going to do almost double the parking enforcement. If we go citywide permit parking, then what currently exists right now. Also, when we rolled out the plan back so many years ago, it was somewhat of a pilot program because we only did certain business districts. How do you start parking enforcement and say, okay, for West Method, we're gonna enforce, but certain parts of Salem Street, we're not gonna enforce the business districts. And we're gonna allow people to park in front of your business with no fear of getting a ticket, because there's no meters, but this other business, You know, they may lose potential business because they have meters. So it was never rolled out fairly in my opinion, and it was only partly rolled out. Now we're going to ask, because I assume this is going to be rolled out citywide, now we're going to ask Faye and her team of Faye. to roll out business parking citywide. So we're gonna almost double the work again, or maybe close to it, on doing business parking enforcement. So I think what we're doing right now is adding a lot more to face plate than even our current vendor had on their plate. And I don't think it's realistic at this particular point. I don't understand how we're gonna get a program off and running. My layman's opinion, Fay, you have a lot more experience, but my layman's opinion, to get a program like this up and running in the community at the current capacity, to take it in-house, I think you'd be talking three, four, five months to get it up and running. a full-fledged program, my own opinion. You can tell me otherwise. Also, Mr. President, as part of the recommendations by the commission, they brought up a valid point that Councilor Scarpelli brought up some while back, and it was regarding outstanding money owed to Park Method and the community. And one of the recommendations under 2.1 bullet three was to pursue action as allowed in the contract with Republic Parking to collect the $1.6 to $2 million outstanding parking fees owed to park method program. And bullet point four was for the city to work to collect a minimum of 50% of the outstanding fees owed to PAC method. Why? Because it's in the city's best interest to collect those fees. Has there been any movement on the collection of these fees over the past nine months since the recommendation of the commission?
[Michael Marks]: know what's been discussed and also to know that if we're talking about transitioning from one to another, there's been no transition happening. And, you know, to be here three or four weeks, and I'm not saying you Faye, so don't take this personally, but to come before us three or four weeks before we're supposed to start a new program and have all these unanswered questions, I think is being disingenuous. Because this work should have been taking place over the last nine months to a year, to be quite honest with you. This work should have been really undertaken during that process. And now is when you come before us saying, this is what we plan on doing. This is what the costs will be. This is when we plan on taking the program over. I understand you've been here six weeks, but I'm not hearing any of that. And I just want to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for failure come January 6th, when people expect a small transition to the city enforcement, because that's what they've been hearing. The city's going to undertake the enforcement. We're taking it in-house. And when that transition doesn't happen and it's not smooth, I think people are gonna be concerned and members of the council are gonna feel the phone calls and say, well, you supported this program, you voted for the contract, why did you allow this, this and this? And I just wanna make sure, I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer, but I wanna make sure that the residents of this community are well aware when this will take place how it will take place. And you talk about in community involvement, it's three weeks prior to this going live. I mean, even if you got community involvement, you know, are you gonna take the recommendations from the community or is it just to say we had a community meeting? And I know that's not the case, but it seems to me sometimes, you know, you have a community meeting just to have a community meeting and say, well, we did that, we done that, we solicited input. So in order to have meaningful input and having business owners, the chamber, and other vested interests in the community be part of the conversation and able to affect change, I don't think the leeway and time given is enough, to be quite honest with you. I don't think it's enough. I think this should have started many months ago. You know, I wish the program well, but I don't see it happening, Mr. President, come January 6th or even several months after January 6th. And I think there's a lot of questions that were posed or recommendations by the Enforcement Commission that was appointed by the mayor. that really haven't been properly vetted, haven't been properly looked at, and in my opinion, sets us back even further in getting a full-fledged parking program in this community. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank... I just want to... I'm not critical of you. I wish you well, but there are a lot of things that I think led up to this moment and where we're at right now. And there's so many unknowns right now, and I think there should be more of an indication on a path in a general direction and something to look at and say, this is what we believe. We're going to go to meters now. We don't like the kiosk. We're taking it in-house. We're doing zone parking. We're doing this. I think there should have been more of a plan presented. before you come to the council and say, we want an extension of the contract. We want more than three years. So if you set up a program that I'm not proud of, why would I want to give you five years? Why would I want to give you 10 years on that program? I want to give you the least amount of years. And the state allows you to do three years on your own. Why would I want to extend that? So to me, I think we're safer as a council saying, take the three years that you have the option without a vote on the council. And then in a few years, come back and we'll take a look at it and see how successful what has been offered policies and procedures and how this is working. And then maybe you go for five or 10 year plan after that. So that would be my recommendation to members of this council. Thank you, Mr. President for indulging.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was hoping those weren't the words.
[Michael Marks]: I was hoping those weren't the words we were gonna hear tonight because I had a sneaky suspicion, Mr. President, that the mayor could move forward with a three-year contract on her own. Doesn't need to come before the council. Can start this program on her own right now, move forward three years. No one's making anyone wait. But bringing the council into it to extend it to five years, Mr. President, all of a sudden creates a scapegoat that, oh, if the council doesn't approve the five years, we may not be able to get parking enforcement up and running because the council is standing in the way. Meanwhile, it's three weeks, Mr. President, before this program should take effect. Three weeks. So I would caution my colleagues, Mr. President, that we shouldn't be listed as a scapegoat here. The mayor has the authority to move forward on a three-year contract and should do so if they believe for one second that this program will not be a smooth transition. That is up to the administration if they want to move forward, Mr. President, not up to this council. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So if you don't get the vote tonight for five years, this program will be seamless and you'll keep on moving forward.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so you don't have what the cost difference is. I provided the three and the five year contract. Right, but no one knows how much more it's gonna cost, if indeed it will cost more. To me, again, Mr. President, honestly, with all due respect, I will not support this tonight because the administration can move forward with the three-year contract on their own, Mr. President, and I wish them well doing so, but this council does not know how this program's gonna run, and I don't see how anyone behind this reel can vote on allowing this to take place without the proper protocols in place to safeguard the residents of this community. And even though we may not be responsible, as Council Vice President Knight mentioned, for the nuts and bolts of creating policy and procedure and so forth, you're allowing for the contract. So you're allowing for the five-year contract. Therefore, you are giving the green light to go ahead on whatever results from this program. Whatever the results are, you're allowing that to move forward. So I guess you can say indirectly you are responsible. And that's how I see it, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I just think that- Mr. President, if I could just follow up.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate that. I appreciate the vice president's comment. I think he hit the nail on the head when he said we shouldn't be talking about this program failing. What program? What plan? Show me one paper that has a plan or a program of anything regarding parking enforcement in this community. Show it to me tonight and I'll vote on it. There's not one plan, Mr. President. laid out, other than the fact that they want to sign a couple of contracts, which I agree that stuff, they said it right, that stuff is needed to set up a program. But with three to four weeks out, and there's not one piece of paper in front of me to say how they're going to operate a parking program in this community, not one piece. So you're right, I can't speak to failure because I can't see what's gonna fail. There's nothing here to make an educated, informed decision on. And that's what we're here for. We're here, Mr. President, to be the safeguard. And, you know, as Council Vice President mentioned, you know, I don't want to blow my own horn, Mr. President, but guess what? It was back many, many, many years ago, many years ago, when this city did zero enforcement and they wanted to build a parking garage on Governor's Ave. We all remember that. after the old one came into disrepair and had to be taken down. And the reason why this council said we weren't gonna move forward a parking garage is because we truly couldn't understand the parking needs in this community because people could park anywhere they wanted in any of our business districts for eight to 10 hours, take the bus into town and never pay a nickel. And at the time, members of this council said, how are we going to establish a pay to park garage? where you could park anywhere in the city and not ever be in fear of getting a ticket. It's not gonna work having to pay to park garage. So our recommendation was put together a parking management program in this community. Then we would consider a parking garage in the square. And that's exactly what we did. And then at the time, Mayor McGlynn, who we didn't see eye to eye on anything, Mr. President, appointed me to the parking commission to oversee parking enforcement in this community. And that's why it was established. So we can have people sitting behind this rail, looking in the sky and doing whatever they want, Mr. President. But that's how it was implemented in this community, Mr. President. And I wanna make sure that we're not just here to do a quick rush to judgment, Mr. President, that we do our homework and due diligence. I'm not gonna be behind this rail in three weeks. So I can go like this and brush my hands off. But I want to make sure this community is not left out in the lurch. And right now, what we're hearing right now from the administration, there's no plan for parking enforcement in this community. And I'm not prepared to vote tonight, Mr. President, on giving an extension to a contract that doesn't present any facts, figures, dollars amount, dollar amount, nothing at all, Mr. President. Maybe other members of the council who wanna stick their head in the sand once again could do so, but I'm not gonna do that, Mr. President. That's not how I operate.
[Michael Marks]: When you talk about hardware that's going to be purchased, what assumptions are being made in regards to the type of enforcement that we're going to do in this community?
[Michael Marks]: So I'm thinking more of a basic, G-Tech provides a service. Naturally, they don't know what type of program we wanna run in this community. Correct, so it's something that we have to explain to them, hey, we're looking to do X, Y, and Z. Correct. So in order to explain to them what we're trying to do, I assume the city has some assumptions on what type of enforcement we'd like to do. Are we doing citywide enforcement? Are we going to be doing kiosks, meters? Are we going to be doing overnight parking? What type of enforcement? So I'd like to know what type of assumptions are being made based on the purchase of this hardware.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so how many handheld devices are we gonna purchase? One per parking control specialist. So an assumption's made that we're gonna have how many parking enforcement clerks?
[Michael Marks]: You're gonna have five, and that will cover us citywide?
[Michael Marks]: And that will cover us 24-7 in permit parking and so forth?
[Michael Marks]: And that will cover us on weekends?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and the readers on the back of the vehicles now that do the plate readers that do the... Are you talking about LPR? Yes. Those plate readers, are we gonna continue the same process that Park Medford is using or are we gonna do something different?
[Michael Marks]: So that was just excellent information because I think you're letting us in on what we're gonna eventually do. And it seems like now we're carrying out what currently is there and eventually you may move on.
[Michael Marks]: And one of the biggest concerns we've had over the last couple of years is signage in the community. And even the mocking of spaces. If you go clearly you'll see and even in the square and so forth. There's no delineation between spaces, and so I've noticed that in some areas. Yes, right, right. So, so there's a large concern with that is that something that you're working in conjunction with DPW now to take a look at because they do signage and responsible for markings and so forth?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and regarding resident permit parking citywide,
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And what about regarding making sure every business district has kiosks or parking meters and not just select business districts. So is that for parity? Is that, is that something we're going to be looking at to make sure?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, were there two separate agreements? I think it would be wise to take two separate votes.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: I'd like my vote to reflect, Mr. President, the records that I am in opposition based on the fact that I think there should be a three-year contract, which the mayor is allowed to do unilaterally and not involve this council. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: And what about appeals? Are we doing anything on appeals?
[Michael Marks]: One person does the appeals? Correct. And that's enough to handle that in the city?
[Michael Marks]: Marianne, how long will these positions be funded for with the APA money? APA's three years. Three years? And is there any thought after the three years if these positions will be kept on or?
[Michael Marks]: And my other question, this may be a question for the interim chief of staff. As part of the APA funding, I was under the impression that frontline workers and first responders could receive enumeration for their work during COVID. Is that true?
[Michael Marks]: Well, I guess my concern is that, you know, we're two years into COVID now, and if there's funding available for first responders and frontline workers, you know, the people that worked at CVS during the toughest of times, you know, our fire police, EMT workers, people that work at Stop and Shop and any other stores. I think really we should do our best to free up some of that money and make sure whatever we dole out is done pretty immediate. So I would hope that's something the city administration is looking at and will take care of the first responders and frontline workers as soon as they can. Is it the intent of the administration to dole that money out to those workers?
[Michael Marks]: Right. I just want to make sure there's a commitment from the city administration to move forward with that. I've read in the newspaper and seen on local news that there are many surrounding communities that are moving forward currently right now with frontline workers and first responders. And I would hope that we're in the process as well. And I realize there's a process to doing so, but I just want to make sure the commitment's there because, you know, we relied on these frontline workers and first responders for the past two years. And these are the people in the community that aren't making large corporate salaries and put their life on the line to make sure that we had food and medicine and everything else access to. And I think it's only appropriate that we now take care of them. And I'd really like to see some action on that. So maybe if you can go back to the mayor and let her know that members of this council would like to see that happen.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: It's insane. I never get to speak at this council. Unbelievable.
[Michael Marks]: No, you are a disruption, Adam.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, December 28th, I believe we have a council meeting.
[Michael Marks]: Is it a regularly scheduled meeting? If not, I'd like to ask that we cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of December 28th.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President, I want to thank you for co-sponsoring this resolution. I offer this resolution tonight Mr. President to get some clarification on some recent happenings within the City Clerk and the registrar voters office. As you may or may not be aware, the election process this year, during both the preliminary election and the general election in November, were called into question regarding the review of voter list. And it's my belief that the Secretary of State's office, in particular the election division, was reviewing a list that was submitted by the city back a few months ago to inactivate a number of registered voters in this community. Now, that process, I am not aware of where it stands, and that's the reason why I'm offering this tonight, Mr. President. However, what I am aware, and not through any formal communication from the city administration is that there is currently an external third party audit that's being taken place, I guess, as we speak by an external party of which I believe it was initiated by KP Law, who is a vendor, nothing more than a vendor for this community. So I'm not quite sure the KP law has the authority to initiate an audit on a department within city government here. That's the first question I would have. And secondly, the extent of what this audit is going to involve. I'm under the impression it involves the city clerk's office slightly, mostly the registrar voters office. And I think it's only appropriate, Mr. President, where we are responsible for hiring of the city clerk. The city clerk in his capacity is not only the city clerk, he's also the chief election officer under our charter. And I think it's only appropriate that we as the hiring authority find out why KP Law, a contractor that works for the city authorized an external party to come in and do an audit of the city clerk's slash registrar voters office. So at this point, Mr. President, I would ask that we have a committee of the whole meeting to bring us up to date. I would assume, and I wasn't privy to any of these meetings that were held over the last couple of weeks, but I would assume we would have to invite someone from the city administration and they would be aware of who actually should be invited and who took part in these meetings that were held that the Medford City Council was not privy to. Mr. President, in order to ask the questions I have, I won't ask them tonight, but I have a laundry list of questions on where this audit stands, why it was initiated, by who, for what purpose, Mr. President, and the list goes on and on. So that's what I'm gonna put in the form of a motion that we set up a committee of the whole meeting within the next, and I realize it's the holiday, but maybe sometime after Thanksgiving, Mr. President, if we could set that up, a committee of the whole meeting to discuss the ongoing audit that's being done in the clerk slash elections department.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: And I appreciate that update. And I know you weren't part of all the meetings that took place. However, to me, the larger issue is how does a vendor, this is a vendor, initiate an audit of a city department? I don't think there's any precedent anywhere that a vendor would have that authority. So that's my first question. Who and what capacity does KP law have to initiate I call it an audit, you could call it a review.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. So that would be my question. And prior to anything happening, Mr. President, where the only authority that we have for hiring in this community, out of the hundreds of positions, we're responsible for the city clerk. One position, we're not even responsible for the people that work within the city clerk's office. We have no hiring authority over the people that actually work for the city clerk, but our one responsibility is the city clerk. And he runs the day-to-day operations of the clerk's office and is responsible for the oversight of the registrar of voters office. How are we not brought into the conversation when a review slash audit is requested by a vendor, as Council Vice President Knight mentioned, that may not even be a vendor because we slashed them from the budget in June. So there's a lot that needs to be answered, Mr. President. I hope we can get those answers answered tonight. We had Mr. Salt up here tonight talking about, you know, who authorized private investigators to follow around DPW workers. Was that in the budget? These are questions, Mr. President, that we need answered as a community. and they're very important questions. This is one of them, Mr. President, and I would hope we set up that meeting immediately.
[Michael Marks]: It will be next week, Mr. President. A second question. We pay our own city solicitor, Solicitor Kim Scanlon. who served as assistant city solicitor for a number of years, a very capable attorney, very knowledgeable of city ordinances, city charter, but yet we have a private vendor that comes in and starts investigating. I won't call it an investigation. I know they get a little antsy when we say investigation, but hires two clerks to come in and do a review slash audit. Where's our city solicitor? That's supposed to be the oversight, the legal oversight for this community. Was this signed off by the city solicitor? So I, right, so you can see where this is going, Mr. President, that we can have a rogue entity that has nothing to do with this community other than the fact that they're a hired vendor, stop auditing and investigating departments and employees and policies and procedures. It makes no sense at all, no sense at all. And I realized this is a touchy subject because some of this was initiated because of an election. And the people that are running this community ran in that election and they have to probably recuse themselves from being involved in any review, which I understand. but we don't leave it up to a vendor. We don't leave it up to a vendor, Mr. President. That makes no sense. So really, I hope next week, I appreciate that, Mr. President. I appreciate everything you've done on this issue to keep me as one member of the council informed to the best of your ability, but we really need answers. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, we lost a very good city employee, longtime DPW Director Brian Kearns, resigned from his position. Mr. President, if anyone knew Brian, knew he was a dedicated worker in this community. He was dedicated to doing his job. He was relentless when it came to supporting his fellow DPW workers, Mr. President. Brian, in my opinion, probably had the toughest department head position in this city. From my standpoint, I would probably contact Brian or his office with 90% of the calls that I received, because they dealt with DPW in some fashion. Brian oversaw the pox. highway which included sidewalks and streets, the cemetery workers, water and sewer, forestry, and the list goes on, Mr. President. He really did tremendous work with little funding. And that has been a topic of discussion by this council for a number of years to get more boots on the street. And we've been somewhat successful, but not quite to the level that the residents in this community expect from a full-fledged DPW department. But it wasn't because of Brian Kerins. It was Brian Kerins that was the glue to this operation. and kept it going for years, Mr. President. I think it's sad to see Brian resign right before a major street sweep. which is kind of a big deal in this city and a big deal with DPW. I think it's sad to see Brian resign right before a winter, which DPW plays an instrumental role in clearing our streets for public safety. I think it's sad to see Mr. President, a department head with so much firsthand knowledge of the inner workings of a community. And Brian knew every one of the 763 roads in this community. He knew the infrastructure. He was familiar with the city. And that's going to be very difficult to replace. Extremely difficult. We know firsthand because there are a number of open positions that the city administration is trying to fill now. And we hear far too often that there's just not the candidates out there. There's not the knowledge base that would be required in some of these positions. And the director of DPW is definitely one of those positions, Mr. President. I just want to thank him for his many years of service. No matter when we had our meetings, Mr. President, whether it was this two Saturday, three Saturdays ago in the pouring rain, Brian Kearns was the first to show up. He was the first department head, Mr. President, to show up during COVID. I give him a lot of credit for that, Mr. President, because it was voluntary, whether you want to come on Zoom or not. And he was the first department to come up here and provide a little normality for, at least for the residents, and I believe for this council. So I want to thank him for that, Mr. President. He was always outgoing, someone that would tell you a good story. And really, when you gave him things to work on, he got them done. He got them done, Mr. President. And I want to thank him for all his years of service. I know he doesn't live in the community, but I hope that this is not a loss that we hear from Mr. Kearns. And it would have been great to have some type of transition. You know, when you have someone that's in a role of that importance, it's nice to hand it off to someone else, Mr. President. And I don't know if you can fill those shoes and how long will it take and how long will it take to bring someone up to snuff? You know, I just think it's a big loss for this community. And I wish that it didn't work out this way. I wish Brian was still on with us. However, that wasn't my decision, but I want to thank him for his years of service. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll, just to, if we can send Brian a citation. Yes. And to respond to Rick, Rick, Rick, because I think everyone that comes up to the podium ask questions that we can answer or try to answer deserves some type of response. It's my understanding from the communication that I received from the city administration that Brian was asked to resign. and he did indeed resign. That's my understanding. So he stepped down. So that's how it, I don't know for what purpose he was asked, you know, that I don't know, but that's my understanding. And I stand to be corrected if it's not the case. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just a little confused that the resolution reads that the Board of Health meet to reconsider the city's mask regulations. And now you're saying just to clarify how they got to the point of what they've already done in their last meeting?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So you're asking them to reconsider mass mandates in local restaurants and businesses throughout the community.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Okay. I just, I just want to make sure because the language I'm reading is very different than what you just stated.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: I and I think anyone should be held accountable and actually for a period of time we were having a board of health director appear before the Medford City Council, giving us, if not week weekly updates, you know, bi weekly updates, Mr. President, and that hasn't happened. Correct me if I'm wrong, maybe in five, six months, seven months. And I haven't heard any outcry from members of this council saying, where are our updates? What's going on? In the past, we heard we have to follow the science. They follow the science, and people are still upset because they want to make sure everyone has a mask no matter where they go, Mr. President. So for a period of time, you need a mask to walk into a restaurant. I have to have my mask when I walk into Carol's, but as soon as I sit down, I take my mask off and I sit there and I eat for two hours. Not sure what that science is, but that was the mandate that was out there, Mr. President. Now I think we're at a situation right now where the board of health deems that a mask is not required in businesses. And we're hearing that people wanna bring it back again, Mr. President. And if we're gonna follow the science, let's follow it, right? Let's be consistent. And so I just wanna make sure we're consistent, Mr. President, whatever we do. City Hall, you still have to wear a mask. I don't know where that science is. So it's safe for me to go out to eat. When I come in City Hall, I have to wear a mask. There's giant auditorium here. where you could social distance, you have to wear a mask, Mr. President. Makes no sense. Thank you. Council Member Rao.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, if I could. Council Member Max. So I think we have to be mindful, right, that for the past almost two years, every business in this community has followed the rules and regulations. No matter how difficult it may have been for that establishment, they've followed the rules and regulations. Now the Board of Health is stating that it's all right to go into a restaurant without a mask on, according to their recommendations, Mr. President. It's very different than City Hall. You know, City Hall doesn't even have to open the door. You know why? The money comes in through taxes. They don't have to worry about opening the door. It's the local businesses that have to turn the key, get employees to come in and provide a service. And I think the more that we make it difficult for businesses to operate, Mr. President, it makes it increasingly difficult for people to make a living. We're going on almost two years now. So in my opinion, I'm not gonna support this tonight, because I'm not gonna revisit anything that goes against the Board of Health's recommendation. They came up with their recommendation. Now, there are people in this community that feel that that's not the right recommendation, then don't go out, Mr. President. Don't go out. It may sound insensitive. Don't go out. I had my two injections. I had my two shots. My whole family did. And months later, we all were stricken with COVID, Mr. President. And it wasn't because I didn't wear a mask. And it wasn't because I didn't take the precautions. It's because we really don't know about this virus. We really don't know, Mr. President. And I think it's unfair to subject businesses, local mom-and-pop businesses. We're not talking about Target or some of the big franchises. We're talking about local mom-and-pop businesses. And I think to send a message out that we want to go backwards again, Mr. President, and to question the Board of Health, I think is a misstep. I really do, Mr. President. And so I won't be supporting this Mr. President tonight, because I think we're following the science right now. And I think the science tells us that, you know, they saw something on the news the other night that 95% of the beds in Massachusetts are occupied in our hospitals. But I think the number, don't quote me on this, but I think 17% of the beds out of the 95% were COVID related. Everything else was people catching up from surgeries they postponed or things that, ailments that they had that they weren't going to the hospital for. And that's what's driving the numbers in the hospital now. So, you know, I just think we have to you know, move on the best we can. And I think this would send a terrible message to our businesses, hundreds of businesses in the community, that we want to take a step backwards, Mr. President. And in my opinion, there's no need to at this point.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Yes. If I could, and I just want to personally thank you, Mr. President. You've been doing this well before you were even on this council, and it doesn't go unrecognized, Mr. President. Thank you. Your dedication to assisting those in need in our community, I personally want to thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank President Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. We all know this day was coming, Mr. President. uh, Chief Gil Birdy served as chief for, as was mentioned, 26 years. Um, he led the fire department through some good and bad times. Mr. President, my only hope was that we could be talking about a brand new fire headquarters and revitalized fire stations throughout the community. Unfortunately, That is not the case, Mr. President. So I'd like to thank Chief Gilberti for his many years of dedicated service to the residents of this community and the property of this community, and congratulate Deputy Chief John Friedman, Mr. President, who, in my opinion, will do a tremendous job in that role. He is well-liked by his colleagues, Mr. President, He is someone that really fights for his fellow firefighters. And I know he's interested, like the rest of us, about moving forward with getting a new headquarters, revamping our stations, and also, Mr. President, getting the training tower, which was promised to our firefighters back several years ago. So thank you, Mr. President. Chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank President Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. You know, when we talk about Eversource, I think no one can refute that Winthrop Street was heavily impacted by all the construction over the last several years. And another street that comes to mind is Salt Street. South Street has really borne the brunt of not only ever source but other projects, Mr. President, over the last several years, and they. deserve some peace and quiet on that street. So the quicker they can pave that area and give these residents a break, I'm all in support of that, Mr. President. So I would hope the administration gets a wind of this and immediately acts, Mr. President, before, as President Caraviello mentioned, before the weather gets too inclement for any type of road pavements. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: They don't pay utility companies. We went through that with the state, with the fast 14 project, with the bridge, they will not pay.
[Michael Marks]: I won't give any.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. What a life Mr. Amari led. He was a lifelong Medford resident. He was a graduate of Medford High School. He was the captain of the varsity football team at Medford High School. He was enlisted in the U.S. Army, achieving the rank of corporal, and was decorated for service in the Korean War. Robert was a plumber by trade, and he also enjoyed a long career with the MBTA as a mechanics and maintenance supervisor. He was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, brother, and friend to many, Mr. President. He is survived by his wife, Frances, a sweetheart of a woman, his children, Joanne, Robert, Lisa, and Johnny Amari. Everyone knows Johnny Amari as the mayor of South Method, and he truly is the mayor of South Method, if you know Johnny. But, you know, the Amaris are just a staple of this community, have been here for many decades, and they will be, Robert will be sorely missed, Mr. President. I would ask that we dedicate this meeting in his honor, Robert Amari from Stearns Ave, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Box. Thank you, Mr. President. We have two department heads before us tonight. I just wanna make sure they're here and they're not intimidated by being here before the Medford City Council.
[Michael Marks]: Are they both fine with being here? You know, I'm intimidated appearing before the Medford City Council. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Engineer. Have the deficiencies that have been pointed out by the city DPW staff been brought to the attention of Eversource as of tonight? No, they have not, not yet. Not yet. When do we plan on bringing this forward to Eversource?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so that's in the process right now then?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so if we can just be kept abreast of how that goes along would be helpful. The second question I had is where do we stand with the mitigation items with Eversource? Have some of the items been completed to date and where do we stand?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so that was actually very helpful to get that update. So the sidewalk work that was originally included in the MOU did not include the sidewalk up to Playstead Road, from Lorraine to Playstead Road. And this council requested by unanimous vote to have that sidewalk done as part of this project. Is it fair to say that that's not gonna happen?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Your mic's not on. Oh, it's on. You're good. You're good.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Just a quick question to Tim. Tim, did I understand you correctly when you stated that AI consultants did not bring any concerns regarding deficiencies with the paving on Mystic Ave?
[Michael Marks]: Not yet. Okay. And considering they are the oversight and the watchdog for the city of Medford. If we do find out that there are deficiencies that have not been pointed out by AI, but rather pointed out by the city. what are our next steps, because this project is far from over, to ensure that we have the proper oversight, and knowing that that may not be accomplished by this current company, what are the next steps?
[Michael Marks]: Right. In your professional opinion, Would an oversight of that nature just say it's regarding not having sufficient coverage? So it only has two inches compared to three inches. Is that sufficient in nature to ask for a termination of contract?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So there potentially may be some ramifications after we find out what, happened on that particular site.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I also amended it, Mr. President, asking for a report.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on. I think Council Vice President Knight hit the nail on the head. You know, typically a project comes and goes. And this is the gift that keeps on giving. You know, it never ends. They've been blasting, as they said, for I think three or four years now. And there was a law for a period of time, and I guess there was some confusion whether the developer could build certain amount of parcels and so forth, and whether you could expand or not, and whether they had an access road. And there was a lot of different questions, Mr. President. But the one thing surprises me, and I've been to a number of community development board meetings, board of appeals meetings, and I've seen them reject projects in this city, Mr. President, for not having enough frontage. Oh, you're two feet short frontage, the project goes nowhere. Oh, you don't have, you're missing three parking spots, the project goes nowhere. However, Mr. President, you have a project that's taken four years of blasting in a neighborhood, and it goes through with flying colors. Think about the biggest impact that you can have on a residential area. It's not missing a parking spot. It's not a foot of frontage that may be missing, but blasting, as Councilor Morell mentioned. We advised all the residents in the area at the time to make sure if they don't do it, to have someone videotape the interior of their property, walls, ceilings, so they could have at least some proof, ultimately, if something does happen and foundations are shook or altered, Mr. President, that they'd have some proof. And I would hope that many residents took that advice. But the recourse is probably not going to be much, unfortunately. I just think this has gone on far too long. I do have to say, Mr. President, when it originally started the blasting, that they weren't even cordoning off the sidewalks appropriately. And there was flying debris They put tops down and heavy, heavy tops down to stop some of the debris, but there were rocks I had residents that live across the street, send me some of the rocks and other debris that filter down onto Winthrop and across with them street, very dangerous situation that I have to say has alleviated itself. And I think the developers doing a much better job. and securing the area, in my opinion, from what I'm hearing. But originally, that wasn't the case, Mr. President. So I would hope that, you know, to me, the blasting should have been done over a set period of time. The city should have said, okay, this is what we're going to approve. Nothing outside of that. We're giving you a two-week, three-week, whatever it is, time frame, and nothing outside, because this developer cannot blast without the city's approval. And, you know, to leave it car blanche and open-ended, to me, creates this angst in the neighborhood. And that's what we're seeing now, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on.
[Michael Marks]: Council President.
[Michael Marks]: So the city engineer, I think you're talking on the other side, you're talking with the Boston school, right?
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, while we're on that subject, I just want to thank resident Chris Donovan, who lives across the street, took it upon himself, Mr. President, to go and speak with the developer of that particular lot, and he was able to sit down with the developer and get some improvements in front of the high school and along that stretch of the road. And this was just a resident on his own that reached out and said, how come you're not giving anything back to the community? You're causing all this disruption. And he was able to set up a meeting. I think he includes the city administration, but it was thanks to Chris Donovan for setting that up, Mr. President. I just want to thank him personally.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, suspension of the rules to take paper 21-551, communications from city offices employees.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would appeal that we were missed not to congratulate our new position.
[Michael Marks]: She's going to do an excellent job in that role. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Knight, Vice President Knight.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion by Councilor Falco, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. 21-603 offered by Councilor Falco. Be resolved that Encore Casino agreement be discussed. Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of seconded by councilor Scott Perry, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Falco. So on the motion of Councilor Falco, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. 21-604 offered by Councilor Falco. Be it resolved that the administration report back to the City Council on its plan to transition into parking program, including how it intends to gather the input of residents and businesses community during this transition. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Falco for bringing this issue up. This was an issue I raised in June, Mr. President. when we were going through the fiscal budget. And I noticed that the mayor was taking this in-house and the parking budget, I think consisted of 300 and I wanna say $65,000. And at the time I raised the question to the chief of staff stating that how can he run a full fledged parking program for that amount of money? And he more or less said that was a startup or, you know, a place card within the budget to get the program off the ground. And from what I'm seeing right now Mr. President is, I'm not hearing about any public meetings. I'm not hearing as Councilor Falco mentioned about any stakeholder meetings with the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, with area residents, with area businesses, Mr. President. And I can recall the days I sat on the original parking enforcement committee, that it was open and notorious. And there were ample meetings for everyone to give input. My concern, Mr. President, is that when you take a program of this nature in-house, and take over citywide. And I think that's the ultimate question that I have. Does the mayor intend to start the program as it was left off by Park Medford? So are we gonna be patrolling all the resident permit parking streets? that are currently patrolled by Park Medford? That would be my first question. The second question is the administration, and I believe it was the previous administration, put together a consultant that they hired that came in regarding resident permit parking. And they made a recommendation that they were going to start off doing a pilot program in Salt Method and the hillside, which never happened, Mr. President. But that was a recommendation made by the consultant. So are we going to move towards some type of citywide permit parking? And when will that take place. You're talking, you have to think about it when you do enforcement, and we met with, I think it was seven or eight communities. Originally, when we were thinking about taking it in house, and you have to remember, there's enforcement. So you got to hire enforcement officers. There's collections. So the same people that are doing enforcement are not the people that are doing collections. You can't have that in a program, someone that's giving out tickets and also collecting the money. Who's going to be doing the hearings? That that's a big part of any type of parking enforcement program. And then you have a maintenance. So, you know, there are four distinct departments within parking enforcement. I don't hear any discussion. other than the hiring of a head of parking, which is great. I think that's a first step, but I think that step should have happened, honestly, a year ago. And over this past year, working on the eventual taking over of the parking program. I don't see how you do that in a month and a half, two month span. I really don't see how this is gonna take off, Mr. President, and be successful. I think residents were sold a bill of goods that were taking this over in-house, but there's no plan. You know, show me a plan. I'm not opposed to it. I want to see a plan in place and give us something to look forward to. And so those are the questions that I have, Mr. President, that I think need to be asked. And, you know, if we're looking at taking this on and if we're looking at having a full-fledged parking enforcement department, Right now, our parking, if you notice, we don't have kiosks in every business district. So there are some business districts that have kiosks, and those particular businesses are subjected to someone coming out, feeding the kiosk, or they're subjected to someone saying, I'm not going to go to that particular business, because I can go to this other business that provides the same service, and I don't have to pay for a kiosk. So there were some inequities in the original program and we were sold a bill of goods that that was phase one. Now that was some 10 years ago, I believe. That was phase one. The city never rolled out phase two. It's like the street sweeping program. We're still working on a pilot program for street sweeping. I think we've had a pilot program since I've been on the council, 20 years. We're working on a pilot program. I think we're past the pilot program now, and this is no different. We started off with a parking program. We didn't implement it citywide. We only did certain business districts, which made no sense, Mr. President. We have kiosks now. Is the mayor gonna go to meters? We heard the outcry when the kiosks were in the streets, that they were too complicated. There were problems reading the screens and so forth. Are we going to a double-headed meter? You know, how is this program going to operate? I think people have the right to know, Mr. President, that if we're taking this in house, so, um, you know, I'm not gonna be on the council when this gets rolled out, but I could tell members that are new to this council. You probably remember, Mr. President, that the angst that was out in the community when this was given to an outside entity and allowed them to come in, Mr. President. There was a lot of angst in this community. There was a lot of unknowns. We had to revamp the program a million times, Mr. President, to deal with resident permit parking, to deal with overnight parking, to deal with, you know, people that wanted to run into a store for five minutes, but had to feed the kiosk. And, you know, they put meters in certain areas to try to resolve that, but not in every area. You have to look at signage. That's a huge issue, Mr. President. When we looked at this years ago, one of the larger issues, believe it or not, was signage. Because our signage in the city is not consistent. Go anywhere, it's not consistent, Mr. President. And then mapping out the parking spots. The city's not gonna take that on and map out the 1,200 parking spots in the business districts. They don't have the capability of doing that. These are the things that really should be underway now that actually should be happening now. These are the things that we should be talking about, who's going to be mapping out the spots, are we going to meet and so we, you know, in the mayor point to the committee, they did yeoman's work, they came back with a great report, Mr. President. But is that the working document that we're working off to create this program? I had a member that served on that committee that came to me and said, geez, after all that service, I didn't even know they hired a parking enforcement director. I spent all that time putting all this together, all these hours, and no one had the common courtesy to say, hey, you're on the committee. We hired a parking enforcement director. So I think there's a lot of what ifs with this program, and the residents deserve better. And I thank my colleague, Councilor Falco, for bringing this up.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Matz. Just a word of caution to my colleagues. It was probably the worst vote I ever took on this council in 20 years. But after making the recommendation, sitting on a committee, a parking enforcement committee, for two years, I was appointed by Mayor McGlynn. I sat on it with Chief Sacco, Gwen Blackburn, Ron DeFranco, business owner in the community, and a number of residents, Mr. President. We spent two years. We presented the paper to the Mayor McGlynn at the time. And I'll never forget the meeting we had, Mayor McGlynn came out and did everything opposite of our recommendations. And I remember to this day, Mr. President, and because I didn't want to look like I was anti, I went along with it after sitting after two years, Mr. President, saying that we should take the program in-house. Why not take it in-house so we have control? And after this many years, I think what we found out was you lose control when you do an outside parking agency. And I think we found that out the hard way. The second thing, Mr. President, why not get the lion's share of the revenue? 80% of the money was going out the door. It made no sense when we can use it here. We talk about all the time that we'd like to have other revenue streams. That would have been a perfect revenue stream, Mr. President. And the recommendation after meeting with all these communities was to put double head meters, Mr. President, that had the technology to be able to call in if you're inside a restaurant and update the meter or use a credit card or so forth. And it had all the latest technologies. And the mayor decided to use kiosk which we were told over and over again, are typically used in parking lots and not on the streets. And we were told, secondly, they won't accept dollar bills because of the rain and the moisture. They mess up the machines. And we were told a lot of reasons not to use kiosks, Mr. President. So I would just caution my colleagues, eventually when the administration comes out with their recommendations, It'll be you that gets blamed when things don't happen. So don't just go along to get along. And that was my mistake, Mr. President. And I regret it till this day. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I wanna thank my colleagues for their comments. I believe it was in January of this year that this council offered a council citation, recognizing for his over three decades of service to the citizens of this community. And now we're recognizing him for his untimely passing, Mr. President, which is a true shame. You know, when you think about Officer Butts, you know, what comes to mind to me is community policing. He was like having a family member on the Method Police Department. I've never had a family member of the Medford Police Department, but Billy Butts was like having an older brother on the police department. He cared about everyone that he came in contact with. He went the extra mile, Mr. President, to make sure that things were taken care of and that people didn't get hurt. You know, and when I say hurt, I mean physically hurt, but he was the type of guy that would try to iron out situations without having them escalate and grow, and he was good at it. He was really good at it. And, you know, you know, when you talk about community policing, he was the type of police officer that you'd imagine back in the 30s and 40s in the city that would go around to each door in the business district and shake it to see if they were locked after hours. I mean, he was truly that type of officer that, you know, really, I think you don't come by nowadays. And he had that special gift of communication. and being able to communicate with people. And you always felt comfortable with Billy Butts. He always had a smile, although he looked kind of intimidating that, you know, if you did the wrong thing, it'd take care of you as well. But he always had a smile on his face, a good word to say. And, you know, someone that passes before their time, Mr. President, uh, is an awful, awful tragedy. And truly, Billy Butts is a tragedy, Mr. President, because As I said, in this day and age, you don't find police officers that have that skill of communication, the skill of community building, of community policing, old-fashioned policing, which I like to call it. When an officer knew your name and you felt a tie with the police department, Mr. President, it wasn't just a car driving through the neighbor, but you knew it was Officer Butts, and he'd pull over and talk to you. And that was the type of officer he was. And honestly, as Council Scarpelli mentioned, he's a true friend and it's a great loss for this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: On that note, Mr. President. And a little sprinkle of insanity too.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President. Councilor Marks. So just if I could, Mr. President, a majority of this council last week voted for plan C, which was the most disruptive change to our polling places, added eight new precincts. Plan A is the least disruptive and plan B was what I would consider a middle of the road adding award nine to the Wellington area with some slight disruption. So I just want the record to reflect that, Mr. President. So we're going from the most disruptive, which a majority of this council voted for now to no change at all, more or less. So I just want the record to reflect that. Thank you, Mr. President. Do we have a motion on the floor?
[Michael Marks]: The chair recognizes Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President, and first I'd like to state that parking on a sidewalk is illegal in the community, it needs to be enforced. So that's the first thing, parking on a sidewalk is illegal. Secondly, Mr. President, I believe I was the one that offered the motion back before the pandemic. to have the administration go out and take a look at the sidewalks and curbing and the condition of that street. Not to pass the buck, but all we can do is make recommendations. So even if we vote tonight to have your street repaved, every sidewalk fixed, all the curbing, it does not mean it's gonna take place. It has to be the city administration. So just so you know, that's what we're up against. So we can offer all the resolutions we want, but ultimately the day-to-day operations of the city and where the streets get done is up to the city administration. So the fact that you said that you see all these streets getting done and so forth, that is not this council. That's the administration. Excuse me? The city administration know the council is the only open forum but you know I would highly recommend that residents reach out to the city administration and let them know the concern. I'm sure we'll all reiterate it tonight here, but I just want people to be aware that the buy in has to be from the city administration. It was this council that offered the ordinance was actually my ordinance that reduce the speed in the city from 30 to 25. And that was done through city ordinance, which we have control over. So the council did take action. when we heard about the speeding throughout the community. This council did take action on a number of issues, i.e. being not speed bumps, but raised crosswalks. They're more effective. And we started a pilot program back some years ago, and we did one on Winthrop Street, close to Boston Ave, and there was supposed to be a number of other raised crosswalks. This would be an ideal place for- for a raised crosswalk. However, the city has failed to act on that. So it wasn't this council, the council made recommendations, the city has failed to offer these traffic calming approaches. So this council, in my opinion, has been very proactive, talking about curbing, widening sidewalks to reduce speed, lowering the speed limit, which we did, and tried to get ahead of the cut through traffic and the speeding that's going on. I think we all agree that something in the area needs to take place and I'm sure my other council colleagues will make comment as well. But I just want the residents to know that if it was up to this council, it'd be done next week. Unfortunately, it's not up to this council.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President? Point of information, Councilor Marks. Mr. President, we also just got a correspondence from the mayor stating that the safe routes to schools at the Brooks was recently completed. And I would challenge that, Mr. President, because I don't think creating one route to a school, which there was some improvements made along High Street. without a doubt, some great improvements. But clearly, when you look in the neighborhood, I grew up off Irving Street, so I'm very familiar with the area. And I can tell you firsthand, Mr. President, many of those roads have been neglected for many, many years. And I think what you're seeing right now is a culmination of many years of neglect. And by no means would you consider this safe routes to school. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears is correct, but the city does have linkage funding that we can use for infrastructure improvement. The city does have water and sewer enterprise account money, well over $6 million in surplus money that can be used for drainage. That's what the money's there for. Correct. And so there is money available to attend to these projects. It's the fact that there's no plan currently in the community to address these issues. So if residents can look and say, here's the list of projects that are on the list and your project is scheduled for this, this and this, then they'd have some type of idea. But as we heard already from residents that are going to see click fix or reporting it to the city administration, they don't even get a call back. So I think part of the disconnect is that there's nowhere to go to find where you are if you are on a list. And secondly, what may be available because there is funding available. We just got, I think it was Councilor Falco mentioned about the $48 million in the different uses that we're getting from the federal government. And one is for road and infrastructure improvements. $48 million, and there's no plan. You know, Councilor Falco could talk about it better than I can. There's currently no plan, but this is the money that's out there. The 6 million in water and sewer enterprise account is your money. It's an over-assessment for water and sewer, not to address sidewalks, but infrastructure, because the sidewalks is probably the cheapest thing, doing the drainage and so forth is the most expensive, but we have money there. So some of it is a disconnect, Mr. President. So I don't want residents to believe that we're never going to be able to get through this. There's money available. It's a matter of having a plan and working methodically through the plan.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank President Caraviello for bringing this up. And as you mentioned, Mr. President, this was brought up over a week ago. And we have yet to receive any type of response from the city administration or any action regarding this. This is a very important public safety issue. It may not seem so, but these construction companies, these utility companies are coming into this community and they're running roughshod across the community. They really are. They're working at their own pace. They're putting their equipment wherever they want. and to the neglect of our community. And there's no oversight. There's no enforcement. And that's a concern, Mr. President. And because of all the construction, it's happening everywhere in our community. So I would hope that the city administration act pretty quickly on these public safety concerns. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: And the motion was to do a citywide robocall, correct?
[Michael Marks]: I don't, but I could not get it.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, just for a little bit of, uh, background on this, I actually sat on the council when there was a pushback some 16, 17 years ago, uh, to consolidate the number of billboards that existed throughout the community. and many of which abutted neighborhoods, uh, as we all are aware. And the push back then was to kind of centrally focus, uh, the billboards along 93 and take them out of the neighborhood areas. And I believe the agreement that was passed some years ago was very successful in taking out some of that blight in our neighborhoods. And at the time, residents were very happy with the agreement that was struck by then Mayor McGlynn and some of the big billboard advertising companies at the time. Ron Roberto has been in this community for a hundred years. I know you're not that old, Ron, but he's been an establishment in this community for 100 years, Mr. President. He's been a tremendous business owner. He's been a tremendous advocate for social service programs in our community and someone that I look up to, Mr. President, as a business leader in our community. So I just want that to be known, Mr. President. The question I had to Mr. Yano, he mentioned the $25,000 in linkage and seven hours of public service messages. I was just wondering, does that differ from the current agreement that is in place now?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So, so, uh, can you state what the original agreement is and when does that, was that a 20 year agreement? And when does that end?
[Michael Marks]: So that expires in five years. So when you talk about the $25,000 linkage, is it just for this sign or is it for other signs included?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So the seven hours of public service is in addition to hours that are being done right now.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Are you able to tell us how many public service hours have been messaged on that board since its inception?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Clerk, Mr. President, as part of this report, I would ask that we receive an update on the public service messages that are going out by the city. I want to make sure if they're allotting, it's a very expensive endeavor if anyone ever put something up on a billboard, and I want to make sure that we're using it to benefit our local civic groups as well as our sports teams and any other messaging, Mr. President. So I want to make sure that we're taking full advantage of that. I have, as my colleague stated, I have no problem upgrading to a digital board. You know, that's the wave of technology, and it's the latest and greatest. The illuminants are less than what's out there now, so that's always been a concern with the Butters and neighborhood, and the fact that it's gonna be shut off after, did you say 11, Mr. Yano? Yeah, they go dark from 11 to 5 a.m. 11 to 5 a.m. The city does not pay for a nickel of the electricity that's paid by the property owner, and we get $25,000 in linkage. So to me, this is a win-win, Mr. President, and I will support it tonight. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues. This has been a long arduous process over the last year and a half. Countless meetings, hundreds of hours, Mr. President, meetings, the hiring of a consultant. And I believe what we have now is a good working document. One in which requires additional stakeholder input. Um, and that is going to take place over a period of time with the offices of the community development board, as well as what this method city council. So there's much room for discussion and change. This was a starter document that we put together. Uh, it hasn't been looked at in probably 30 something years, the zoning in our community. So, It was long overdue. The one request I would have, Mr. President, and I've had a number of residents reach out to me asking me to summarize the major changes, um, in this particular document. And I know we have a red line, the blue line copy. And, uh, unless you've been working with this document, uh, for the past year and a half, um, to me, it's zoning is pretty complex. I think it's one of the most complex issues that I've had to deal with at my tenure on the council. And at this point, I would ask that if we go back to our consultant and see if he can put together a brief summary of the major changes. There was a lot of technical changes, and I don't think at this point the technical changes we have to summarize, but the major changes uh, that, uh, you know, and I, and I guess that's open for interpretation, but the major changes to this, Mr. President, if he could put together just a brief summary, so residents can look at it rather than going through a hundred page document, uh, look at it and say, okay, this is impacted. That's impacted. I agree. I don't agree. I should research this further. I don't need to research it further. Um, and at least, uh, give them a starting point. Uh, you know, we've all sat through hundreds of hours meetings, uh, and most residents haven't had that opportunity. Uh, no, what I say, they should, uh, you know, uh, have been that involved. That's why they elect us. But, uh, it's important that, uh, they have a thumbnail cursory of what transpired through this work of this council over the last year and a half. So I would respectfully ask that be part of Council Vice President Knight's paper to move this forward to the community development. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on. I can date this back to probably at least five or six years ago in the Dexter Street area. We were getting a number of complaints back then for rats. The problem has shifted up to the heights around Carr Park. to Wellington and the Haines Square area. I'm getting a ton of complaints, Mr. President. Just tonight, coming to the meeting, you know how it gets dark early, I put my car lights on in the driveway, and a good-sized rat walked by the garage door. um, and Wellington that was in my own driveway. Um, you know, this is becoming a public health crisis. And in my discussions with the city recently, as of within the last week, because I've been asking about the baiting as councilor Falco mentioned, I was told by a city employee, they no longer bait the catch basins in the community. They do not use that as a process for controlling pest control in this community. I'm not sure what the process is. I can tell you firsthand, when you call and say there's a problem with rats, the city comes out and they give you a leaflet. And they leaflet all the doors in the neighborhood. And they'll tell you, don't leave food out. Don't put your barrels out too early. Don't leave a water source. If you're giving the birds water or squirrels, don't leave that out because rats are going to look for the water source. You know, if you're growing vegetables outside, make sure you have them contained and not a food source. There's a lot of, you know, things residents can do, Mr. President, but I don't believe the city has acted enough on behalf of its residents. And I've stated this in the past, and I need to be critical, Mr. President, because yes, this is a problem. I read an article recently in the Town Online that said how it's a not sure problem. But yes, it's a problem in other communities, but we're not doing enough. And I brought this up during budget. I believe, and I don't have the number in front of me, it was in between $10,000 to $15,000 that we spend citywide for pest control. Anyone that's called someone to do pest control, they'll come out your house, it's $300, $400 a whack to do an extermination around one home. Here we have seven square miles with 15,000 homes, and we're spending $10,000 to $15,000 on pest control, and we have a rat problem. It just doesn't make sense, Mr. President. And I don't believe the city's taking it seriously. And I agree with Councilor Falco and Councilor Scarpelli. We need to call for a meeting, Mr. President, pretty quickly to find out what the Board of Health's doing regarding this. We're bringing in as contractors, because clearly we don't have the bandwidth or the capacity to handle it internally. And secondly, Mr. President, as I stated before, and I'm not sure if the city's working on it or not, this council voted unanimously, uh, as part of, uh, the, uh, ordinance that we put together was to, uh, allow for a document that residents can sign that would release the city of Medford from any liability. If the city of Medford saw that they had, uh, you know, rat colonies on their property, and the resident was unable to afford it, or it was a non-owner occupied residency, that they could sign a form and have the city come in, because this is a public health crisis, no different than COVID. If there's a large nest of one property, that affects everyone on the street. And I believe it's the responsibility of the community as well as the city to step in, Mr. President, where need be. And we're at that point right now. So I would ask if the as an amendment to if the city administration has created that waiver form, I believe last I heard from the Board of Health, they were working on it. But if they create a waiver form that would allow residents to free the city from liability and assist residents in the containment and the control of pests in this community, i.e. rats, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Questions from Ms. Gale? Mr. President? Council Box? Thanks again, Senator. I appreciate all your time and effort on this. So, with Plan A, will we be able to address some of the concerns that were raised by this council regarding someone that may live up the heights and have to go down to the Roberts School to vote and not the Firefighters Club? Will we be able to address some of those issues within Plan A?
[Michael Marks]: We won't?
[Michael Marks]: Plan A is really no change at all, right?
[Michael Marks]: Right, right, correct. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, that's the way I understand it.
[Michael Marks]: So plan A wouldn't address some of the concerns that this council has had. I know Councilor Falco mentioned it and I mentioned it at the last meeting, with addressing some of the concerns of residents saying, why can't I vote at this precinct across the street from my house and I have to drive three miles? So, we can't address it with that. Potentially, we could address that with a plan B that creates the additional ward in the Wellington area and shift areas based on that?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank my colleague for offering this tonight, Mr. President. I see this a little differently, Mr. President, and I'm not opposed to tax deferments in our community. I think they could help some, but as what you heard tonight, Mr. President, There's less than a handful of people that actually choose to defer their taxes that are eligible. My issue, Mr. President, is not deferring taxes, but keeping taxes affordable in the community. And I think that's been a long, ongoing issue. And the more residents I bump into, in particular, seniors on fixed incomes, Mr. President, they're concerned about the raising of taxes and the talk that's been out there in the community about potential Proposition 2.5 overrides. And that scares a lot of seniors on fixed incomes, a lot of families that are struggling right now, Mr. President. And I think those are the conversations we should be having to assist the masses regarding taxes and allowing people to stay in the community. You know, we hear all the buzzwords about affordable housing. But when you keep on raising taxes and people can no longer live in the community, how affordable is that? And we can have all the discussions we want around deferments, but a deferment is a 5% tax on the tax that you're not paying. So, and that adds up, Mr. President. And as we raise taxes every year, and God forbid there's a two and a half override, that 5% grows because of the additional tax burden that we're placing every year on residents. So I think if we're going to get serious about looking at this, the issue is not to look at deferments, even if we raise the limits, you know, and another half a dozen people took advantage, you know, that doesn't reach the masses in the community. It doesn't reach the seniors that are struggling, Mr. President, not just with their tax bill, with their cable bill, Mr. President, with the cost of gas, with the cost of electricity, with the cost of oil, with everything going up simultaneously. That's what's hurting people right now. So I'd rather have the discussions on how are we going to keep our tax rate low? How are we going to look at other revenue sources? Are we talking about looking at generating other revenue? As our commercial property base shrinks, and it is, Mr. President, it's no secret, as it shrinks and they double the tax rate of residential, we are going to be shifting the burden, maybe not now, maybe not next year, but eventually to the residential taxpayer. So they're going to pay a higher tax rate because of the shrinking commercial base in this community. These are the discussions that the office of community development had, Mr. President. So, you know, I want to just make sure that we're sending the right message. And maybe this council should be sending a message that we want to entertain a proposition two and a half override. And that would allow a lot of people in this community to rest assure that whatever is done is according to the state statute, which is below two and a half, Mr. President, even that to many seniors is a tough pill to swallow. It's between getting your medicine or paying your taxes. Or eating. Or eating. And that's a bitter pill to swallow, Mr. President. And we have a lot of seniors. I've stated over and over again, we, Benford has a large percentage of seniors. So you may have bought your house 40 years ago for $130,000. Now it's worth $850,000. But you're property rich and money poor, Mr. President, because you're living on a pension from 1970 or 1960. And it's not keeping up with the rate of inflation. And this is what's happening. I hear it over and over again. How can we assist? And I tell people, in city government, it's inherent that, you know, that we have cost of living raises, we have contractual obligations. There's a lot going on, a lot of moving parts in the city. And I try to explain some of the modest increases that have happened. And this council, year after year, votes, Mr. President, to shift the burden to commercial. But eventually, the commercial businesses are saying, you know what? I'm not going to do business in Medford. They're crazy now. Their tax rate's ridiculous. I'll just go the next town over, and we'll set up shop there. And that's what we're seeing, Mr. President. And it's unfortunate, and the burden is going to be flipped to the residential taxpayer. Do we need to do things in the community? Absolutely. The projects that we need to work on that are outside the scope of a budget, absolutely. And those are the things we have to look at, Mr. President. And there are other avenues to address those issues. It's not just looking at a Prop 2.5 override. You can look at debt exclusion, which is a one-time fixed cost. for a particular project that needs to be done. So I'm not saying we should never move ahead on projects that we need to do in the community. What I'm saying is we have to be mindful. If we're going to talk about keeping people in their homes and making method affordable, you can't do both. You can't raise taxes to the limit and then look at two and a half overrides and say, I'm for affordability. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. And those are the discussions, Mr. President. Not an attempt, which I support. I was the one that lowered the age for senior property tax exemption from 70 to 65. That was my resolution back many years ago, Mr. President. Because the need was out there in the community, and it still exists out there in the community. And I hate to see people displaced because they can't afford to pay a property tax, Mr. President. And to me, a deferral is not the answer, especially when you keep raising taxes. That is not the answer. Does it help some? It may help some. According to the numbers, it doesn't look like it helps many in our community. I also want people to be aware, Mr. President, the Community Preservation Act. There is an exemption for persons with low or moderate income, and they should contact the assessor's office. If that's a burden to you, there's an exemption by state statute that allows you to be exempt from that. And people should be aware of that. You'd be surprised how many people are not aware of that. They don't know what the exemptions are. So that's another thing, Mr. President. There's the seniors over 70, disabled veterans in our community, which is a tax exemption, persons that are blind, Mr. President, and over 65 with low income. There's all sorts of criteria with those, but you can contact the assessor's office and they can walk you through the process. So I think we have to have that. I'm not going to be on the council come January, but these are the discussions that I hope to leave with my colleagues to be mindful that there is other people out in the community that aren't as, uh, uh, you know, um, in a better predicament, Mr. President, that are living day to day. You may not see them, you may not hear from them, but they're out there and they're struggling. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marksley. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess it's easy to always try to throw money at a problem. and not look at what currently exists and how you can work more efficiently, Mr. President. And, you know, it's easy to go back to the well unless you've paid a tax, unless you had to make a decision between your mortgage or your food or your medicine. So it's easy to talk in theory unless you actually lived that. And there's people in our community living it right now. So my concern, Mr. President, is not looking at a tax deferment that currently may assist a half a dozen people, and then if we change it, it assists a dozen people. That's being disingenuous. That's saying, oh, look what we're doing to assist. The issue is, Mr. President, the tax burden on our residents. That's the issue, not deferring someone's taxes. How magnanimous is that, that we'll keep on raising your taxes, may even go up over two and a half, but we'll let you defer it at 5%. I don't hear anyone talking about the 5%. That gets brushed under the rug. At 5%, we'll let you defer your taxes. So Mrs. McGlynn on High Street, we know you can't afford it, but on top of that, we're gonna charge you an additional 5% and we're gonna raise your taxes even higher than they were last year. That's how great we are. That's how much we care about the people on fixed incomes and the seniors and the families that are struggling right now. So I believe that, and I've seen this budget grow over the years, Mr. President, and city services have not gotten any better with the increase in budget. So it is a matter of priorities. And my priority would be to set a standard, Mr. President, when we talk about city services, that would be a standard that's set, that's currently not there. We have the money to operate this city. There's plenty of money to operate this city. We just have to work smarter, Mr. President. We got to be more efficient and we have to rely on those that have given to this community over the years and say, you know what? We're not going to force you out of the community now because we want to all of a sudden address everything under the sun. And if it takes a two and a half override, no one wants to talk about two and a half override. They'll come to the one yard line, but they won't push it over. No one wants to talk about a two and a half override. But if you listen carefully, you'll hear two and a half override. You'll hear the mumblings of a two and a half override, Mr. President. And I don't want to be there in a year from now telling residents, I told you so. That was the intent from the beginning, a two and a half override. And there's all this talk about affordability. How affordable is it when you have to move out of the city because you can't afford your taxes, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. And like I said from the beginning, I support this and I've supported this and any other tax deferment and tax exemption for the last 20 years. So I've been consistent on this. What I've been advocating against Mr. President is the steady increase of taxes over the years. And then the recent dialogue and discussion in this community about a prop two and a half override. That's what's getting me, Mr. President. That's what's getting me. And that's going to hurt a lot of good, hardworking people, a lot of seniors in this community, a lot of families that are struggling to make ends meet, sending their kids to school and so forth. And unless you're in that predicament, Mr. President, unless you've paid a tax, unless you've had to make a decision between food or medication or whether you're going to stay in your home, you really don't understand the issue. And giving a tax deferment is not the solve-all that's going to help a few limited people, Mr. President. That's what it boils down to. But if the council wants to spin their wheels on that and not talk about the larger issues on how we're going to operate a city, Mr. President, with the current infrastructure that we have and the current taxes that we have, then it's going to keep on going on and on, and it's going to be a never-ending race to the top, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Falco and Vice President Knight for putting this on. I've known Joe for a lot of years. When I first got on the council, Joe used to come to that podium. And let me tell you, you couldn't meet a man that was more animated when it came to issues impacting not only the fire department. He was a strong advocate, as Council Vice President Knight mentioned, for his union members. But he was also a very strong advocate for the residents of this community. And he'd be the first to stand up and make sure that we had the appropriate apparatus out there to make sure residents were safe, make sure that the firefighters had the latest and greatest equipment to make sure that residents were safe, Mr. President. And he truly spent his time advocating, not just on the local level, but on the state level as well. He was a fixture at the state house advocating for laws and additional funding, anything that would assist firefighters in their job, Mr. President, therefore making residents safer. So he will be sorely missed, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: President, can we take up public participation? We do have someone in the audience that would like to speak on Riverside Ave.
[Michael Marks]: Under suspension?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, this is right on the agenda. Okay. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, we have our resident Nate Merritt, Mr. President, from Riverside Ave that would like to address the issue of national grids work taking place at the corner of Locust and Riverside Ave.
[Michael Marks]: We have an item on our emergency. This was a level one leak that they were aware of. Remember we had these discussions when they were talking about the MWRA project with National Grid?
[Michael Marks]: This was a level one leak and the chief made the determination not to do the work during the day, but he gave them approval to do it at night. So that's why there wasn't proper notification, but I agree. There should be some type of notification.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, this is probably an ideal time because, Nate, you're probably aware there's going to be a major project done there relatively soon. With the MWRA and all that? A major, major project that's already been approved. So you're talking close to, I think, six, I think it was three to six months.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I don't know.
[Michael Marks]: Well, we asked them to hold off. They wanted to do it before Christmas, and we asked them to hold off. But it is going to happen. It's a major infrastructure improvement that they're making. And that's when they told us about the level one gas leaks. But I just want to say, Mr. President, when Nate reached out to me, I reached out to Dan Cameron immediately from National Grid. And he was very attentive. He addresses the issues immediately. It may not have been the answer that we wanted, but he immediately responded. And I just want to thank Dan Kiff.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, move suspension of the rules, Mr. President, to take paper 21-571. And after that, Mr. President, to take public participation out of order.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if we could. There is several petitions before us, all of similar subject matter. I would ask that we take them all together, Mr. President. You read it once and we'll take them all together and allow the petitioners to come up and speak.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the speakers, Mr. President, who took the time to come up. And also, Mr. President, the time to relay the story of what they've been through over the past year. That's not an easy thing, Mr. President, especially in this day and age. And this council has gone on record on a number of occasions denouncing different issues within this community and sending a message, even on issues we have no authority on. sending a message if we felt strongly enough, Mr. President. And I truly believe that this is one of those issues. My opinion, Mr. President, when you have an anonymous site, as was stated by the speakers, you have a site that you can't refer to anyone. There's no contact. All it is, Mr. President, is a hate-filled site, a site used to bully, Mr. President, to defame, to slander, to maliciously misrepresent good people in our community. And I think everyone has to stand behind this and say, we're not going to tolerate it, whether it's this issue, Mr. President, or the issue we had last week. We had a petition that come before us, a Method resident, an artist that put up a banner that was approved and commissioned by the parks department to put up the banner and the banners were ripped down, Mr. President. And every member of this council was outraged because the banner was taken down, Mr. President and ripped down, outraged. And I would hope that outrage, Mr. President, continues and carries on, because now we're not dealing with a bayonet. We're dealing with human beings. We're dealing with lives, families, businesses of people in our community, long-respected people in our community. So I would hope that same outrage that I had last week continues this week, Mr. President, because hate is hate no matter where it is, no matter who it happens to. It's hate, Mr. President. And that can't be tolerated. We have a policy, Mr. President, about cyberbullying within our schools, here within the city. I can't think of any better example of cyberbullying than the Method racist site. That's cyberbullying, and I'm glad it's being investigated by the Method police, as you stated, Mr. President. I'm glad it's being investigated on the state level as well, because that site immediately needs to be taken down, Mr. President. And I have no problem, and I'd like to do it in the form of two motions. because I respect my colleagues for saying that maybe part of the original motion that was recommended by some of the public was not under our bailiwick and it involves the mayor. And I respect that. So I would respectfully ask Mr. President that we break it into two forms of resolutions and motions. The first one being, And it's a little different wording than the petitioner offered, but I'm willing to look at that language as well. But I would like to offer Mr. President, the motion that be it resolved that the method city council denounce the anonymous hate filled website, racist of method for its defamation, slander, malicious misrepresentation, and abusive attack on the character, reputation, and good name of Method residents. That would be the first motion. I do have it written down, Mr. Clerk, and I will get it to you. Well, let me just offer the second one, Mr. President. The reason why I split it is because I believe everyone behind this reeling wants to stamp out hatred and racism. I believe that, Mr. President, strongly, with all my heart. And I believe that first motion does this. Second motion is be it resolved that the mayor's response to the police rally be taken down from the City of Methods website. That would be the second one, Mr. President. and members could decide on their own whether we want to just send a statement. And again, it's up to the mayor if she wants to take that down, if we want to send a statement or not, Mr. President. But that way, we divide both. I want to thank the speakers for coming up. You know, when I ran for public office, Mr. President, I ran to fix sidewalks, lower taxes, help our seniors, affordable housing, You know, the basic city of Medford issues. And now we seem to be getting in to a lot of other issues, Mr. President. And so be it. I change with the times. I move with the flow. But as I stated last week, let's get back to the business at hand. We have a lot of important items on our table, Mr. President, that we need to move forward on. And I think, unfortunately, we're spending a lot of time on issues, as my colleague stated, that really don't involve this council. But then again, we are the only sounding board in the city. Where else do you go? I guess you can get your soapbox and go in front of Colleen's, but where else do you go in the community? This has always been the people's forum, as former President Mayorkas would say. This was the people's forum. And whether we like what's being said or not, public participation allows people to get up and air and vent, Mr. President. And it's our obligation and duty to listen and, if be, react. And I think this is one of the moments where we have to react and denounce. Thank you, Mr. President. Go.
[Michael Marks]: No, it was on the agenda, Mr. President. I guess it was taken out of order, but it's on the agenda.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. If I could, no one behind this reel is going to vote to limit speech. We're voting to limit hate. That's what we're voting, Mr. President. This is to limit hate. That's exactly what this is, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: The government should take down this private website. I have the floor, Mr. President. My motion... I have the floor, thank you. My motion... And your point of information is long over. My motion, Mr. President, was to denounce. It wasn't to limit, Mr. President. So it was to denounce. And this council has denounced many things, particularly in the last year and a half, Mr. President. And we can go through the list, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I didn't know I was serving with F. Lee Bailey now, but I guess I am, Mr. President. Wow, you know, it's nice to have our facts straight. Yeah, Mr. President, you know, I wish the outrage applied to both sides, Mr. President. I wish the outrage, you know, when someone's getting up there and stating how it hurt their family, and members of this body can't even look them in the eye and are fidgeting with papers, Mr. President. But when it comes to taking When it comes to taking a plastic banner down, the outrage was palpable. That plastic banner was palpable, Mr. President. And I supported that, Mr. President, last week. And I supported that. But I equally support, Mr. President, human beings that come up and say that this website has had a dramatic impact on their lives. whether we can control it or not, and I understand that. I understand we can't control it, but we can send a message. This council sends plenty of messages, and that's what we've been doing for the past several years, and in particular for the past year and a half. Regarding social media, this is not a post between one person and another. This is a dedicated website to attack and harm people. And the list keeps growing. So when we say, when is it going to stop? It's never going to stop. You know why? Because no one's standing up, Mr. President. That's why it's never going to stop. This website started well over a year ago. This is the first time that someone has come up to this podium asking about this website or asking that we denounce it. It's been over one year, Mr. President. So the people listed on this website haven't got out. They haven't been vigilantes. They're not taking the law into their own hands. They were waiting for the process to play out, for the investigation. And from what I hear, we're towards the end of the investigation. So what you see right now is residents standing up after one year, Mr. President, of being put through the stories that we heard, the businesses, the people, the families that were hurt. and finally say, we've had enough. And I think they have every right to do so. And as long as I'm on this council, you know, it's only for a couple more months, but as long as I'm on this council, this will be the people's forum to allow them to come up. This will always be the people's forum, Mr. President. And I'm not going to shy away from the issue. Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[Michael Marks]: I'd be more than happy to read.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, the first motion is be resolved that the method city council denounce the anonymous hate filled website, racist of method for its defamation, slander, malicious misrepresentation, and abusive attack on the character reputation in good name of method residents.
[Michael Marks]: Read that back. So the way I understand it, be it resolved that the method city council denounced the anonymous hate filled website, racist method period.
[Michael Marks]: Second motion is be it resolved that the mayor's response to the police rally, uh, be taken down from the city web, uh, city of methods website.
[Michael Marks]: A link to be posted- President, I move that you waive the remainder of the reading and just give a brief synopsis. Do we have somebody from National Grid on the call here?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Vice President. Councilor Bates.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Marino name and address for the record, please. Just press the button. Is the mic on? Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Vice President Knight. I think this is a magnificent idea. I read an article on the Medford transcript that stated that Medford residents had their say in the redesign. There was a meeting at Carr Park, which they had some boards up, and that was great to notify residents. I'm not truly sure how much of a say in the redesign is going to happen during that period of time. I think the creation of an advisory committee really makes sure that the stakeholders are there during the negotiations and are there during the aspects of the design of the park, the use of the park, what they'd like to see, and I think it's vital that the advisory committee be accepted because, like we did with Lawrence Memorial Hospital, the creation of that advisory committee, which was comprised of area residents, was the eyes and ears of the project as it went along. And the questions that got brought up were usually brought up by the advisory committee members, alerting city officials or, uh, you know, government officials. Uh, so I think this is, I support this a thousand percent. I'd like to see this done on every project, to be quite honest with you. I think there should be some type of policy where these advisory boards, uh, created automatically, uh, in order to safeguard the residents. So I support this wholeheartedly.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is the first celebration of being 100 years young that I've had since I've been on the council. Frank Mills, for anyone that knows him, he was at a Veterans Memorial celebration at the cemetery just recently, Mr. President. He's up and about in this community. He's been an active member of this community. Frank Mills has been married 71 years, Mr. President. And I might add, to his sweetheart, 71 years, Lena Andrea Tola. 71 years marriage. That's a lifetime, Mr. President. And it's amazing. He's been in Method over 75 years of the 100. So when they talk about lifelong Method residents, Frank Mills is one of the best, Mr. President. He owned a grocery store on Riverside Ave many years ago. And from what I hear, he was the kindest person you'd want to bump into. You know, if you had a need, Frank Mills was there to assist. And that's just the way he was. He always operated his life that way. He coached St. Joseph's CYO basketball and baseball teams, and they both won championships. Um, you know, and, uh, you know, back in his early days, uh, hazma Pontiac, you remember hazma Pontiac on mystic have, uh, mr. President, uh, Frank sold cars many, many, many years ago, uh, on mystic have, and, uh, he truly is a gentleman, mr. President. He's an outstanding citizen of this community. And I would ask that we recognize him for being 100 years young. And we send them a citation. recognizing him, Mr. President, for that.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, you have someone that's at home right now, that didn't know their name was going to be mentioned, that watches every Tuesday. And you can imagine the surprise when you sit there, right, after all the dialogue we have, and you hear your name mentioned. Gene Cipriani. It's amazing, Mr. President. Ninety years young. sweetheart of a woman, Mr. President. I've known Jean for decades. She raised a beautiful family in this community. Ray and Rose, many people know Ray and Rose, very active in their community, Mr. President. They were staples for many decades on Dexter Street in South Method, very active at their church, Mr. President, and still maintain their active nature at their church. giving people, people that will do anything for other residents of this community, has stepped forward to volunteer on a number of issues. And as I said, Jean can tell you, each and every statement, every member of this council has made over the years. You can't hide from Jean. She'll tell you a record when you bump into her. She'll let you know what you stood for, what you didn't stand for, and how you can improve. And let me tell you, she's a great woman, Mr. President, a true family woman. And I want to congratulate her on being 90 years young. Congratulations, Jean. Happy birthday, Jean.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I could support something that will request what is the city's policy on vaccination and so forth. I would not support any of the vaccination rates of municipal employees, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? I too would just like to wish the residents and all the parishioners of St. Francis 100 celebration and many, many more years, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: do you recognize this Councilor Marks? Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank President Caraviello for bringing this issue up. My line of questioning is similar to what Councilor Morell just offered. What was the job specification on this if it called for granted curbing, which I believe it did. And according to the contractor, They weren't able to get granted curbing, then to me, you would put in a temporary maybe concrete curbing until you're able to get the granted. One does not take the place of the other. We were told recently that the structural integrity and in the building material, a similar nature. concrete and granite curbing are not similar in nature, and I'm not a building expert, but I don't think you need to be a building expert to figure that out, Mr. President. And if it's gonna stay this way, which I hope it's not, Mr. President, what is the difference in the contractual price that went out for bid with this particular company? And did the city approve the changing of materials? That's key, because if you're a homeowner and they're going to do work on your home and decided to do you something of less of value and less equality, you would raise an issue right and say as a homeowner say, I didn't pay for that I paid for this, and the city should do the same as the President, and if it's a matter of waiting some time. until granite is available, then so be it. But the job needs to be done right. As Councilor Falco mentioned, at the McGlynn Andrews School, we've had countless concerns regarding crumbling concrete curbing around that whole infrastructure. And it's been a nightmare for public safety, Mr. President. So I would just pose that question as well. If the city did approve them to move forward and gave it the A-OK, in that we as a community wait till granite is available in order to have that installed in place of the concrete curbing. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Someone that has their hand up. Who has their hand up? Christopher Leary.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, it's important to note too, for the edification of the viewing audience that the council's vote tonight is a recommendation to the city administration. We don't have the authority to stop a project in the community. However, the city administration does, and this is a recommendation to the city administration.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Clerk? We want to let the mayor know the importance of this, Mr. President. Absolutely. Mr. Clerk, the roll call vote has been called. Will the clerk please call the roll?
[Michael Marks]: Motion to revert, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll be brief because this resolution that's on tonight was a result of the resolution that was offered by this council unanimously last Tuesday that came under suspension. And the reason why we could not give it a formal vote, Mr. President, is the fact that it appeared on the agenda under suspension and the open meeting rules require that the item that we vote on appear on the agenda. So we requested that it appear on tonight's agenda agenda so we could take a formal vote for reinstatement. Um, it's a little troubling to me, Mr. President. It's now 12 days since Mike Durham, a veterans officer, was walked out of City Hall. Um, and According to the letter that was written by the administration, there is no corrective action being taken against Mike Durham. That was part of the letter. So the city is not putting Mike Durham on corrective action. What they did state to Mike Durham is that they will handpick a physician a psychiatrist that Mike needs to go to to submit to a psychological exam. That was 12 days ago. If anyone felt that there was need for Mike Durham to submit to a psychological exam, that should have been done immediately, immediately. The urgency of a psychological exam should take place immediately. It's 12 days now. Mike Durham went on his own to the VA hospital in Bedford. He met with a nurse for 45 minutes and they conducted an evaluation. He met with a board registered psychiatrist for 45 minutes that came out with a multi-page document stating that more or less, and I'm not gonna quote, because I don't have the report in front of me, that Mike was fit to go back to work. No underlying issues, he was fit to come back to work. Here we are 12 days later, that report was sent to the administration, and the administration still sticks by, they wanna have their own person evaluate Mike. To me, Mr. President, I think we're getting into a very slippery slope when you have someone that's a whistleblower, that brought up potential fraud, potential wage theft that's going on in this community, and brought it to his superiors, which he should have done. And then to have this type of action taken against this employee to me, is not acceptable, Mr. President. It reeks of retaliation. Leaving someone out of work for almost two weeks now, not knowing when he's gonna get this call to go see this particular doctor is unacceptable. In particular, it's unacceptable when there's no corrective action against this particular employee. The employee has unblemished record in this community. Check out his personnel file. It speaks volumes when you look at it. A gentleman that's gone over and above the call of duty, not just in the city, but the call of duty to this nation. So, Mr. President, I am really troubled that this is going on for so long, that we can't get back to the business at hand of running and operating our community. And we're focusing on an issue, in my opinion, that we shouldn't be focusing on. We should be looking at the wage theft and potential fraud. That's what we should be looking at. As I stated last week, In the federal government, a whistleblower gets congratulated. They get compensated in certain circumstances. In the city of Medford, they ask you to take a psychological exam and they kick you out of work. And they tell you, you can't go in a municipal building. What does he say when he has to go have a parent-teacher meeting? You can't talk to other city employees. That sounds like a corrective action to me, Mr. President. Again, I'm very disturbed about this. I would hope the city administration that talks about transparency all the time will be transparent and come up and discuss the issue with the other legislative body, the elected body in this community, and put this behind us, and that is yet to happen. So my vote tonight, Mr. President, will be the vote I took last week to respectfully ask the mayor, who's the only one that can reinstate Mike Durham in this community, to respectfully ask the mayor to reinstate Mike Durham. And let's not continue to play out personnel matters, as the mayor always refers to it, I can't discuss it, personnel matter. Can't discuss it, personnel matter. Personnel matter. The council can't meet in emergency meeting or executive session, that's a personnel matter. However, these personnel matters are finding their way into social media. I don't know how they're getting there. Some even say confidential at the top. The private investigator, Mr. President, that was hired by this administration, hand selected, is not so independent. The private investigator that was hired, Mr. President. And the record should reflect that. And it was stated here before the council. If need be, we can pull the tapes. It was handpicked by the administration. So from now on, Mr. President, If you can handpick the judge you go before or the investigator that's investigating you, that's a society I don't want to live in. It's a report I don't put any trust or confidence or faith in, Mr. President. This council asked, right, if we could hire our own investigator to look into it. It takes it off the mayor's table so it doesn't look like the fix is in. The mayor would not fund that, refused to give us one red nickel, Mr. President, to hire our own investigator. We all know it came back. The report came back, and the report found that there was no wrongdoing here at City Hall. I would have had more respect if they said, you know what, we did find a little something and maybe this could improve or that could improve. Nothing at all, Mr. President. And it sends a message to everyone else in this community. If you know something's going wrong, don't stand up. Don't be a whistleblower. Don't put your neck on the line like Mike Durham did because they'll go after you. They'll go after your family and they'll make sure they hurt you. And that's what's happening right now. They're hurting a good man and his family. And I want to thank this council for standing up. I also have to go on record, Mr. President, because Saturday, when we asked the administration to appear, The administration supposedly sent an email on the Friday to members of the council stating that they could not attend. No one from the administration was going to come to our planned meeting on Saturday. All I can tell you, Mr. President, is as one member of the council, I did not receive that email. Excuse me. I did not receive that email from the administration. I've been using the same email in this community for 26 years. And the administration knows there's members of this council that opted not to use the city email and have been using their own email. And they know how to communicate. I get lots of email. I got two today from the administration on my correct email. But Friday, I got it on a different email that I don't use, Mr. President. And it happened to go out that this letter that was sent was now leaked on social media, stating that the council lied on Saturday. The council stated that they weren't notified that the administrations weren't showing up, that the administration wasn't showing up. And indeed, Mr. President, we didn't receive it. I can say four members of the seven did not receive the email, Mr. President. That was not a lie. I haven't lied in 26 years. I'm not gonna start now on my way out, Mr. President. I'm not gonna start now. We did not receive that. So to play this out in the media and go back and forth is a complete disgrace. And I would hope that this administration comes to their senses, Mr. President. and resolves this issue before it goes any further. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank you for co-sponsoring this resolution. Dr. Edward Butler has been a staple in this community for four decades. In particular, Mr. President, serving as an internal medicine doctor and infectious disease doctor at Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Dr. Butler served on the Method Board of Health for a number of years, Mr. President. and was always available, according to the brave men and women of our police and fire department, to be available for the departments of police and fire for communicable diseases and exposure, Mr. President, which many in law enforcement and our fire department come in contact with on a daily basis. Dr. Butler was a professor of community health at Tufts University. He also served at many roles at LMH as the Director of Medical Affairs, Chief of Staff, Senior Vice President of Medical Affairs, and Chief Academic Officer of Hallmark Health Systems. He received a number of distinguished awards over the years. In 2012, he won the Ken Kaplan MD Award of the Massachusetts Infectious Disease Society, 2001, he won the Middlesex Medical Society Physician of the Year Award. Dr. Buck was named three times to Boston Magazine Best Doctors. He was a recipient of the Hallmark Health Hero Award and was in a number of publications, which I won't mention them at all, but the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Society for Microbiology, to name a few, Mr. President. Here's a gentleman that when you met him, honestly, you would never know he was a physician. He was a down-to-earth person. He was one that cared about his community, cared about his patients, Mr. President, and he will sorely be missed. He had a tremendous office in there that assisted him. He would be the first to tell you that he didn't do this alone for four decades. His team consisted of Maureen Hayes that was with him for 36 years. I think that says a lot when someone stays with you for 36 years, Mr. President. I think it speaks volumes on his character, how he treated his staff, how he treated his patients, and the type of man Dr. Butler is, Mr. President. Nancy Mahoney, 20 years. Charlene Devaney and Julianne Bartolino, who was the medical assistant for a number of years, Mr. President. I know they're having a retirement party for Dr. Butler tomorrow. I want to make sure that we get a resolution. I know, Mr. President, I think you forwarded a resolution to thank Dr. Butler I already have it. Thank you, Mr. President. For all his years and commitment to the residents of this community, he did a great job in protecting us during the past two years of COVID, being an infectious disease doctor. He was the resident expert in this community. And many agencies, businesses look to Dr. Butler for his advice. And that included city departments, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. President. Again, I want to thank him and let him know and his staff that they will be sorely missed. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: What information, Councilor Marks? Just so I understand, because when you say the artwork, you're saying they originally approved and went on a website and saw all your artwork and then approved the artwork as well as giving you approval to use the parks.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to make sure we're talking. You're saying by the park board or some other entity?
[Michael Marks]: They can't approve to put something up in a public park. That has to be done by the Parks Commission.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to make sure we're on the same page. So you're saying the Park Commission was the one that approved
[Michael Marks]: So you're saying that was all in a making sure it was yes.
[Michael Marks]: So when was the actual vote, if you could, just, I know you just- May 2021. May 2021. And that encompassed the approval to be in the PACS and the approval- For this specific project.
[Michael Marks]: So that was May 2021.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. I think they meet, when do they meet? First Monday, okay, so we could find out.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: no matter where they came from, if they were born here, if they weren't born here, Mr. President, what information Council about when you mentioned community wide programming, how is this publicized? How is it advertised? You may be aware, you're the contractor, the park board may be aware, the mayor's office may be aware, but how is this advertised? Because you said the thing was, partly to bring up conversations and dialogue. So I'm just wondering, do these just appear in a park? And how are you going to gather dialogue and conversation when no one knows what's going on, something just apparently appears and people reacted? I mean, so, so I think part of it, we have to realize maybe, you know, some of the blame pie was how is this sent out to the community? I couldn't agree more. To notify, right?
[Michael Marks]: So why wasn't that part of this grant? Why wasn't this, right? Why wasn't this part of the total picture? And I think what we see right now is you're right. There's a lot of division in this community. And to me, one way to head that off is to have open dialogue. And, you know, it would have been nice maybe to promote this like every other event. Yeah, I'm going to an event Oktoberfest and and the may has been promoting that up and down. It would have been nice to have some promotion. You know, maybe you would have got people out saying, Hey, geez, what is this? What does this stand for? Why is this? Why? Who knows? But maybe we would have had that. And I don't think we allow that to take place.
[Michael Marks]: I'm good. I don't think you know what, how it was publicized and the way a trend, you know, transpired. I don't think was enough notification really to alert residents that first of all, there's something going on, right? Love to go down and check it out. I didn't know about it until I heard, you know, someone else saying it was ripped down. I would have loved to went by. I'm very active with the Methodist council. Right. So, first of all, I would have loved to hear it. And I think, secondly, I think it would have head off, maybe some of this supposed intention or whatever existed, it would have headed it off so I just think that that's the way I would have handled it.
[Michael Marks]: We don't know who tore him down, Mr. President. So I'm not sure it's fair to say members of this community. So I would just caution the speaker that we don't know who tore him down, Mr. President. I just want to put that out there.
[Michael Marks]: want to speak? I think you want to speak.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. I agree with that, Mr. President. Mr. President, if I could, because when we're talking about division, I think that's an important topic. And I also think it's important, Mr. President, when we say create dialogue, it's not helpful when people create anonymous websites listing the 10 most racist people in Medford. That's not helpful either, Mr. President. So I believe strongly that, you know, if we want to have dialogue and move together as one, We can't have this back and forth, Mr. President. And I would hope the same attention to this website, Mr. President, that's currently still out there that names, I believe it's over 10 Method residents as the top racist in the city, some pretty prominent business owners and activists and people in this community. I think that equally needs to be brought up as well, Mr. President, because in my opinion, that is unacceptable as well. And that deserves the very same nature, uh, Mr. President of attention, uh, by, uh, the, the authorities as well. And, uh, I'm under the impression that is being looked at Mr. President, but I want to make sure we, you know, we put all the cards on the table and, and that to be is healthy. That's dialogue. That's discussion. And it can't be one way discussion. It has to be, uh, throughout the entire community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank councilor beers for putting this on. Um, you know, we, we voted a while back. I think it's been over a year now to declare racism, a public health crisis in the city. And I must say, Mr. President, in this past year, I haven't heard from the diversity director at all regarding racism as a public health crisis. I haven't heard from our Human Rights Commission at all. I know they meet. I know they discuss these issues. They haven't presented before the council. They haven't raised any concerns to this council, Mr. President. And secondly, as Councilor Falco mentioned, You know, it was this council that stood up not too long ago when the mayor said, you know what, we're going to take our diversity director. We're going to make the diversity director, the human resource director as well. So you had a full-time diversity director. Now we're going to combine the positions for one person to take on both roles. And we're also going to ask that diversity director and human resource officer in the community, chief people officer, now, Mr. President, to also look at all the parking herring violations in the community and be the arbitrator of the parking violations. This person would have three jobs. And then you wonder why, when Councilor Falco said, who's leading this? Who's leading the charge? You know who's leading it? Nobody, Mr. President. because they're taking positions and they're watering them down. And that's why this council stood up and said the diversity director is far too important of a position to combine the roles and then give other ad hoc responsibilities. Because we knew, the members of the council knew, if you did that, you'd water down the position. And it's far too important of an issue, Mr. President, to water down the issue. And that's what's happening right now. And that's why we don't have any correspondence. That's why there's no follow-up. Yeah, the buck stops with the mayor, but there's also others in this community, Mr. President. A commission on human rights, a diversity director, and others, Mr. President, that should be equally as involved pushing the envelope. You know, we talk about having dialogue in the parks and so forth. That's what should be happening by the director of diversity, which I haven't heard from in over a year regarding any diversity issues. Correct me if I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't heard anything, Mr. President. And we haven't had any dialogue with the human rights commission. And I know they mean I've watched their meetings of what I know they're discussing these issues, but guess what? It's in a vacuum and that's where it stays. So to have meaningful dialogue, it's great to have these roadmaps and so forth, and you have these round table discussions, and then after that, it kind of dies off, it peters off. Let's face it, after that, there's no centralized focus on this. And if we're going to get serious, that's what we need, Mr. President. We don't need to water down positions and make one person the chief of everything. And meanwhile, nothing gets done because they're the chief of everything. And that's what's happening. It's exactly what's happening. And I'm glad my college stood up and fought not to combine those positions, Mr. President. It was a tough vote. because they were trying to sell it. Geez, look at this. It's excellent to have the head of diversity as the director of human resources. It may be a good idea, Mr. President, but we all knew one person that was far too big of a role for one person in this community. And I'm glad we took the stance, to be quite frank with you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: One person doing the job?
[Michael Marks]: We've been in a pandemic, things change. So that's a big difference, Jen, having it fully staffed and having one role combined, which we know is going to limit that person in that capacity. That goes without saying.
[Michael Marks]: Thanks to this council. You're absolutely right. Mr. President, if I may, if I may get us back straight quick point of information.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Cindy Watson for coming up. It's been a long time resident of this community and an advocate on a lot of issues, including Chevalier Auditorium, and I thank you for the friends of Chevalier and all you've done, your efforts, and I appreciate that. Mr. President, it was back probably now close to three years ago that I was approached by a number of artists in the community. They knew back some 10, 12 years ago, I sat on the vision committee to make the Swan School an art center. And as you probably remember, Cindy, back then, it lost the vote of this council by one vote. We almost had an art center coupled with local public access at the Swan School. And that was very traumatic for many of the artists that put countless hours and time into that, making that building an art center, which we all know is needed. So about three years ago, I was approached by some of the artists. I formed a group, Mr. President. We actually met on a rather monthly, every couple of months basis at Maple Park Condominiums. It was comprised of a number of artists in the community. We did look at the old Hegner Center as a potential art center. We had architects come in to look at the building and what the cost would be to refurbish that into an art center. We were talking about having public art classes at no cost for Medford residents, small art studios there, and have a full-fledged art center. And over the past three years, Mayor Burke was, I'd say, on board and committed to leaving that building open for us. Mayor Lungo-Koehn was committed to leaving that building open to us over the years. We've asked for it to be trimmed, which they have. I know personally, I dealt with Paul Moki. We had the roof showed up because it was raining inside the building, to be quite honest with you. And we were concerned that we would get a building for the art center that was in such deplorable condition that it was going to be cost prohibitive for the artist. So we asked that the roof be showed up. And over time, Mr. President, I think there's been countless resolutions by each member of this council to make sure that that building is at least kept up. There is a group that uses that building. We've all got calls regarding the organization. What is it? the middle six, that uses that building, the city allows them to use the building for training purposes. So it's police officers from all these surrounding communities go in there and use that building for training services. because a number of residents in your building saw police going in there all the time and thought something was happening, but they're using it for training purpose. But needless to say, to make this story short, because it's getting late, the group that I formed back some couple of years ago, we now have the possibility of another building in the community that may be rent-free, more parking, larger space, and a real suit for the art community for an art center. And that's been our focus for the last probably close to a year, and it's been taken away from the Hegner Center. So I would, it's fair to say that whatever's being done in that building right now is not involved with looking at a new art center. for the time being. And I would agree that that building something needs to happen. Mr. President, we saved the building. If members of this council remember the mayor, Mayor Burke, try to sell that building off.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, they were trying to get rid of that building. Mr. President, this council saved the building, the deeds at the registry deed stated if there was no longer being used for that purpose of providing social services for the impaired, Mr. President, that it would revert back to the city. It was a little-known document. The building ended up being reverted back to us. It's worth $600,000 or $700,000, I believe the assessed value is. And indeed, it's a building that we should take care of, even if we don't have plans for it. As Cindy stated, it's across, it's in a neighborhood, it's across from the condominiums over there that keep excellent care of their property. in their property values. And I would go along with Councilor Falco that we ask immediately that whatever roof repairs, temporary roof repairs need to be done and work around the building be done immediately in the interest of public safety. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Vice President Knight for putting this on. In all the years that I've had in this committee, Mr. President, you never heard anyone once say that all the elections are not fair, or the elections are this, or the elections are that. General Lasky, Judith Murray have run the elections in this community, along with the staff, Mr. President, in a way that gives us the trust and confidence that we're running elections, Mr. President, in the manner that they should be. And I just want to thank them both for their many, many years of service. It's a thankless job, Mr. President, especially on election day, as the clerk can attest to, Mr. President. And I want to thank them both for their many years of dedicated service.
[Michael Marks]: Do you want you to answer for him? Press stop.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I read the records, find them to be in order and move approval. On the motion.
[Michael Marks]: regarding deliveries. Is the hour of delivery is going to change due to this petition?
[Michael Marks]: Correct.
[Michael Marks]: That's going to, it's all going to be the same as it currently exists. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Have any of these positions been posted?
[Michael Marks]: All positions?
[Michael Marks]: So is it the intent of the administration not to fill the position until the CAF is created?
[Michael Marks]: Right. But we just, uh, I think it was your recommendation to lay it on the table for one week. So it's not going to be approved tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Come back to that. That's not the way I understood it. So, um, that's up to the council. That's not the way I understood it. Mr. President, my apologies. That's up to the council council.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right, just motion and table.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Council Member.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe we have a number of residents that would like to speak on a community issue, Mr. President. On the public participation? Yes. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Susan for all her work in our community. You do great work, you and the community housing group. Susan, roughly, how many affordable units have been created through CPA funds to date?
[Michael Marks]: So, these are the first three since we enacted CPA Many Preservation Act and these are the first three affordable units.
[Michael Marks]: First, first funding. Um roughly and I don't want to put you on the spot but how many affordable in the city of Medford. Do you have any idea?
[Michael Marks]: Yours and if you happen to know the city numbers, that would be great.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So, how many is your organization?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And where are those located, Susan?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and where was the previous one? I didn't get that.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And does your organization look at property location when we establish affordable housing in the community? Are we looking to make sure that every neighborhood gets affordable housing and they're not just centralized in certain areas?
[Michael Marks]: So that is a factor you look at locations to make sure they're dispersed throughout the community.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Thank you very much. Appreciate your work.
[Michael Marks]: Residents here that would like to speak under public participation.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. I want to thank Mrs. Durham. I know that was extremely difficult. And from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you for appearing before us tonight. Mr. President, When Mike Durham was asked to leave the building, his last request when he was being escorted out by two police officers was that, I have a veteran coming in next Tuesday that faces homelessness. And in addition to that, maybe suicidal. And I want to make sure, if I'm not in that office, that there's someone there that has the whereabouts and knowledge to address her concerns. And I think that speaks volumes, Mr. President, about his character and about a man who is committed to his job over anything else. And I think that's what leads us to where we are right now. And I always like to simplify things, right? Because you hear a lot going, who said what? Who said this? Is this politically motivated? So I like to simplify. So it's my understanding we had, and it could be anyone, we had a city employee who was a whistleblower say, I believe there's some wrongdoing going on at City Hall. Right? An employee. If you had a private business and someone stepped forward, you'd shake their hand and congratulate them and say, thank you for bringing this to my attention. And this particular employee, Mr. President, didn't just throw out accusations, but line them up with facts in which he sent to the administration and what she sent to this council time after time after time, Mr. President. And to date, to date, I won't speak for my colleagues, I have yet to receive any information that this council has requested on this specific allegation, Mr. President, or the allegation that was mentioned by the city employee. I've yet to receive one iota of information. Maybe the city administration's still working on that, Mr. President, I don't know. But to me, you don't vilify an employee who's standing up and saying there's a wrongdoing, there's a potential wage theft, whatever you want to refer to it as. Immediately, the administration should have looked into it and came out with a finding. And we wouldn't still be discussing this, Mr. President. But instead, the administration sought to take a whistleblower, and the federal government, like I said, they praise whistleblowers. They compensate whistleblowers. In the city of Medford, they give you the perp walk outside, and they ask you to go for a psychological exam if you're a whistleblower. That can't continue to happen in this community, because it's sent, It's sending a lousy message, Mr. President, to other potential whistleblowers, other potential employees, other potential residents that want to come forward and say, you know what? I think there's something happening here. But you know what? I'm not going to say anything, because remember that poor Mike Durham, what they put him and his family through? I'm going to keep my mouth shut. And that's a lousy environment to work under. So I would ask, Mr. President, and I agree with my colleague, that really, we need to find out what's going on regarding the allegations, Mr. President. This is one of several. What's going on with the allegations? We haven't received an update. And I would also ask, Mr. President, as my council colleagues both asked, that might be reinstated as well. Because as far as I'm concerned, if there's no employee action, which the letter I read stated that the city of Medford did not put Mike Durham on any type of corrective action, but they did tell Mike Durham, you're not allowed in any municipal buildings in the community. They did tell him you can't talk to any city employees. So I don't know how you put someone that's not on corrective action and tell them they're not allowed in a city building. and not allowed to go to a parent-teacher conference, which is a city building, Mr. President. I don't know how that happens. To me, I'm not an attorney, but that doesn't sound right, where you exclude someone from a public building that's not on any type of corrective action, Mr. President. So those are my comments. I hope we can get past this, Mr. President. I hope we can retain a person of Mike's character, his integrity at City Hall, because that's the type of integrity and character we need. That's what we need, Mr. President. And tonight, I don't wanna be the bearer of bad news, but when items don't come on the agenda, so we have an agenda every night, or every Tuesday, so we have an agenda. And if an item comes on under suspension, which means it's not on the agenda, typically the council, like we're doing now, we could talk about it, but we're not supposed to take a formal vote. And that's with any issue. It has nothing to do with Mike's issue. That's just open and transparent government. So we can't work on things that aren't on the agenda. And people say, well, gee, I didn't see that on the agenda. How'd the council vote on that? So we can offer that tonight and take the vote next week. And, uh, you know, but that's, that's how this council operates. Um, and it's always been our, uh, operation policy and procedure. So I supported 110% of asking that, uh, we move it forward tonight and take the formal vote, which is required because it'll appear on the agenda next week for a formal vote. Um, and that's what I would recommend my colleagues doing this, Mr. President. Uh, but I want to thank everyone for coming up tonight and supporting, Mike on this issue. Thank you. I am. I am good, Mr. President. Thank you. Name and address, please.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President, because when people come up to the council, they think the council has the final say. So I just want people, I'm all for open and transparency. When the council votes, it's a recommendation. The mayor does not have to follow this council's recommendation. So just so people know, even if there was an affirmative vote tonight, that doesn't mean Mike will be back tomorrow or the next day. It's up to the city administration and the mayor. So I- No, I just want to be clear. I don't want people to leave thinking once we, I don't want people to leave thinking one thing once we take a vote. So I like to be open and honest and clear. So I just want to lay that out there that that's, you know, and the one thing I didn't state in the speech when Mike mentioned about this particular veteran is that he requested not only him, but through his attorney, that that office be staffed immediately in his absence. And that was a request of the attorney and also a request of Mike Durham. So whether the city administration falls up on that or has someone there, I don't know. There's someone from the administration here tonight that may be able to respond to whether that office is staffed and is accepting concerns from residents. But that may be a good question to ask at this point. Please. Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Michael Marks]: Sorry, can you just speak up a little bit? I can barely hear.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not sure what's confidential about whether a city office is manned or not. I don't know where confidentiality is that office going to be manned or not.
[Michael Marks]: You can bring it up. You can't bring it up. That's why we're talking about it. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: If I could, Mr. President. I think what you see is a support of council here, right? Correct. Absolutely. We're taking it out. We want to follow with the rules, regulations and state lawyers. So we want to follow it. We took it up tonight under suspension. It wasn't on the agenda to discuss it. Okay. I have no problem voting tonight to be honest with you. I have no problem voting tonight. I've done it in the past, but what I'm telling you is if this council voted seven zero stood on our heads and spit nickels in the middle. Yeah. That's not to say 7-0 will do that, that this is going to happen tomorrow, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and even next week after we vote. All we can do is make an advisory opinion of the mayor. That's all we can do. It has zero teeth to it. And I don't mind doing it, but I'm just saying, I don't want people to leave here thinking, ha, the council just voted, we're all set. That's not how it works under our government. I just want to be clear with people.
[Michael Marks]: We have nothing to do with that, sir.
[Michael Marks]: The mayor, just so you know. So it's great to come up, but you should really know that this is not the body that's done that. It's the mayor. That's fine.
[Michael Marks]: You'd have to ask the mayor. She can't be on the Zoom call or nothing?
[Michael Marks]: Well, we're going to put this issue for next Tuesday, absolutely.
[Michael Marks]: That's not our issue, sir. That's what we're trying to tell you.
[Michael Marks]: You'd have to ask her, sir. We, we can't demand the mayor to be here. I don't understand. We can't demand she be here.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could. uh, because, uh, from what I'm hearing tonight that, um, from the administration that it sounds like the office is not fully manned, uh, at this particular time, that sounds inadequate to me, Mr. President, and knowing the nature of that office and, uh, who they service in that office, um, I think it's only appropriate that, uh, we have an emergency meeting. to find out more about the function of that office, if it's going to be fully manned right now, Mr. President, and where our veterans are going to be serviced in the interim. Because this may carry out a lot longer than we anticipate. And I think at the very least, we have twofold. We want to get Mike back, but we also want to make sure our veterans are being serviced, Mr. President, in an appropriate manner. So I would also ask that we have an emergency meeting with the administration to discuss the operations of that office, Mr. President, and that it would include the payroll, which our veterans rely on, as well as any other concerns, Mr. President, that veterans may have. and approach that office with.
[Michael Marks]: We'll call for an emergency meeting on Friday.
[Michael Marks]: The council and I would ask for the administration, but any, anyone else have suggestions? I'm open to it.
[Michael Marks]: So, uh, who we haven't at the meeting, the council, the city administration council, the mayor, maybe we'll want to bring in someone from the state, the veterans affairs office from the state. They may be able to answer questions that we may have as council and I alluded to. City solicitor city solicitor sure.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of information, Mr. President, if I could. Uh, council council max, uh, an emergency meeting has the same requirements as setting up a regular meeting.
[Michael Marks]: We need, we need, we need 48 hours for emergency meeting requires a 48 hour notice for an emergency. Now that I don't agree with just the messenger. Yeah. So that's a state requirement that we wait 48 hours when we're having an emergency.
[Michael Marks]: That's, that's my exact thought. I think we can meet an emergency at any given time, Mr. President. So I would ask if we can set up an emergency meeting, uh, you know, we'd like to have all the parties there. So tomorrow or Thursday. All right. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So just, just for the record, Mr. President, if we can state, uh, the emergency is, uh, that the fact that that office, in my opinion, uh, is not properly manned and creates an emergency. Secondly, that we know from the director himself, that there was someone coming in this week that had some potential potential issues, um, that could rise to an emergency level. And that's just one of probably many, many that we're, we, that we don't know of Mr. President. So in my opinion, That definitely is an emergency.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. I want to thank Councilor Falco for putting this on the agenda, and I want to thank the neighbors for participating tonight. Mary Ann, every time I see you, you're always there advocating on behalf of the residents of this community. And, you know, it's not just for speeding, the Green Line extension, 5G, plane noise. You've been a great advocate for this community, and I want to thank you for taking the time coming up. One speaker, Mr. President, Sophie, just mentioned, and I agree a thousand percent, to take some temporary quick steps in order to alleviate some of the concerns. Because all too often when we request a traffic report or study, to be quite honest with you, they take forever, and then once you get them, they're never acted upon. And I think at least for now, to let the residents know that we're moving on something like we did up in North Method on Fulton Spring Road, Mr. President, I think basic things like were mentioned, the paintings and low-lying fruit on putting some stop signs, additional stop signs, as Mary Ann mentioned, and things that can be accomplished relatively quickly, I think would go a long way. So I'm hoping when we meet on site, that the city move forward immediately on some of these temporary measures. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: President, I think Council and Vice President Knight hit the nail on the head. A true family man, a great guy, take the shirt off his back, you know, if someone needed it, and raised a heck of a family. And as Council Vice President Knight mentioned, he was probably one of the most active fathers that I've ever seen. You know, in addition to all his other roles, he was at every sporting event possible, rooting his children on, as well as the Method athletes, and he will be sorely missed.
[Michael Marks]: That's all right. Mr. President, I want to thank both you and Councilor Falco for putting this on, but Larry was a true professional in this community. You know, you can usually gauge a person by how much his colleagues loved him. And even though he was chief, and that's a difficult job, and you make decisions that may not be favorable to everyone, he was always well-respected, well-admired, Mr. President, and he ran a fire department that was second to none. And I always remember that about Chief Sands, and he will be solely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Council Vice President Knight for putting this on. I didn't find out until after the fact, Mr. President, but I grew up on Stearns Ave. And let me tell you, growing up there was such a tremendous place to live. Everyone knew everyone, Mr. President. Everyone was over everyone's home. You were treated like family from every home on the street. And if you weren't doing the right thing, as you probably remember, Steller or Mrs. Insaldi or Mrs. Freitas or you name it, the D'Onofrios, they were out there and they'd let you know, the Amaris, they'd let you know what you were doing and what you were doing was wrong. And it was just a great place to grow up, Mr. President. And Steller was a sweetheart of a woman and she was a protector of the neighborhood. And, you know, she will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's great.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I think the reason why is, you know, when you talk about Dom and Mario, they're a staple in West Medford Square. I don't think you can mention West Medford Square without saying Amicis. And, you know, they provide an excellent product to the residents of this community, and the residents support Amicis because of that. And they're two good guys. They're homegrown guys. And I wish them well, and I wish them another 30 years, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I better put a pillow so you can see me. It's me. Mr. President, I want to thank yourself, and I think it was just you, actually, that put this on. Lieutenant Rudolph and Captain Conway were truly professionals in this city. I've never heard anyone utter a bad word about either gentleman. They served with distinction for many, many years, an unblemished record, as was stated, over 70 years. And to have an unblemished record in such a position of importance. And in this community, I think, says a lot about the two gentlemen. And I wish them well in their retirement. And hopefully, Mr. President, from what I'm hearing, retirees will be allowed at some point to come back and do some light detail and so forth around the community. And I would hope to see them back again, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Morell and Councilor Falco for putting this on the agenda. You know, I can remember this when I first got on the council back in 2001. That's how far it stretches back just with me and the request because that's been inaccessible for at least 20 years that I'm aware of. And we've had, as you stated, officials down there, state delegation, you name it. We've had everyone down there, Mr. President, but very little action. A couple of years ago, there was some aesthetics done to the station itself, but very minor improvements were made. That is a heavily traveled, I mean they come from all over. Just ask the residents of West Medford. They come from all over to use the commuter rail. And it's unacceptable, to be quite frank with you, to have a rail, as Councilor Morell mentioned, that not everyone can use. especially in this day and age. And I'm hoping that through our diligence and our persistency, like we did with Salt Street and the intersection of Salt and Main, we finally got the state to act. And I'm hoping that happens with this issue, Mr. President. And I want to thank my colleagues for bringing it up.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Although Marsha's mobility may have decreased slightly, your wit, your ability to relay your point has not at all. And you were instrumental with the surgical center and the neighbors up there to make sure we got the best possible solution. And I remember your speeches. They were winded, but they were excellent. They were excellent. And I just want to thank you for coming up tonight. We really do.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, I want to thank Councilor Morell for offering this You know, I've been critical over the last number of years regarding the inaction by DCR, the fact that we have so many state roads in this community, roads in which taxpayers reside on, pay the same tax that any other resident pays, but doesn't get the city services because they're on, quote, a DCR state road, Mr. President. And as far as I'm concerned, that's unacceptable and very difficult conversation to have with a resident. And I believe as a community, and this is no reflection on anyone in particular, but we fall short of the mark regarding holding DCR and the state accountable for anything. And in my opinion, we should be having these meetings, not just with the administration, but with DCI. We should have a standard meeting that we have, because there's enough on our agenda that deals with, I can give a laundry list of items that I'm still waiting responses on, never heard back, that we should have a standing meeting with DCI. and maybe under your leadership, Mr. President, and it doesn't need to include the administration, it could be us with DCR, but I think it's vital, Mr. President, in order to address our constituents. You know, it's one thing to bring it up before the council, but then as Councilor Morell mentioned, the second step is action, right? lip service and then action. I mean, so I'm always waiting for the action part of it. And, uh, it's, it's a few and far between. Um, I know many of the agencies are shorthanded, uh, and I understand that, but, um, the, there has to be better dialogue and communication, uh, so we can represent our constituency. And so I would ask that at some point, Mr. President, I will talk to the representatives about doing that. Maybe if we can brainstorm it, you know, even if we had it once every, you know, quarterly, you know, you know, quarterly, every every 3 months to just sit down and go over what's outstanding, because that doesn't happen.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I'm still waiting on other stuff from a year and a half ago that residents keep on emailing me saying what's going on. And you know, it's just, it's unfortunate because you know, it gives, it gives government, state, city, just gives it a bad name, Mr. President. And I think we're all here to get results. So I appreciate the fact that this was put on tonight. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: for putting this on, but the rapid flashing beacon lights that were put at the corner of Riverside and Bradbury, they were installed probably two months ago, no longer functioning. They're solar lights and they're not working. So I would just ask if, if Councilor Bears wouldn't mind amending this, if the city could check into that, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, yes, yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if we can also add, if Councilor Bears wouldn't mind, the painting of crosswalks. I've been unsuccessful for the last probably year and a half trying to get crosswalks painted.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, and I've been following this silver line. It's been around for a couple of years now. They've been discussing it. Um, the larger concern I have now was a recent report that I read talking about a 700 million shortfall. I believe the number was over three-year period, three or four-year period. You might be mistaken on the years. But I think as a community, we have to be proactive rather than to react once these cuts come down from the T, which you better believe is going to happen. And I think some of the issues we have to look at, like I believe we were promised that they were going to restore the 325 at 326 and some of the other lines that were cut. But now with these additional cuts, I think we have to meet on this. I really do, to discuss any information that T can give us. And it's few and far between, let me tell you. The MBTA does not share anything with you. and you only find out when all of a sudden the bus is no longer in service or whatever the transportation mode may be. So I appreciate Councilor Bears offering this. I think anything that we can do, you know, we have to take a look at it. And if it's one or the other, then we have to take even a closer look, but I wouldn't throw anything away, any increased access I think we have to look at.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. And I want to thank Councilor Falco for bringing this up, and we've all talked ad nauseum about this. And, you know, to me, how do we get this resolved? Money talks, right? How do we get this resolved? Money talks. So why don't we talk about our assessment, our assessment to the MWRA, not the MWRA, MBTA. That's another story. That's another story. The MBTA, our assessment, our yearly assessment, why don't we withhold the portion based on the service reduction? Can we do that? I think they'd take it out of our check right away. I don't know. Can we do that? Can we do that as a community, say, this is what we're paying every year for, service Wellington, these buses, this transportation, whatever it might be, and say, this was a cut, it was a 10% cut. We're not going to give you the $3 million every year. We're going to give you $2.7. I'm just throwing ideas out there because it seems like we go nowhere with this. Honestly, they have us over a barrel and they just decide unilaterally what they want to do to us. So, I'd like to ask the city solicitor, in the form of a motion, if we as a community can withhold assessments from the Cherry Sheet, from the city Cherry Sheet. So can we withhold assessments?
[Michael Marks]: You know, I've been trying not to belabor this, and I know it's late. I've been trying to assess the MBTA that has millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-exempt property in this community, and I've been trying to get them to pay a fair share, Mr. President, which has fallen on deaf ears for many years. Someday when I'm governor, maybe it's gonna happen, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Aye. All call the vote, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Can you just repeat what the motion and amendments are?
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so on the motion, Mr. President, if I could, I thank Councilor Falco for bringing this up. I raised this issue during the budget, Mr. President, when we spoke about the taking of the parking program in-house. And I won't go through my entire statement, Mr. President, but I have some grave concerns that we're about a little over three months away from taking this program in-house, and I have yet to hear how we are going to operate, Mr. President. We have a budget that I believe was allocated of $250,000, which is not enough money to establish a full-fledged parking program that consists of META people, that consists of people that work in the office, that consists of people that empty the machines out, that fix the machines. So, and I'm not sure how this is going to happen, to be quite honest with you. And I think, you know, people have big expectations come January 1. And honestly, can any of us say what this program is going to look like January 1? Are we going to be able to meet the current obligations? So the current streets that are resident permit parking, the hundreds of them around the community that people have grown accustomed to, to having enforcement on, will that happen January 1st? Will it be a smooth transition? I don't know. So I can't tell people that it's going to be a smooth transition. My personal opinion right now, it's not going to be a very smooth transition. We don't have appropriate funding to run a full-fledged parking program in the community. And I think a lot of the enforcement's going to suffer, Mr. President. And I just want people to be aware of that. So, you know, I've been on the record, even during budget a couple of months back, saying that I don't believe with the current funding and the current process set up, can anyone tell me what the process is? Where's the office gonna be? Who's gonna be doing the hearings? How many people they're gonna hire? Are we gonna include other streets in the resident permit parking? Are we gonna do citywide resident permit parking? These were all recommendations made by the committee that the mayor put forward, and they did yeoman's work. I'm not saying they did yeoman's work, but now the next phase was, how do you carry it out? We're not there yet, 90 days. I mean, is there a committee working on it now? Is anyone aware? So really, I mean, these conversations need to be had because, you know, people are going to start pointing the finger. And let me tell you, the finger is not going to be pointed at this Medford City Council because we've been raising the red flag for the last couple of months saying, I don't know how this program is going to work. We haven't had any involvement in the establishment of this program other than hearing from the administration that they're taking it in-house, which I support 110% taking in-house. I just want to know the bolts, the nuts and bolts of how it's going to run. How are we going to fund it? What do we anticipate the cost? The chief of staff, when he was here, Dave Rodriguez, when I asked him if they're going to run the program with 250,000, said that was just really a small starting point. So are we taking a year to get the whole program up and running? I think residents have the right to know that, and especially enforcement in this community. You know, we moved to creating an outside company to come in because there was a lack of enforcement. And I remember the days where people would park in the square for 15 hours and go into town. And the business owners would say, I can't get anyone to come in my business. There's no parking. Right? You remember that, Councilor, President Kavya? You know, so these are the issues I think I don't want to revisit them again. And it feels like we're going down that same path. So I'm really concerned and I appreciate Councilor Falco offering this tonight. This is a little unrelated, but it's a real concern. It should be a concern of everyone in this community.
[Michael Marks]: I thought it was 250, but I made you off. It was a 350. It wasn't much more than that.
[Michael Marks]: And the top of Governor's Ave, the last street on the top of Governor's Ave. We can go down the line. Which street is that, Mr. President? The top of Governor's Ave to the left, the last street. It's a dead end. That's a, let me tell you.
[Michael Marks]: sure would be sure.
[Michael Marks]: So we can add charm on Mr. President. That resident has approached the administration and Tim McGiven has been out there and it's a nightmare on that road. Thank you. Council BS.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And it's amazing. We had two other officers that are retiring. And over the last year, we've had talk about institutional knowledge being lost in this community, Mr. President. We've had a number of good officers that are retiring, Mr. President. And it's sad, but I'm happy for them. Guy Leone, if anyone knew Guy Leone, Guy Leone is one of the nicest, nicest guys you want to meet. You know, he did his job for 36 years. always a patrol officer in the car. You very seldom see that. 36 years, Mr. President. And he liked his job. He liked being on the street. He liked the interaction. He liked helping residents. And that was the type of guy. He would prefer hunting someone down before giving a ticket. I mean, that's who he was. And he looked out for people. He looked out for his fellow neighbors and Method residents. And just an all-around good guy. He's going to be missed sorely, Mr. President. Again, I hope he comes back when they eventually offer retirees to do some work on the side, Mr. President. Well, actually, it's not on the side any longer. It's some work, Mr. President, during their retiring years. And I want to wish him well. He's going out September 30th. And I want to wish him well, Mr. President. I hope to see him around the community. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, Mr. President, I'm sorry, there's two names on there. Two names, Officer Bono. That's one. I don't know if anyone wants to talk on him, but Sergeant David Bono, Mr. President. Another one. They both came in roughly the same time. They both have 36 years of service. I won't be around in January, and that's why I'm offering it tonight. He's retiring January 8th. And anyone knows Sergeant Bono, he's been involved in the patrolman's union for years. He's been involved in the superior officer union for years, a great officer. Someone, both these officers, Guy Leone and Dave Bono, unblemished records. 36 years, both each 36 years, and unblemished records. They've had a number of accomplishments throughout their career. Sergeant Bono and Guy Leone, I call them frickin' frack. You see one, you see the other. It's amazing. I don't know how they got their schedules to be like that. You saw one, you saw the other. And just two excellent officers. I've always felt safe with them on the street, Mr. President, and having them out there. And Sergeant Bono, with his oversight and being a supervising officer, has always done a tremendous job. And again, they both will be sorely missed. I would ask that they receive council accommodations, Mr. President, for each having 36 years of committed and dedicated service to the residents and property of the city of Medford. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Motion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I did not find them at all, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, maybe if Ron could just mention who's here with him today.
[Michael Marks]: That's it, Charlie. Thank you, Mr. President. When you look at 1996, it's amazing what a bunch of volunteers did in our community. To last 25 years and to go as strong as they did over 25 years is a true credit to all the volunteers that stuck it out this long. I know there were some real lean and hard times during this whole process. For sure. You've, not only you, but everyone else here have been a stalwart in making this a real success and benefiting many aspects of our community. And I think that's what goes a long way with me. When you went to the challenger days and saw the smiles and the people that you touched, truly it's an amazing story. and one that I'm not gonna forget. Since I've been in office right around the same number of years, your group has been synonymous with community involvement. and from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of all the residents of this community, I wanna thank you and all the volunteers here. It's great to see such familiar faces and truly thank you and hopefully the next endeavor you come up with, which I'm sure you're working on right now, right, Ron? I'll take that as a yes. I wanna be part of that as well. I appreciate all your efforts. Thank you, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, also, if we can get a commitment that Desmond is not going to run for local public office. What do you have to worry about? A true politician. Desmond, if you could just relay, we've had other recipients come before us, and I know a big part of becoming an Eagle Scout are the many adventures that you go on, but also the community service part of it. And what project you've done to obtain the community service aspect.
[Michael Marks]: That's excellent. And every Eagle Scout that we've spoken with always states that it wasn't just solely their effort. It was other people that helped them along the way. And I know you have a few people with you today.
[Michael Marks]: Well, you're truly a fine young gentleman. I look for great things from you in the future. And I'd also like to thank your parents that are here tonight for their involvement. And I also would like to thank Councilor Falco, who since I've been on the council with them, I think has recognized a number of Eagle Scouts. And I think he holds that great responsibility. obtaining of that badge as a real high honor. And I want to thank him as well and congratulate you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: We take a picture, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, can we take the elections paper? Okay. While we're under suspension.
[Michael Marks]: I defer, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. While we're in suspension, we take paper 21-508 communications from city offices and employees.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? We happen to have Sandy Gale that's here, who's the acting elections coordinator. So I was wondering if she could step to the podium, just basically tell this council the need for early voting in this community and her staffing levels. And I want to make sure that we administratively are able to pull this off, Mr. President. in a very important city election.
[Michael Marks]: So through you, Mr. President. So, Sandy, the coverage of the poll that's gonna be here at City Hall. Is that done with existing city employees or of these poll workers that would come in?
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, it's not done with existing registrar voters employees.
[Michael Marks]: And my other question, I did read through Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021.
[Michael Marks]: And I thought I read and correct me if I'm wrong, there's language in there for people that are unable to attend the in-person voting that would allow the registrar voters office to actually go out to homes and have people vote by ballot.
[Michael Marks]: And does that need to happen in conjunction with the days that we approve? Or does that happen right up until the election?
[Michael Marks]: And that's great, and I think part of offering this is also notifying the public that it exists. Because when I read the acts, I wasn't familiar with some of it myself, and I've been around for a while. So I think part of the outreach that will be done between now and the plenary and the general election should include that outreach, what options people have available. So I'd ask that that be done. Have you had the opportunity to put a monetary value on what it's gonna cost the city to provide each day with having election employees as well as I would assume you'd need a police officer present for the time and any other associated costs with allowing the in-person voting?
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, that's ballpark. And that would be based on the number of days that you offered the full for the preliminary?
[Michael Marks]: So that's for two days of early voting. Based on what you're telling me, I feel very comfortable, especially knowing the preliminary election in this community typically has a real low turnout. And I think having the early voting in person voting for four days sounds kind of excessive. Friday to me is kind of a lost day because Friday City Hall closes at 1230. So you're really only getting four hours on a Friday. I much prefer having the extended hours on the Wednesday. for those that may be working and can't make it during the day. So I would support and put it in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that we have the early in-person voting for the preliminary on Wednesday, September 8th, from 8.30 to 7.30 p.m. That's normal business hours. And Thursday, September 9th, from 8.30 to 4.30, and that's for the preliminary. and Wednesday, October 27th, 8.30 to 7.30, and Thursday, October 28th, 8.30 to 4.30. From my tabulations, that's 19 hours of additional in-person options that people have in addition to mail-in ballots and so forth and other options that they may have, Mr. President, for voting. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just don't know why this would be any more controlled than any other poll. Don't we follow the same standards?
[Michael Marks]: So at this point, Mr. President, I'll listen to what my colleagues have to say. I will withdraw the motion I put forth for the general election and listen to my colleagues. I do want to say, Mr. President, that it's vital that we have an election coordinator in position which this council has been pushing for for several years now. And Sandy Gill has been our election coordinator for all intents and purposes for a couple of decades now in the community, Mr. President. As we found out, Sandy is acting and the administration's working on apparently uh, posting the position and so forth. But we also heard from the city administration less than an hour ago that they like to get people into acting roles and then push them into the role, Mr. President. And here we have someone that's been acting, doing the job, a very capable person. That's another thing we heard from the city administration, that they wanna make sure if they are gonna put someone in an acting role, they're capable, and then also have the ability to do the job. And here we have someone that's capable doing the job. I don't know what the hangup is, but in my opinion, 26 years elected in this city, Mr. President, the integrity of our election process is of the utmost importance. And if people lose confidence in how we run an election, Mr. President, I don't want to be around for that. So I think it's important that we have a coordinator, the council recognize that, while waiting for the city administration to follow through. And it's vital, Mr. President, we have someone in that role. I appreciate Sandy's and the acting role, and I think it's about time the city administration gets off their duff and does something, Mr. President, in order to maintain of the integrity and security of our elections. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Raul.
[Michael Marks]: Based on the recommendation of our elections coordinator for the preliminary, I withdrew my recommendations for the general election.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: I'd ask that we sever that vote, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: take them as two distinct votes, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, it was only roughly, I think less than a month ago that a member of this council offered a resolution to do away with the preliminary altogether. And here we have a preliminary that's gonna take place and now we're adding days, which I'm not opposed to, I'm opposed to that many days, but now we're adding days from going to eliminating the preliminary to adding days. I just think, you know, I don't know where we're going, Mr. President, you know, unless it's just, you know, on a whim that we go back and forth, but it doesn't make much sense to me.
[Michael Marks]: But that wasn't the original intent. The original intent was to have a vote on it. And this council thought better because We didn't even have the full number of people that were gonna run. We didn't even know if we were gonna have a preliminary election.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. But I don't know how we go from one extreme to another, but I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion, Mr. President. But my vote is based on the recommendation from our election coordinator that's been in this community for a number of years. And to think that because of the election in this preliminary, that there's gonna be some strange turnout I think is misguided, very misguided, Mr. President, but that's my own opinion. We shall see.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Just before you call, so if this happens to get voted down, Mr. President, in the spirit of cooperation, if this happens to get voted down, there will be no early, in voting at all for the poll. And so a three to three vote is eliminating it altogether. So rather than having four days or two days, we're gonna have zero days. So in the interest of negotiation, Mr. President, I just wanna put that out there. So no one's caught off guard because I know what I'm gonna do. I'd rather have 19 hours of in-person voting than zero.
[Michael Marks]: No, because you're not on the prevailing side. You have to be on the prevailing side.
[Michael Marks]: I may or may not. Who knows? It's a risk. Let's go.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to refer back to the regular audit business, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. The petitioner just mentioned variance, and we as a body do not issue variances. That is done by the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. So that is not something that's under our purview. So if something was done in West Medford through a variance, it's possible that it never made its way to the Medford City Council. This request is for a petition for a grant of location. which would be approved by this council. So maybe it is a matter of how this was presented. The original one in West Method was presented as a variance and that was voted on by a separate board and commission. and this one is being presented differently, I don't know, but it doesn't sound right to me, Mr. President, because Mr. Salaam just mentioned a variance and we have nothing to do with variances. And regarding Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and everywhere else, to be quite frank with you, that's not the city of Medford. And in my opinion, if you're gonna use public land, you should pay. That's my own opinion. If I wanted to build a porch, Mr. President, on my house, and it was one inch on a public sidewalk, one inch, it would not be approved. It would not be approved. So I think to sit back and say that they don't pay in other areas and this and that, that's up to them. But in this city, Mr. President, if you're going to use public land, for private entity. Since when is it our responsibility to make sure a citizen's bank has proper ADA compliance? It's not our responsibility. We're willing to work with them, Mr. President, but it's not our responsibility. So I think there has to be some give and take here. And my question, Mr. President, if we could, I agree with Councilor Scarpelli and my other council colleagues that this probably should be sent back, but definitely, Mr. President, we should find out regarding what West Medford, how it was approved. Was it approved by a petition for grant the location or was it approved by a variance? And that's key if we move forward on this. We can't answer this question. Right, right. But I would make that, Mr. President, in the form of a motion.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, that's it.
[Michael Marks]: If it never came before the council, I don't recall it coming before the council.
[Michael Marks]: And- President, motion to waive the remainder of the reading and just to give a brief synopsis. Do we have anybody here from National Grid?
[Michael Marks]: At this time, I would ask that we amend the petition to include what the petitioner just mentioned, that it's not seven feet, it's 10 feet. and that reflected in the approval by the city engineers, he also refers to seven feet.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to table, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I, Mr. President, Councilor Marks. I would tend, I would feel more comfortable if we did get an opinion from the city solicitor, you know, and we did create a cannabis advisory commission for purpose and I don't want to overstep our boundaries. The resolution refers to include, include to me is asking them to put it in there, not asking them whether they would review or take it under advisement. Changing the rules. You're asking them to include it. So I just would feel more comfortable having city solicitor to take a look at it, yeah.
[Michael Marks]: I wouldn't be opposed to that, or I wouldn't be opposed to receiving it and placing it on file, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: 21- Mr. President, just for the edification, because the city solicitor is going to want to know what we're referring to and for what purpose. And the purpose, I think, at least for me, is to find out whether or not we have the authority to request that in a separate board. or a separate commission by state statute that's created. So that would be the question I have, whether we have the authority.
[Michael Marks]: The mic's on now. The mic's on?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Mr. President, if I could, Aggie's not on the call.
[Michael Marks]: Because Aggie we know best, but from my previous experience, the state statute is very clear about the removal of a public shade tree. And Aggie falls that to the T. And my experience states, unless it's an emergency, that it requires the tree be posted. So the tree will officially get a posting on it, And I believe it requires a public hearing for any removal of the tree. And that is duly posted as well as Mr. Castagnetti said. And I've never heard of the one or two day notification. It's more like seven to 14 or maybe even longer. So if trees are being removed, it may be an emergent nature or it may be the city's no longer following state statute, which I highly doubt. Mr. President, but it's about time we take a look at our own tree ordinance, which we don't have. By the way, we don't have anything that protects public shade trees on. There's been a lot of talk over the years, but very little action. And I think this is a perfect time, maybe to send something to a subcommittee, maybe the public works subcommittee, um, and have them take a look at the creation of a tree ordinance. Mr. President,
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, I'm not quite sure what we're gonna discuss. The action was to wait for the state legislature to enact a piece of legislation, which never happened. I mean, I guess we can meet to talk, because we have nothing else to do.
[Michael Marks]: And I don't believe that council has the authority to put a 90 day shot clock on a subcommittee. So I think the council overstepped its boundaries, but needless to say, Mr. President, I'm not sure quite what will be the discussion on a piece of legislation that hasn't been passed. So that we need to give local cities and towns the authority to make a pilot and in lieu of tax payment mandatory for certain entities. And if that legislation is not passed, I'm not sure what the subcommittee's use is. If you're looking just for the council to give a vote of support on the legislation, then I don't think that was the correct place to send it to a subcommittee for that.
[Michael Marks]: That's what was passed, right?
[Michael Marks]: I just don't know what we're going to discuss. What do we discuss? Something that may eventually be passed by the state legislature?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So in my opinion, Mr. President, and maybe this is the conversation we're going to have at subcommittee, but in my opinion, Mr. President, the city is what needs to put together a framework regarding in lieu of tax payment.
[Michael Marks]: And there is no current, as far as I know, game plan within the community. And I was one of the first members when I first got on the council to request Tufts University, which never gave it a little tax payment. And I was one of the first to initiate that Mr. President, and then Mayor McGlynn signed a 10 year pilot program, which was severely underfunded, in my opinion, or not what it should have been for such an institution. But needless to say, Mr. President, this legislation doesn't say that the cities and towns have the authority to create their own policy or procedures. This states that it goes from voluntary to mandatory. That's a huge change, Mr. President, that could potentially impact every church in the community. And every nonprofit that's servicing homeless, that's servicing disabled, that's doing yeoman's work, Mr. President, this could have a giant impact. So I don't think it's as easy to say we should just support this. This has really far reaching impact on nonprofits, including churches, Mr. President, in this community.
[Michael Marks]: That's from the gentleman I talked to that I think you've been speaking with, and that probably initiated this with you, that will be left up to cities and towns. Um, so I was told that that will be left up to cities and towns.
[Michael Marks]: But well, that's that's the feedback I got. Um, you know, so And I as one member, I'm not going to go after churches, Mr. President, or any other nonprofit that's doing social services for our constituency.
[Michael Marks]: Why don't you provide that language to us?
[Michael Marks]: I'd ask that you provide it again. That's not my understanding.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. For all of us that know Deputy Chief Fosco, he started up through the ranks, Mr. President, and worked his way up to deputy chief. And you couldn't meet a kinder, gentler man, Mr. President, a man who has raised a family, a man who has dedicated his life to the firefighting profession in the city of Medford, a man that always has been honored and respected in his field, and someone that really is going to be sorely missed. His breadth of knowledge regarding fire suppression, uh, regarding, uh, you know, fire management and, uh, just, uh, the administration of a fire department. Uh, it goes on matched and, uh, you know, personally, I wish he had a few more years because I think, uh, he would have made a great chief to be quite frank with him. Um, he's loved by, uh, his fellow firefighters. He's a man of reason, a man of knowledge. And I think someone that would have really done well in that role. But however, he is retiring. I want to wish him well. And I look forward to seeing him around the community, Mr. President. And I wish him well on any future endeavors. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: 21498. Paper 21498 offered by President Caraviello be it so resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences. Paper 21-493 offered by President Caraviello. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council request that DCR make openings in the guardrail at Duggar Park for easier access into the park. Council President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: All in the motion by President Caraviello, further amended by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Paper 21-498, authored by President Caraviello. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of Mary D. DeFranzo Coletta. On her recent passing, Mary serviced the city of Medford as treasure collector until 1991. President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion by President Caraviello. All those in favor? Second by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Paper 21-499 offered by President Caraviello. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Please rise for a moment of silence. Thank you. Paper 21-499 offered by President Caraviello. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council demand that the DCI cut the weeds on Route 16 at the Main Street Bridge and all surrounding areas of the bridge that have not been cut in two years. Please send this correspondence to Senator Jalen and Representative Babba for immediate assistance. Council President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, further amended by Councilor Falco, and further amended by President Caraviello. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Motion to take the papers in the hands of the clerk. Do we have something else?
[Michael Marks]: My apologies. Yep. My apologies. Paper 21-507 offered by Councilor Bears. Be resolved by the Medford City Council that the utility pole blocking the middle of the sidewalk on Boston Ave across from the new Greenline Extension Station be moved to ensure full ADA access. Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion by Councilor Abuez, seconded by Councilor Falco. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. We have papers in the hands of the clerk. Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk, Councilor Falco. Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk. All in favor? Seconded by Councilor, President Felk. Caraviello. All in favor? Ayes have it. Mr. Clerk, papers in the hands of the clerk.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Paper 21-510 offered by under suspension by Vice President Knight and Councilor Scarpelli, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council recognize Michael McDevitt for his ongoing and unparalleled support to the veterans in the city of Medford and be it further resolved that the Medford City Council extend its gratitude and congratulations to Michael McDevitt for being named post 45 member of the year.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Council President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: And if I could from the chair, anyone else? If I could from the chair, I want to thank Vice President Knight and Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on. Mike Devitt has been absolutely stalwart when it comes to veteran affairs in our community for many, many years. And his name is synonymous with assisting veterans and keeping the memory of veterans alive in this community. So I want to personally thank him. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Paper 21-511 offered under suspension by Vice President Knight and Councilor Scarpelli. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council make the following announcement in support of Medford's veterans. There will be a veterans rally on Thursday, September 2nd between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. at Medford City Hall to raise awareness concerning veterans rights and benefits. All are welcome to attend in support of our local heroes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: All in the motion by Councilor Scott Peli, seconded by President Caraviello. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Paper 21-512 offered under suspension by Vice President Caraviello. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of Frances Gianetti on her recent passing. Frances served the city of Medford for 20 years as an employee of the city of Medford under Mayor Parika and Mayor McGlynn. in various positions. Council President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. And if I could from the chair, Mr. President, I wanna thank you for offering this. When I first got elected to the council, Fran was one of the first people I met in city government. And she always had a welcoming word, a smile on her face. No matter how many times I may have butt heads with the mayor that she was working for, she was always extremely friendly and kind. And I always appreciated that about Fran, and she will be sorely missed. On the motion by Council President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Please rise for a moment of silence.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. Um, recently, the mayor's office submitted a press release regarding the strong stump removal in this community. And from what I can gather, the mayor is subcontracting out to a private vendor. The removal of I think the article stated 26 tree stumps in the city of Medford. The last count that I think I received, which I think is sorely underestimated, was there was about 575 stumps. And I believe it's much higher than that. Just from my informal, you know, cursory of the community. And so it was quite disappointing to see a press release go out that addresses roughly 5% of the stumps that have been in this community for tens of years, to be quite frank. And I am very disappointed to see that we couldn't deal with these stumps in one fell swoop rather than just piecemeal it once again Mr. President, as we heard today, there's trees being cut down, and those will be added to the stump list, and we're never going to get ahead of this. So I have to express my disappointment with this latest attempt to get ahead of some of the concerns that I'm hearing from the community, which is stump removal, poor sidewalk conditions, and very poor road conditions in this community, Mr. President. And I don't think that addresses anything by removing 5% of what we have out there. It doesn't sound like a game plan to me. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President also. Yes, sir. Just while we're on the topic of tree stumps and poor condition of our city streets and sidewalks, the mayor also came out with a press release recently, Mr. President, asking residents to adopt a catch basin. So we are now asking residents to clean catch basins, which I always thought for years, and I've always asked during budget, we have a contract out to clean catch basins. So I'm not quite sure what direction we're going in this community, Mr. President, but we have to start asking residents to clean catch basins, I think is way out of whack Mr. President, and that's not what we should be asking residents to do in this community. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, sir. Motion to adjourn. Mr. President, if I could, it's not on the agenda, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention I did bump into a resident this morning. His mother, elderly mother, lives on Dwyer Circle. It's imperative that she gets out during the day and exercise, but unfortunately she's unable to because of all the uneven sidewalk panels on Dwyer Circle. And I'd ask, challenge any of my colleagues to go out and take a walk around Dwyer Circle. This is not a private way. It's a public road, Mr. President. It's in deplorable condition, the road and the sidewalks. And, you know, I'm not going to put it formally, but these are the type of things, Mr. President, when you talk about quality of life, here's a woman that can't get out because they're afraid of a trip and fall hazard in front of her own home.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we can also find out what positions in particular did not receive this step race for the past fiscal year.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Whatever. Yeah. If he doesn't mind. I do have a question about the language.
[Michael Marks]: If you want to wait. Okay, then you're coming, okay.
[Michael Marks]: If you want to wait, we haven't approved the money yet.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just wondering if the petition is on the call. The commissioner is on the call. And my question is, Mr. President, are there currently renovations other than ADA that are happening to Citizens Bank and that work triggered off additional ADA? Upgrades.
[Michael Marks]: The question is, is Citizen Bank in the process of renovating the building and these renovations triggered off ADA upgrades? How did this come about?
[Michael Marks]: Also, Mr. President, if I could. Was there any consideration of doing this work internally and not needing to take over city property?
[Michael Marks]: In my last point, Mr. President is under bullet point two under recommendations. It says that the engineering division recommends the existing encroachments be allowed to remain as long as they're in good condition or if they fall into disrepair or poor conditions. And then it says the city will revoke the license. So I'm not sure what advantage that is. Just say, and I'm not saying this is gonna happen, these particular ramps fall into disrepair, they become an eyesore, they become unsafe. We revoke the license and guess what? They're on our city sidewalk and we have an eyesore there. What advantage is that to the city of revoking a license? I'd like to see something with a little more teeth, Mr. President, that they will not fall into disrepair. or that they maintain a certificate of condition on a yearly basis. So they hire their own contractor to come out every year and make sure they're in proper condition and so forth. So I'd rather see that than we put a condition that will revoke a license and then be stuck with a ramp that is an eyesore that's dangerous and becomes a city responsibility. So that would be my recommendations for bullet point number two.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could- and I appreciate that response. So is there anywhere in this document or in the proposed license agreement that talks about the liability of this particular structure? Who's liable if someone gets hurt on this structure?
[Michael Marks]: Well, I know, so maybe that question should be directed, but this is, I appreciate what the gentleman's saying, but this now is going to be located on a city sidewalk. and we've been hearing about the building, the building, the building, we're talking about something on a public sidewalk. So that would be another question, Mr. President, I have regarding liability. Who would be responsible, Mr. President, regarding the liability if someone were to get hurt on that particular structure?
[Michael Marks]: We can offer it to the city solicitor, that's fine.
[Michael Marks]: Second. And also Mr. President on the bullet point too, if we can get maybe the city engineer to rework that I just don't feel comfortable with the city revoking a license with a structure that's left on our public sidewalk. Understood.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank Councilor Falco for bringing this up. You know, it's sad when someone leaves that you've worked with for so many years and not being able to thank them before they leave, Mr. President. And I too wanna thank Alicia. You know, there were many times we didn't agree on issues. There were many times that we were at odds as a council and, you know, as a finance department But you can always rest assured that Alicia spoke from her heart and she spoke from a position of knowledge and authority. And that was much appreciated, Mr. President. Even things that potentially would benefit this council. Alicia was the first to tell us that during budget time that we were offering suggestions that probably would have been approved if we offered them in a different fashion. And we found out that in this budget session that we had more abilities as a council to make changes to the budget than we were ever explained in all the years I've been on the council. And I think it was largely due in part to Alicia realizing her responsibility as the budget finance director in the community, but also realizing that in order to have city government operate that I think all parties have to be on the same page. and I think she keenly understood that, Mr. President. So I will sorely miss her experience and knowledge, her breadth of knowledge when it comes to finances. And I hope the city can find someone pretty quickly to fill her shoes, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: and ask too, was there money allocated in the budget for a parking clerk? Was there a line item that at least had $1 in it?
[Michael Marks]: Yes, there is.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor. But the position titles have changed. Do you not agree with that?
[Michael Marks]: They have changed, correct? So two months ago, we were talking about having a diversity slash human resource, and you spoke in favor of that. Now we're having a people person, chief people officer. And you're speaking in favor of that. The one consistent thing has been your salary has increased from day one. That's been the one consistent thing. So you may not have a title, but your salary has been consistent over that period of time. That was not approved by this council. That was not approved by this council. And according to the city solicitor, it needed to be approved. And that's not up for debate. That is the city solicitor's legal opinion, which is not a precedent for debate.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not questioning your work. I'm not questioning your worth. I'm not questioning your ethics. I'm not questioning any of that, just so you know, Ms. Osborne. But my question is regarding policy and procedure. And clearly the policy and procedure has not been followed by this administration. And that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. So even though there may be a sense of frustration because the title is not there, there is a process that we have to follow.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just wanted to make the point, Mr. President, I as one member, I can't speak for my colleagues, was never opposed to creating a position title. What I was opposed to Mr. President is paying someone out of a calf, paying someone out of a calf that was never approved by this council. And that's always been the way it's been working in this community. And that's no fault of Mr. Osborne. I'm not even referring to Mr. Osborne because there are other positions as well. And those positions are eventually going to be before us as well, Mr. President. So this has nothing to do with Mr. Osborne. He happened to come up here tonight because he was probably asked by the mayor to come up. But this has nothing to do with the person in the position, Mr. President, but all to do with following policy and procedure, which is very important in the community. Because if that doesn't happen, things can go astray. And I don't want things to go astray, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, just for clarification, the elections coordinator position, I think this was asked by Councilor Bears during the budgetary session, but once this CAF is approved, there is funding in the budget for full-time position. Will the person that currently is in that role be paid at that CAF until someone is hired? Madam Mayor? Can you just repeat that question, Councilor Marks, please? So the election coordinator position, once this CAF is approved, there's funding in the budget that CAF will exist with a person that's currently in a similar position within the registrar of voters office be paid until someone under that CAF, until someone is hired for the position.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Right, but you have someone that's in the position now doing the function. And I hope, what's that?
[Michael Marks]: Right. But for all intents and purposes, I mean, I won't speak for the clerk, but I think the person is doing that role. Um, so to me, uh, I thought we had an agreement. I know you brought up council of beers. I don't want to speak for you.
[Michael Marks]: It's my understanding that grant ran out, and so they won't be paid as of, the city clerk can answer that. It's my understanding that money dried up.
[Michael Marks]: But where are we gonna get the money from?
[Michael Marks]: That's the only thing that was approved in the budget. Unless there's funding that I'm not aware of.
[Michael Marks]: If the grant's right up at the end of June and we're already two weeks into July, how is this person being paid?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so with the response, where it's getting paid from, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: uh, just for my edification, have all newly elect, uh, new, uh, newly created positions been advertised, uh, Mr. President, all newly created positions.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so even positions that people may be currently holding right now, those positions have not been advertised?
[Michael Marks]: Well, if we have a newly created position, I don't want to call out any particular position, but if there's a newly created position, have they all been advertised?
[Michael Marks]: They have not.
[Michael Marks]: So we potentially have people in roles where a position has not been advertised.
[Michael Marks]: If that's a newly created position, how do we not advertise for that position?
[Michael Marks]: But that's a newly created position, correct? That never existed before.
[Michael Marks]: So I think here we go back again. I thought we were all on the same page with the creation of calves. and the budget doesn't create, the fact that something's in the budget does not create a position according to city ordinance. I thought we were all on the same page with that.
[Michael Marks]: So I think- Right. I just want to make sure that we're consistent. So if the consistency of- for new position is to have it advertised. I wanna make sure across the board we're doing that. And it seems to me we're not doing that. We're picking and choosing when we wanna advertise for positions. And I don't think that's correct.
[Michael Marks]: I thought every new position has to be posted, but maybe I'm mistaken.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Patrick Gordon has been an instrumental part of this team since he came on with the city. And in particular, Mr. President, over the 18 or so months of the pandemic, Patrick was the one that brought us into the 21st century, allowing us to communicate with our constituents that were unable to attend meetings during the pandemic. And he was instrumental in bringing up Zoom for us, not only for the council meeting, but many other public meetings in this city. And I credit him, actually, for having us keep open government during the pandemic. And I wish him well in his new endeavors. And hopefully, at some point, we'll see him again, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just just if I could customize on I've stated this on many occasions. The city of method charges a 5% fee on cable bills. And that 5% fee is a franchise fee that's supposed to go to PEG access, which is public education and government channel. Only 2% of the fee goes back into providing local programs, educational programs, and government access, Mr. President. The rest, the 3%, goes into the general office. And I think what we're seeing, Mr. President, this has nothing to do with Patrick, what we're seeing is a sorely underfunded PEG local access station, you know, not similar to other communities that have a large office with multiple employees. But here we are with one employee and an assistant, Mr. President, which just is not enough to run a peg access in our community. So I respectfully ask once again, that this be looked at by the city administration and fully fund peg access. So the residents can reap the benefits, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Markswell. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank all our superior officers in this community that haven't missed a beat over the last 18 months during the pandemic. This is, in my opinion, a very modest raise. It's comparable to other raises with other unions throughout the community. And where this has been outstanding since, as we stated, 2019, Mr. President, I've been on record for many occasions not waiving the three readings. And the reason why, Mr. President, is that the three readings require open transparency within our community. And I've always been opposed to waiving the readings. However, in certain circumstances, Mr. President, when, in my opinion, when raises the three years and arrears, that those are the certain circumstances. Tonight, Mr. President, I will be supporting not only this paper, but I will offer the formal motion that the three, what do you call it? Readings. Readings, thank you. The three readings be waived, Mr. President, based on the fact that this has been outstanding for over two years. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion?
[Michael Marks]: And if we could just record the waiving of the three readings, Mr. President, because of the contract being in arrears for almost three years.
[Michael Marks]: No, that was the one. Okay, thank you. It was a different number, but the number was changed. The number was changed. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Vice President Knight for putting this on. Ricky Sweeney, if you knew him, you loved him. That was the type of person he was, Mr. President. 32 years as a firefighter, past Vice President of Local 1032, As Councilor Knight mentioned, an outstanding member of the Method, an active member of the Method Elks. And I want to send my condolences to his wife, Kelly, his children, Aaron, Jen, and his firefighter son, Joseph, who serves currently as Mr. President. And anyone that knows Ricky knew he loved to spend time in Maine and loved to be around his family. And the one thing that I hear over and over from people was, that I guess Ricky was a master carpenter. And if he ever needed any help, he was the first to come with his skills, Mr. President, and assist. And never looking for anything other than the fact that he liked to help people. So I'd like to, if Councilor Knight seems fit to, I'll have you do it. Honor him by naming this meeting, Mr. President, in his honor. And I want to thank council vice president for putting this on. Thank you. And how's this?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my honor to stand before this council and the residents of this community to honor one of Medford's finest, Mr. President, Teresa Castagnetti, I think we all, behind this reel, know Teresa. Teresa was an advocate for our students, serving as the lead teacher and coach for the English Learners Department for many decades, Mr. President. Teresa had a career that was remarkable. She always stood up for what she believed. Even recently, as of last year, Mr. President, when the condition of the sidewalks and the curbing and the road into the McGlynn and Andrews Middle School was in poor condition and caused trip and hazards for parents, children, and faculty, Teresa was the first one to step forward and kept on stepping forward, bringing this council up to date on the needs. And it was Teresa Castagnetti that I largely credit for making those things happen within that area, Mr. President. Teresa worked in the Kids' Corner daycare as executive board chairperson and secretary from 1992 to 95. So in addition to her duties as a lead teacher, she also found the time to work in the Kids' Corner daycare as an executive member, Mr. President. Back in 2015, annual state award given to a teacher who exemplifies excellence in the education of English language learners. through evidence of best instructional practices, long-term commitment to the education of ELLS, leadership roles at the school's district, level of behalf of the ELLs, mentoring of new ELL teachers through formal induction programs, and strong relationships to parents of ELLs in the community. So back in 2015, Teresa received the Distinguished Award Teacher of the Year, Mr. President. It's a statewide award, and believe me, they were able to recognize the merits of Teresa Castagnetti and her accomplishments. Teresa served as the ELE teacher for the Medford Public Schools from 2016 to 2021. Teresa was a mentor teacher for the Medford Public Schools from 2001 to 2021, over 20 years, Mr. President. She was a supervising practitioner for several general education teachers and Lesley University graduate students to complete their 150-hour internship towards ESL licensure. And from 2008 to 2014, Teresa was selected by DESE to participate on several DESE panels and committees for assessment and development standard settings for the Statewide Language Proficiency Exam and train the trainer cohorts and second language learning and teaching, in which Teresa, in turn, provided professional development for the district, right here, Mr. President. Teresa also served as co-chairperson for the McGlynn Elementary School literacy team. And in 2008, 2009, Teresa co-chaired the creation of the district's first school-based literacy team, which established uniform K through five literacy assessment protocols. and a building-wide K-5 literacy action plan for the McGlynn Elementary School, which was adopted as a model for the district, Mr. President. I can only say, Mr. President, that knowing Theresa over the years, knowing her professionalism, the way she dealt with her colleagues, the way she dealt with parents, faculty, students, I think goes unmatched in our community, Mr. President. And it's only appropriate that I rise here today thanking her for her 45 years of commitment. I would ask that Teresa receive a council accommodation for her years. And I also want to thank her, Mr. President, for putting up with Andrew Castagnetti, her lovely husband for many years, Mr. President, who we all know and love as well. And I just want to thank Teresa and wish her well on her retirement. And I'm sure we're going to see her around the community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you for co-sponsoring this. Here we are once again, Mr. President, another faculty member within our public schools. 42 years of dedication to the students, the parents, and to our Medford public school system, I think is something that really deserves recognition, Mr. President. Cheryl Mayarco is a well-respected employee of the Medford public schools. in the special ed department, who dedicated over 42 years of service to our most vulnerable students. Cheryl started a career in method as a substitute teacher and instructional aid in 1978. Cheryl became a special education teacher in 1980. For the past 20 years, Cheryl has worked tirelessly as an evaluation team leader, providing mentoring and guidance to newer ETLs and staff members. Cheryl was passionate about the Children of Method, acting as a strong advocate for student needs and making personal connections with every student she assisted. Cheryl was dedicated to caring for the whole child, communicating with parents, caregivers, and educational team members. Cheryl was always expanding her knowledge and her expertise to be prepared and responsive to families and students of method. Colleagues and families remarked that Cheryl went over and above in assisting families and students with patience, positive attitude, and a caring nature. And for all of us that know Cheryl, Mr. President, know these words are completely true. Cheryl gave everything she could to her job. She liked what she did. She excelled what she did. And she really made, I think, a lot of strides in the special ed department. She was someone that you can count on to make sure that if services were needed for a child, Cheryl would fight for the student. You didn't need to hire an outside advocate. It was Cheryl Mayorko that would step up and make sure that each and every child received the proper services, Mr. President, for their education. And parents respected that. um, in our system. Uh, you know, the my uncle couple, which I refer to as Cheryl, my uncle and Robert, my uncle, who served on this body for over three decades, um, and the capacity of council president is and as a member of this body, uh, they were a power couple in this community, Mr. President, for many decades, and both were well respected and leaders in this community, and they continue to be leaders in this community. So I would personally like to ask Mr. President that Cheryl Mayarco receive a council accommodation for her 42 years of dedicated service to our students, our most vulnerable students, parents, faculty, and the entire community, Mr. President. I would like to thank her.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This was an item that was put on the agenda last week under public participation. And we had a number of residents that came up to speak on their concerns regarding the now, I guess, resolved issue of the naming of the Columbus School. That was somewhat of a lengthy process that took place. I believe there was much division in the community over this process. Many people felt that they weren't heard. Many people felt that they weren't part of the process. And what I'm offering here tonight, Mr. President, is that we take a closer look at the naming of any building in the community, whether it's on the school side or the city side. As a member of the school committee, I can attest to you firsthand. I actually am one of the members that actually voted against the naming of one of our schools back some 20 years ago. And it wasn't because I was opposed to the name, Mr. President. It was more of a process issue I had. And at the time, I felt there wasn't enough public input. There wasn't enough community participation in regards to the selection of the name. And therefore, I actually voted against the naming of one of our, what we refer to as new schools now that are 20 years old. I would say, Mr. President, that in a community of this size, when you're talking about naming a school building, and know that many of these buildings, whether it's a municipal building, or a park, or the corner of an intersection that's named, this has personal memories to people. It has personal feelings. And I think we have to be very mindful of that when we have a process to look at the renaming. I'm not opposed to renaming. I'm not opposed to looking at things in retrospect, but what I am opposed to Mr. President is a process where people feel left out. And if one person feels left out, that's enough for me, Mr. President. And I'm respectfully asking that we ask our city solicitor I don't doubt for a second that the school committee has the authority to name a building, and I've told people that over the past year and a half, that they have the ability to name a building. All I'm asking is whether or not the Medford City Council, through way of an ordinance, can create a policy, Mr. President, that includes the entire community when it comes to looking at municipal or school-owned buildings, and that we create a policy and procedure that ultimately has the goal of incorporating every comment, every person's wishes, and coming out with a process that we can all feel proud of at the end and not have the division that we're seeing right now, Mr. President. And that's all this is trying to accomplish. This is not trying to take away anyone's responsibilities, anyone's duties. It's seeing a concern. When I see a community divided, That concerns me. I've been around a lot of years. And when I see a community divided over an issue, we as legislators, the executive branch, I think have to step up and say, how do we better this process? How do we make it so we don't have to go through this every time we may decide that we want to rename something? And I feel that if this process continues in the manner it's going, all it's going to do is create division. And that would include on the municipal side. So I'm not saying this is strictly a school issue. It's on the municipal side as well. So I'm saying, open up the process to the entire community. And those are my comments, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, I appreciate those comments. And I would only state that what I'm trying to do through this resolution is ask our chief legal officer, who is attorney Kim Scanlon, whether or not we first of all have the jurisdiction and authority to create an ordinance that would cover a separate body. The school committee is a separate body. They're an autonomous body. And I understand the boundaries. However, we are the legislative body for the entire community. And the school committee falls under the purview of this city. And if the solicitor came back and said, I don't believe that you can do that as a council through way of ordinance, to me, then the issue would be dropped by myself. I'm not gonna pursue anything. But if the city solicitor came back and said, indeed, you have the ability to do that, I think that would call for a subcommittee or committee of the whole, maybe even a joint meeting with the school committee and the administration to discuss next steps. But all I'm doing is asking what our options are right now. and not forcing anything on anyone at this particular point. So that's all I wanna get across, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I think that's what it says. And I'm not opposed to change the language around, but I think that's what it says.
[Michael Marks]: Why don't we just say something that's almost exactly what it says.
[Michael Marks]: Next time I'll put you on the resolution. Co sponsor and how about that? I appreciate it.
[Michael Marks]: It's almost says verbatim what you just stated.
[Michael Marks]: Any further discussion? Mr. President, just if I could, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this up. And you know, when you when you hear accolades like this, Mr. President, you see who is living in our community. You know, we have a wealth of resources and untapped ability and knowledge in this community. And Ben would have been a great asset for this community to give guidance and so forth. So I think we really need to take a long look at our volunteer program within the community, even if one exists, I'm not sure. And I think, you know, being, having the ability to tap into, for instance, Ben would have been invaluable during COVID and when you're discussing PPE and everything else associated with his experience and his knowledge. So I wanna thank Ben and I thank my colleague for bringing this up. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Has there been any temporary work done? So if it is leaking now, until this work gets done, that you won't have any damage or lose documents?
[Michael Marks]: So nothing on the top of the roof, just temporarily a top or something that could stop?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank my colleague for bringing it up. The questions I would have, Mr. President, surround, you know, we're talking about city council. It's very possible that if there's a third candidate into the mayor's race, that that could trigger off a preliminary election. And as we all know, Mr. President, depending on the number of people running for an office has an impact on the potential impact on the outcome of that office. I think there's a lot to consider. Also, I think anytime a body that could be perceived as doing something self-serving is something that you have to proceed with caution. And indeed, in my opinion, and I've stated this for years, the fact that the Bedford City Council is in order in the general election, an alphabetical order, and all the challenges are after us, it's a known fact that when it comes to the election process, your positioning on the ballot has an impact on, you know, what you may get for votes, you know, the first and the last, and there's a whole science to this. And believe me, I don't wanna be someone that may be perceived as putting forth something that may impact someone else. You know, a new candidate running for public office wants to know, and a primary is, a preliminary is a good way of doing it, wants to know their strengths and weaknesses. And that's an excellent way for a new candidate to say, you know what, I didn't do that well in the primary, I'm gonna focus on this area and this area. What you're effectively doing is taking that away from someone. And so there's a lot I think you have to consider. It's not just, you know, the savings is great, but I would ask that when you look at an election in the community and when 30%, what's the last percentage in the municipal election, Mr. Clark? when 30% of the registered voters come out, we should be promoting elections, whether they're preliminary or not. I mean, we should be, and I've thought about this for years, putting out banners and A-frames and getting the message out, promoting elections. And I think when you start to cancel elections, I think what you see is a cheapening of the election process. And, you know, so I think there's a lot, I'm not throwing this down, but I just think there's a lot to take into consideration. And, you know, I'm not opposed to looking at this, but I really have some reservations on any time an elected a body that has a vested interest, right? The finance is one thing, but you also have a vested interest in getting reelected, right? And anytime you use your influence that may hinder someone else, whether you think it does or not, I mean, it's something that needs to be reviewed. In the past, Mr. President, and I think a couple of years ago, there was a letter sent out by one of the candidates asking all the other candidates, what are your thoughts on canceling the primary? I think there were one or two extra candidates, and why spend the money, as Councilor Bears mentioned. And we got a mixed bag back from candidates. Some wanted to keep it, some were opposed, So I think these are the discussions I think we have to have. So I'm not opposed to what Vice President Knight mentioned about taking a closer look, but I'm not sold on, you know, canceling any primary at this particular point. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate the mayor being here tonight So Madam Mayor, the response that we received from the administration answering some of our questions, the request for 50,000 for legal services, some of us read it as we're not receiving it and others read it as we are receiving it. So I was just wondering if you could clarify.
[Michael Marks]: So that being said then, Copeland and Page, KP Law, seem to be additional legal counsel for the administration.
[Michael Marks]: So the only reason why I ask is I agree, the city solicitor is the law of the land. And we actually have something before us that the city solicitor rendered an opinion, and the city administration is doubting the opinion of the city solicitor. So, but right, but if we're talking about a potential conflict, then you have KP law, which is an outside entity, right?
[Michael Marks]: Not according to your chief of staff, because he's debating on a question or an opinion that was issued by the city solicitor. And that was regarding the CAFs and so forth. And it's still being debated now, I guess, that he's waiting for questions to be answered. But that was a legal opinion issue by the city solicitor. So I'm just a little dumbfounded because the school committee has an attorney. And when I was on the school committee, we had an attorney we can go to as a school committee, but the council doesn't have any recourse regarding legal matters. And there are times where there could be potential conflict of interest. And we've had that in the past. I mean, we had an issue with billboards and we were on the council at the time, where the city solicitor was representing the administration and no one was representing the council. So I think all this council is asking for is a line item in those particular circumstances where we feel that there may be a potential conflict, not to surpass the city solicitor, she does a tremendous job, but in times that we feel necessary that we have to have legal advice as a council. And I really can't fathom why the city administration would feel so intimidated that, you know, we have legal representation. And so no one's trying to circumvent. Also, KP law was brought in at $60,000 a year. From what we found out in this budget process, they have billed us over $150,000 for this past fiscal year. So this great $5,000 a month No longer seems like a great $5,000 a month, because as was stated, that covers certain, you know, legal representation. And I'm sure they've been requested by the city administration or other departments to assist in other things beyond that capacity. So now we're looking at 150,000. And as this council stated, we could probably put on an assistant city solicitor full time, as the office always existed, right? There's always been as far as I remember, There's always been a solicitor and assistant city solicitor.
[Michael Marks]: I don't doubt that, but it seems that KPLR is really now, I think they've issued, correct me if I'm wrong, they've actually issued legal opinions in the community. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember seeing them issue legal opinions. And the only one that can issue a legal opinion in this community is the city solicitor. So I think they've been utilized in a way that really, if it's infringing on anyone, it has been on our law office and possibly substituting for our law office. So I would hope you just reconsider. So this doesn't call for 50,000 line items in our budget for legal services. No, it does not. Okay, so that was a major sticking point for me and it's been a major sticking point for years. So just so you know, I thought, we were getting the $50,000 for legal services. But at this point, I'll rest, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, point of information. Point of information, Council President. With all due respect, it seems like the only one that's getting legal advice in the city is the city administration. They get KP Law at their beck and call, and they have the city solicitor. So with all due respect, I think all we're doing is asking that when issues arise, that we need that same ability. That's all we're asking. No one's asking to cut out KP law, Mr. President. And if there's a new fandango way of providing in-house legal services, that's better than how we've done it for years, I want to listen to it, but we've always had a city solicitor and an assistant city solicitor since I've been on. I mean, so we're not asking to recreate the wheel. And I think what we're seeing now is the moving away from having an assistant city solicitor and the hiring of an outside company, which is fine. That's the mayor and the administration's prerogative. And we're not looking to cut them out of the budget. All we're saying is that we'd like to see how it's operated in the past with assistant city solicitor. And that way we can have multiple legal opinions that actually trickle down to the council. Because I can just tell you, it's not happening now. When we have any type of legal question, we're not able to get answers. Sometimes we are, but other times we're not, Mr. President. So I think that's the concern. And if there's some type of federal statute or state statute or whatever says that we can't do it, I'd like to see it and discuss it. Because I'm not sure why we couldn't have legal advice, Mr. President, in-house legal advice that works with the council. That's all we're asking. We're not asking to go outside of the city. We're not asking to do anything and having someone legally that, I mean, Kim Scanlon's one person, one person. She works with every board and commission, every department, police, fire, DPW. I'm sure she gets questioned sometimes, even on the school side, even though they have their own lawyer that's been there for a number of years. So that's one city solicitor, and I agree, that's not enough for the entire city. But I also rather see it in-house than outsourcing, and that figure keeps growing, the outsourcing figure, and I'd rather see it done in-house. That's all I'm saying, Mr. President. Councilor Papantonio.
[Michael Marks]: So if a council comes up with a request, who's the gatekeeper of the request?
[Michael Marks]: But if we have this new process now where we have KP law, just say they assigned Joe Smith to it. And tomorrow the council says we want Joe Smith to look into this. Does it require your approval?
[Michael Marks]: held up, so.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I just want to make sure that we don't get into the circumstance where requests by this council are being denied. Because that defeats the whole purpose.
[Michael Marks]: But you see our point. We don't want to be contingent upon Will the mayor approve it or not? You know, I don't think we should operate as a body that way, right? So that's it. And I thought that's what the president was offering.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. I just wanna make sure if it's not often we do supplemental. So maybe Felicia can advise us on that. Alicia.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Knight mentioned, I don't think we want to add, we want to subtract.
[Michael Marks]: It was just a doubling of the part-time cell, right? I think it was 32,000 and we just asked to double it.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, you know, to me, I understand what my colleagues have stated. And naturally, I think, you know, if you're looking at a process, the CAF should be presented to us. That means the council either is on board with this new position or not. So to me, you would wanna do that before you say, well, will you fund this position? And then have the council come back and say, well, we don't agree with this position. So I think you would need a fundamental agreement of the position before you ask for the funding. So that's just how I feel. But the larger question I have for the mayor is that if the mayor agrees that the fact as council president mentioned that the mere fact that this may appear in the budget does not initiate the CAF process, meaning that it doesn't require a vote of the council because the approval is in place of the vote of the council for the CAF, then we have a real fundamental difference. Because I believe, Mr. President, whether it's in the budget first or not, that it still requires a vote of the council. So the creation of that position requires a formal vote of the council. And I'd like to know the mayor's position on that, because from what I heard from the chief of staff, and I think this is some of the questions that he had, I don't know what the exact questions were, regarding the city solicitor's opinion, but he did state the other day that he sent a few questions to the city solicitor and they haven't been responded to yet regarding her opinion, but I won't put words in the chief of staff's mouth, but I believe he felt that the mere fact that we voted for a position that was in the budget, therefore, it doesn't require for you to come back before us to get approval of the CAF. And that's my understanding. And if that's the understanding of the administration, then at least me and the administration, we're on two completely different sides, Mr. President, because the CAFs are created by ordinance and the ordinance is a responsibility of this council. So if the mayor is stating here tonight, which I think the response, and I won't speak to the mayor, the response is stating, you're going to look at these CAF positions and then present it to us. You know, some members might have wanted it before the budget, but I'm not gonna split hairs at this point, but if you're saying that this requires a vote of the council, otherwise you cannot put someone on, because currently right now we have someone that's working out of their calf and has been paid many, many months out of their calf without approval by the council. And the fact that that is still ongoing leads me to believe that that is the position of the administration that it doesn't require this cap. So do you hear what I'm saying? So I'm kind of tossed because in one breath you're saying we're gonna present the cap to the council and the other breath, someone's being paid out of the cap because it was never approved by the council and they continue to be paid. So if you're able to at least shed some light, I know I put a lot out there, but I just wanna know fundamentally, if you believe that the caps are required vote of the council, And even though the position may be funded in the budget, and there may be money July 1st for you, you cannot put someone on until that cap position exists within the ordinance. Do you agree with that?
[Michael Marks]: Your mic's off. Your mic's off. My mic's off. I don't know how long it was off for. Just for a second.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, at this point, I think the dog's chasing its tail right now. And I'm at a point right now, I believe we have a commitment. Am I happy how this rolled out? No, I'm not happy. Do I agree with my colleagues that this should have been presented ahead of time? Absolutely. But I'm hearing there's a commitment there, Mr. President. And I think what I'm hoping is that the mayor will present this as quickly as possible, I'm hoping July. But when you look at some of these positions that are new, a director of parking, we were told the other night that we are gonna take on a new parking program in-house January 1st. It's almost July, Mr. President. Time is of the essence. So I can't see the administration holding off on these caps when it's been their commitment, right, to provide parking enforcement in-house January 1st. So I really believe that it's beneficial to the administration and crucial to the administration to keep their promises, not just to this council, but to the community. So I feel very comfortable that these caps are gonna be presented to us. And I know moving forward, they'll be presented ahead of time. So I feel, I have to say, I feel comfortable. with that. You know, we talk about facilities manager for years. I think there's a plan in place to create a facilities manager to oversee on the municipal side. There's one on the school side, but on the municipal side to look at all our buildings to make sure we're never faced again with a dilapidated DPW building, outdated police station, outdated fire stations. So I believe that's a commitment that if the mayor doesn't follow through with, it says, you know what, I'm not going to give them that cap for that position. That doesn't hurt the council. That's the mayor's commitment. That's the administration's commitment. That's one of those promises, Mr. President, that I read about. So I feel comfortable that these positions are of utmost importance. I'm not happy with the process. I agree with council on that. But I think at this point now, I really believe so. And I wish we got it, like Councilor Falco mentioned, maybe several weeks ago and discussed this. But at this point, I think, you know, we're obligated to move forward and go based on the commitment, Mr. President. And, you know, I supported removing the money for the legal counsel, but at this point for these positions, I think we're gonna move forward with them, Mr. President. And, you know, in the past, don't forget, we've had years, and I remember being on the council where they'll say they're gonna hire 18 new firefighters. And at the end of the fiscal year, we hired three. and there were $300,000 left over. It happens a lot, Mr. President. And for whatever reason, sometimes they're unable to get the people on board quick enough. They're unable to vet them or so forth, but it happens quite often. I don't think that's gonna be the case with these positions. So I appreciate the fiscal responsibility. I appreciate the leverage. I'll be the first to always talk about That's use the leverage. If we have the leverage that's using, and I think that's an excellent way of using leverage. Take it out of the budget now and say, Madam Mayor, when you come with the caps, we'll put it back in, like the supplemental, like the last issue. That's a great way of doing it. I don't think with these, we have to do that. Now, if the mayor proves me wrong, then I'll apologize to my colleague. But at this point, I don't think we need to go down that direction. Council Member, I appreciate it. It's not about me.
[Michael Marks]: No, this is not personal at all.
[Michael Marks]: And just so you know, my differences of opinion is how we go about this, not that what you stated was incorrect or by no stretch. I actually voted on your last proposal. I just think we don't have to go down in this one direction on this. Now, Mr. President, as we go through this budget, I have a laundry list of other items, Mr. President, that I will be bringing up. So these are just, this is the, these are the items that they may have presented to us of just recent, I believe yesterday and today, but I have a number of other items that were not addressed Mr. President. So, you know, at some point I'd like to go through those as well, but I just want them to be on the record. I think we have to move forward with this issue is gone full circle, I think. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'll yield to my colleague.
[Michael Marks]: The trees were the 15,000, then we asked for additional money for the 500 large stumps in the community.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And what I wanted to do was, we were fortunate enough to have the mayor here, There's a few things, Mr. President, in the budget that, or we asked to be in the budget, or maybe partially funded in the budget that I have some concerns with. And the first issue, Mr. President, is something that the Public Works Subcommittee has been working on under the direction of Chairman Beers, myself, and Councilor Falco. And that is looking at the creation of a new ordinance to deal with snow shoveling in our community. And as part of the due diligence of the committee and meeting with the Brian Cairns, the head of DPW, meeting with the mayor's chief of staff, Dave Rodriguez, and meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, we have asked that the administration, in addition to potentially a new ordinance, also look at 26 miles of priority sidewalk. that would create connectivity and all the business districts would create connectivity to our schools, to our senior housing, to our stores. And I thought along with the committee that this was a great idea. We were told at the time, because I mentioned about bringing up this in the budget and adding an additional 50,000 to the snow and ice budget, And at the time, which I think makes a lot of sense that, Mr. President, the statutory requirements is once you increase the snow and ice budget, you have to have that same dollar amount in there every year. And that hamstrings the city. And I think that's the last thing we wanna do as a council. However, Mr. President, we did receive what I thought was a commitment, and this is probably the third time of us, and now we have the chief executive officer here, I believe we did receive a commitment that there would be money within the existing snow and ice to provide this. We brought a figure of 26 miles, but give or take, I don't think we're hot fast on that number, but that there would be money within this year for this budget, for this snow period, from December to March, that we would provide that sidewalk priority listing throughout our community. And I'm sure the mayor probably got wind of this, or if she hasn't, if this is the first time she's hearing about it, then I'd like to see if we can get some type of commitment, again, from the chief executive officer regarding this 26 miles of priority sidewalk in our community. Madam Mayor.
[Michael Marks]: So as a committee, we really haven't gone down that avenue yet, but I won't speak to my colleagues, but I don't think we were opposed to doing it in-house versus outsourcing. We were gonna leave that up to the administration, whatever you thought financially and from a, you know, a standpoint of personnel made sense. So I just want to make sure that this is an important item. And the creation of an ordinance may assist us in clearing our sidewalks to a certain extent. But without the, you know, the input and the assistance from the city, I think we're never truly gonna get to a point where we see our sidewalks cleared off consistently. So I just want to put that out there. And I am appreciative of the fact that that's one of your two top priorities over the summer. My other question that I want to bring up, Mr. President, is regarding parking enforcement. And this has been an issue near and dear to me for a lot of years. I sat on the original Parking Enforcement Commission some years back that made the ultimate recommendations, of which 90% were not followed by that administration. But That's an argument for another time. But Mr. President, we were told recently by the chief of staff, Dave Rodriguez, that come January 1st, the city was going to embark on taking parking enforcement in-house. And I don't think that's incorrect. If I am, let me know. But I think that's what the administration is currently looking at. So that is January 1st, Mr. President. What is outlined in the budget for parking somewhat troubles me. And the reason why I bring this up, Mr. President, is the existing or the existing contract with Park Method calls for the enforcement of only a certain percentage of our streets in our city. So Park Method does not enforce the entire city. I would hope, Mr. President, moving forward, if we are going to move forward with in-house parking, that we're looking at this as an entire city. It's no longer going to be, we're just going to enforce resident permit parking streets. We're going to have to enforce every street in this community and provide the same enforcement. The current budget, Mr. President, calls for meeting the levels of park method that doesn't meet the requirements that I believe should meet by enforcing the entire city. So that being said, Mr. President, $350,601 may be what currently we can do to meet the level that Park Method is doing currently right now, but that's not the entire city. And when we talk about running a full-fledged department, which I hope that ultimately that's the goal, I realize it's not gonna start on day one. I'm not naive. And I realize there's a lot of working parts. We have to look at permanent parking, how we're going to approach that citywide or by district. You know, we have to look at a lot of things, Mr. President, but this current budget doesn't call for collections. So you have three parking enforcement salaries and a head of parking enforcement, but you also need someone to collect. So if we end up going to double headed meters or stick with the kiosk, you need to have an entity, a body that collects the revenue from these machines. And it can't be the person that's giving the ticket out. It just doesn't work that way. So you're talking about hiring potentially someone to do the collections. So that's not currently part of this program. And it's a crucial part of any parking enforcement program. Hearings, Mr. President. Now, currently right now, the first line of hearings is done by Park Medford. If you're not happy with that, you're able to come to the city and get a second hearing, Mr. President. Now with Park Medford out of the way, you're gonna increase the number of hearings and we only have the one hearing person that's doing it on a stipend right now. And to me, that is not adequate enough with the influx of taking on the entire city and not just controlled streets, which Park Medford's doing. And also the fact that Park Medford's hearings are gonna go away and that's gonna be emphasized on the city of Medford. So we don't have hearing offices other than the person that we have right now that's in a full-time job that's doing it on the side, which I think we all can appreciate, that's not gonna be enough for hearings. Maintenance, Mr. President, any department, parking department worth their weight has a maintenance department that can fix machines. I mean, you go to any one of our kiosks, I was just at one on Salem Street, In front of the old burial, I was parked there to go to the chess tournament. I went up to feed the machine, and it said out of service. So there are a number of machines, I'm sure, throughout the community that are out of service that we're going to inherit. And whether or not we stick with that or not remains to be seen with the kiosks and meters. I think that's a work in progress. But maintenance is not included in this budget. Also, Mr. President, when you call up Park Medford, they have a staff of one of two people on staff there. So at any given time, they have a staff person that picks up, they have another staff person that can look into issues, issue resident permit parking, issue all sorts of commuter parking stickers. So you have at least one or two people in the office that'll handle that administrative role. This parking enforcement doesn't cover that. So as you can see, as it's set up, and I know this is a work in progress, This is just a shell of a parking program. And to have a full-fledged parking, I would venture to say that this budget would be either doubled or tripled in order to have a full-fledged parking program, which I think we all anticipate and expect in this community. So those are the issues, Mr. President, that I wanted to bring up to the mayor that she's here now, which is great. I brought it up to the chief of staff, and I think he was in agreement that this is just the start of it, but again, We are doing the budget, and this will be implemented halfway through our budget period. And unless we have a pot of money somewhere else, there's gonna be a startup cost. And I wanna make sure if we implement this, that right away, we're not gonna get negativity saying, well, you put together a program, it doesn't provide this, this, and this, you're not doing my street. We don't want that, Mr. President. And I think if we can avoid that angst in the community, I think we have to make sure that, uh, you know, that happens. So I don't know if the mayor wants to speak to that or just take that under advisement, but I have some grave concerns. So if someone says to me, Hey Mike, we're set for pocket enforcement January. I have to say, well, it's being worked on, but according to the budget we passed, I don't believe there's enough money to create a full fledged parking enforcement. So that remains to be seen as the president. So. I don't know if the mayor wants to say anything. I don't wanna put her on the spot, but that's a concern I have with a portion of this budget, Mr. President, that I think we're all gonna vote for, but I don't have the utmost confidence that we're gonna provide that service. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: The reason why I say, Mr. President, you have one shot to make the first good impression. And I would hate to see the program desk, because I believe strongly we should have done in-house from day one. I believe strongly we should have had double-headed meters. I believe strongly in a lot of these issues. And I just don't want to set us up for failure that we're providing not enough funds in the budget to really run a full-fledged program. And I don't want that to be the demise of this program, that people lose trust and faith in it if it's not rolled out appropriately. I'd actually rather see us wait to roll it out in order to get a full-fledged program. So I appreciate the comments from the administration. Some other just small issues, and I'll be brief, Mr. President, because I know my colleagues have other stuff to mention. road in control. Just got a picture actually today from someone on the Fellsway that showed me a giant dead rat in their backyard. They went out and bought their own pellets and so forth. The city actually came down and said, we can see nests, but they're in your neighbor's yard, they're in that neighbor's yard, and there's nothing we can do. This council has requested that we sign a waiver that the health department make up a waiver form that would allow the city to intervene and act when we do have a rodent issue that maybe residents can't afford to address. Um, and this is an issue, uh, it's a, it's a community issue and it's a quality of life issue. So I don't think we could just put our head in the sand and say, well, it's on private property. The city can't assist. And, uh, The amount of money in the budget for road and control citywide is 13,000. Anyone that's hired an exterminator knows they're not cheap. And when they come out to your house, you're talking three or 400 a whack for an exterminator. And that's on the low side. So 13,000 citywide to address our concerns, I think is really appealing comparison of what needs to be done. One information on that.
[Michael Marks]: And I appreciate that, Councilor Skoufis. The way I presented it was that we were gonna have this be an administrative policy, so a policy that falls under the Board of Health. Not everything needs to be enacted by legislation, right? So that would be an administrative policy, but I think it would go a long way allowing the city to act and intervene on behalf of residents. So I appreciate that comment. So the road in control, Madam Mayor, just so you know, if there's money that can be moved around, we need to bait our catch basins, We need to do a better job. I can tell you the Wellington area is crawling with rats. It really is. And I've heard the same from the Heights and part of South Method and even in the Haines Square area. So there's a problem throughout the community. And I think we really need to address it. The other issue I had, Mr. President, and I appreciate it was the planting of new trees. The administration decided to put 15,000, which I appreciate. I appreciate also the 25,000 added for stump removal, but I can just tell you in the 500 odd stumps that are throughout the community, that will tend to just a small, small percentage. Because it's not just the grinding of stumps, it is the adding of new sidewalks, concrete, and everything else associated with it. And I don't think we're gonna get nearly close to getting level with these stumps. if we don't put more money into it. So that I want to bring up, Mr. President, I don't think there's enough money for stump removal. And definitely, Mr. President, the repaving and repairing of our streets. Chapter 90 money, we put about $980,000 a year from the state. That is through Chapter 90 money. The mayor's capital plan calls for, and correct me if I'm wrong, 13 new streets being paved over a six year period. We have 719 odd streets in our community. 13 over six years, we will never get ahead of the game if that's the game plan. And that would be the avenue through a capital plan to address some of the major concerns. There is little to no money. I think I can state that there is zero money to repave in the budget and maybe some small money to fill potholes and so forth. So I don't think we're aggressive enough in tackling one of the major issues we all hear, is the poor condition, and you hear it. And these conditions, this is not a target at anyone. These conditions have existed for 20, 30 years in our community, but we have to have a systematic way of addressing it, and I don't think we're quite there yet, so.
[Michael Marks]: And I appreciate that. And just, you know, putting forth some of the highlights, the election coordinator position, originally in the budget, it was only for a part-time position, Mr. President. I think behind this rail, we all can appreciate the importance of having a full-time election coordinator. Every year we have a major election in this city, and the integrity of our election has to be at the top of the priority list. Without the confidence in our election process and how we hire our elected officials, and how we look at the city charter, which governs how we operate as a community, I think, you know, you couldn't have the confidence and trust in a community. So that's a vital role. I'm happy to see that the mayor saw fit to extend that from a part-time position at the request of this council to a full-time position, Mr. President. The staff does a great work. The people that are currently in their roles, in my opinion, do a great work, Mr. President. And we're at 41,000 registered voters now. That number has increased over the years dramatically. So we have more registered voters in this community. We have more options and ways of people voting. We have extended voting. We have absentee ballots. We have early voting. We have a lot going on now, Mr. President. And we want to maintain the integrity of that office. The city clerk does a great job, but he's one person and he wears many hats. And this coordinator position, It's worth its weight in gold and I appreciate the mayor saw fit to do that. Uh, the director of parking is going to be a vital role as the president and the facilities manager. I know this council has called for it in particular council Scarpelli has been talking about a road crew for sidewalks and streets, but in particular, facilities manager for the last several years. And finally, we're seeing that position in the budget, which will draw light to every building in this community, that there's a maintenance plan, there's someone overseeing it. And I think, again, it's going to pay in the long run, because we're not going to be throwing money into buildings that with proper maintenance, we're not going to see all this need for additional work later down. So it'll end up being a cost savings in the long run, Mr. President. I'm going to stop for now. There was a number of other things. Mr. President, you're giving me the hairy eye. And I appreciate my colleagues, but this is important. It's $191 million budget. I just want to make sure that at least all my concerns and my colleagues are addressed. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: He is of community service to this community. You know, many of us know uh, Knights of Columbus. They've been very active in this community, assisting the most needy, establishing funds for food pantries around not only method, but the surrounding communities, Mr. President. And I want to thank the members of the Knights of Columbus for their commitment to our community. And I want to thank in particular Commander William Knight, who has led the Knights of Columbus for the past year, Mr. President. And tell them to keep up the good work. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Is the mic on, Mr. President? No. Can you hear me now? Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. We're not discussing any names, right? We're having this meeting to sit down and talk to our city solicitor, right?
[Michael Marks]: I don't understand why the city council can never meet an executive session. But the school committee every other week can, Mr. President. It makes zero sense to me. And why we can't discuss an executive session without returning an issue, Mr. President, which makes zero sense to me, too, and maybe cries out for the fact that this council needs to have a line item in the budget to have representation, Mr. President. for exact issues like we're experiencing right now, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could, then I was under the impression like when we had our emergency meeting on Saturday, That meeting was for the sole purpose of discussing scheduling. And we had a meeting. We discussed potential scheduling, which led to tonight. That's correct. I was on the impression tonight we were going to get some guidance from the city solicitor about potential next steps. And that's all we were going to discuss, potential next steps. Now, knowing what we hear tonight, Mr. President, I don't feel comfortable being in a room with other parties, Mr. President, without having representation, legal representation on behalf of the council. So I would ask that whatever meaning we do have, that we invite legal counsel outside legal counsel to the meeting to represent the method City Council, Mr. President, because I'm sure other parties and entities probably have their own legal counsel. Uh, and that is, uh, so I was hoping tonight we would get that, uh, you know, go ahead from the city solicitor to go ahead to whatever we feel comfortable with. Without discussing allegations, without discussing names, without violating anyone's rights, Mr. President, because this council is not in the business of violating rights, but we are in the business, Mr. President, where we're presented with allegations to make sure we take them seriously. And I think that's what we're trying to do as a council. But if my hands are tied that we can't meet, without I don't understand why a body, a legislative body that's elected by the people can't meet. And I understand the open meeting law. Believe me, can't meet to discuss with our attorney, Mr. President, next steps that the council will take. I don't understand that. And I still can't fathom why we can't do that.
[Michael Marks]: No, when did we ask? We asked Saturday for this meeting.
[Michael Marks]: When did we ask?
[Michael Marks]: Because the same solicitor said- So it's been, with all due respect, two to three days, and now we're hearing that we really shouldn't be meeting.
[Michael Marks]: I know we have the ability because we've done it in the past. I was hoping to get guidance as the first step tonight.
[Michael Marks]: 48 hours. 520 Friday. So how do we do that and have legal counsel representing us?
[Michael Marks]: But there may be other legal counsel there as well. So we won't have any representation, and other parties may have legal counsel. And I don't feel comfortable being in a room without having our own legal counsel.
[Michael Marks]: I don't know why we have to have outside parties in a vote for us to have legal counsel. Why do we have to have outside parties? Why? Why? Why can't this be done? Mr. President, can we do it just on the floor today? If you want to do it on the floor on or maybe you can ask the city solicitor. Is that something that we can do just on the floor today requesting outside legal counsel?
[Michael Marks]: We don't make appropriations, so that would be up to the city administration. So, um, you know, maybe that's the direction. I just don't feel comfortable being here with parties that would not at liberty to discuss anything right now, and having them have legal counsel and us not having any legal counsel. Because it's going to get to be a very legal process, I assume.
[Michael Marks]: That's what I was hoping tonight we were going to get, right? That's what I was hoping tonight was going to happen.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, but that doesn't help us with an attorney. Right, that helps us not violate the open meeting law, but.
[Michael Marks]: Right, well, I thought we were going through that process.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, are you able to outline for what purpose this private investigators being hired?
[Michael Marks]: are you able to? Are you able to outline that now before us?
[Michael Marks]: So we don't know what's being investigated. We don't know to what extent, Mr. President. Eso I think that's why, you know, we have to do our due diligence as well. Um, you know, and there could be, uh, on multiple ongoing investigations, Mr. President. But I don't feel comfortable with that response, to be quite honest with you. Because I'm not sure what the response involves. And were the parties notified about this meeting that was held? Do they have the same rights to show up at City Hall? The two department heads, were they notified? Were they privy to this? Excuse me, Councilman Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Do they fall under the same requirements?
[Michael Marks]: The parties that are involved. were they notified of, I'm sorry, of whatever meeting took place with the city administration regarding the hiring of an investigator with the, uh, it wasn't a meeting though.
[Michael Marks]: It didn't just happen in the hallway, right? It was a meeting called meeting and more of a request.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Well, Mr. President, at this point, I think we should proceed as we were going to proceed.
[Michael Marks]: That would be my recommendation.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could, considering our next discussion is regarding the budget, Do we have to notify anyone regarding a request, a formal request by the council for legal council appropriation? Or can we just, as part of the budget discussion, include that into the budget discussion? Because when we offer motions on the budget, they're not posted in advance, naturally.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, well, that may be.
[Michael Marks]: This is a legislative budget. Unless we create a legal line item for a council legal representation, which we can. And one doesn't currently exist. And what we were told is something that we can do as a council. We have that authority.
[Michael Marks]: No. So, I mean... Let's go into executive session on Friday.
[Michael Marks]: Just one question for the city solicitor. Would there be any prohibition for the council to bring on free legal counsel? Like if we found an attorney that wanted to represent us without going through a process of asking for an allocation from the mayor, would there be anything that would preclude us from doing that?
[Michael Marks]: To find a pro bono attorney, you say? You were just saying that we have the ability to bring on an attorney, right?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so this is not reflective upon you, it's reflective upon us bringing someone on. And if the appropriation doesn't come in a timely fashion, then it doesn't suit its purpose. So I would say if we're able to bring on free legal counsel to advise us, right, Mr. President, at the beginning, in particular for this Friday meeting, I don't see any harm in having legal counsel there to represent this council, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: More or less.
[Michael Marks]: I do, Mr. President. Just a question. Uh, when Kim, when you mentioned about giving ample notice, um, to the parties involved, who does that include?
[Michael Marks]: So who would that be? In this case, the individuals discussed.
[Michael Marks]: So we don't even know who we're talking about then. I mean, no, really. We're in a meeting where we can't discuss names. We can't discuss anything. So if the parties wanted to waive their rights, they have the ability to do so, correct?
[Michael Marks]: And would it be parties that brought the claim or would it be parties where?
[Michael Marks]: all individuals. So you couldn't have certain members waive their rights. For instance, if the two department heads said, I want to waive my rights and the council has the ability to speak whatever you want to speak, that wouldn't be enough for the open meeting. There would still be a violation of the open meeting because the city administration didn't waive their rights. Do you know what I'm saying? There's two sides, one side saying we waive our rights, we have to get the other side naturally to waive their rights, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right, because there's multiple parties here, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Multiple individuals.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if some of them waived their rights and said, we have no problem with the council bringing this up, you know, we don't want to be present. We have no problem with them discussing this. That doesn't suffice because we need everyone to waive their rights.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, I'm just, okay, Mr. Pratt. I'm fine moving forward with the exec on Friday and the amendments that Councilor Bears put forward. I'm fine with that. So you wanna make, Councilor Morell.
[Michael Marks]: I think that makes sense. That's not what Kim said. Right. That's what you said, but it's not what Kim said. What? He's saying as long as we notice people, it doesn't matter if they show up or not, as long as we notice.
[Michael Marks]: Absolutely, but I'm just trying to figure out if we can't discuss them, then why are we having the meeting? Right, I mean.
[Michael Marks]: We have one.
[Michael Marks]: No, no, no, it's not upon you. We need someone to give us guidance and I don't, So no, it could be the same person.
[Michael Marks]: The motion that I put forward was to meet in exact on Friday at 6.30, I believe, depending on the time now.
[Michael Marks]: With the amendments made by Councilor, three amendments, I believe he put forth.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, here and on zoom. Mr. President. Uh, who would like to speak?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just to clarify, if we could, even if we wanted to discuss this in an open meeting, I think the city solicitor said all parties had to agree. Is that correct? Okay. So, so even though some of the parties are waiving their rights, Mr. President, I believe all parties have to be notified. That's 48 hour notice. So, um, that's going to preclude us from discussing this at a public session. Sure. I shouldn't.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, as I stated, we don't know the scope of the investigation either. Right. Right. So we know there's an investigation. We don't know to what extent. And I think that should be something that, you know, we're made aware of, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to adjourn, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was contacted recently by a local resident that was very interested in obtaining a second meter for outdoor activities, water meter. And after doing a little research, Mr. President, it was found out that only those that have an underground irrigation system are allowed to benefit from the second meter, which does not add on the added cost for a sewer. And after looking at the actual application and reading the application, it seems to me the requirements by the city, Mr. President. Tonight, I'm going to respectfully ask that the Water and Sewer Commissioners meet again, Mr. President, to discuss opening up the second water meter to all residents. This irrigation program was established in 2010. And the first phase was to open it up to residential water meters strictly for underground irrigation. And at the time, it was stated, Mr. President, that this was going to be phase one of the program back in 2010. And here we are 11 years later, and there's never been another phase rolled out. So if you're a commercial property in the community, you are currently not eligible. And if you are a property owner, that doesn't happen to have, like my property, I don't have an underground irrigation system, but I do use a hose. And sometimes I may do it by hand. Sometimes I may put out one of those little devices that sprinkles water around. And like many of us, some people water their garden. Some people fill their pool up. And to me, the same principle applies. If that water is not finding its way back into the sewer system, Then, you know, the whole idea of setting this up was to give taxpayers a relief, a rate relief from using water outside of their home. And the whole intent was to provide that relief to those who do that, Mr. President. And I think expanding the program after 11 years, I think we have a good handle on how many people have taken advantage of this program and look at the metrics regarding how this is working out, what has been the cost, because there is a cost not only to the resident, that's putting in a second meter, but there's also a cost to those who pay water and sewer in the community, because as we all know, Mr. President, when the water comes into the community, it's meted. So there's giant meters that show how much water is coming in. The MWRA assesses us through what's coming into the community. So they don't look and say, well, you're using the water outside, using it inside. The MWRA doesn't care. The city of Medford created that program which allows us to give people, if you want to call it a reduction or abatement, on the sewer for consumption outside. And so there is a cost to all of us regarding this meter program. But I think this program, Mr. President, in all honesty, should be expanded. Because to me, we should be looking at just people that have an underground irrigation system. we should be looking at anyone that uses outside water. And what I would like to do, Mr. President, I have a copy of the application. A lot of residents aren't even familiar that there's a program that exists. But there's an irrigation meter application. The fee is $300 to fill out this fee. And then it goes on to give you the guidelines for the residential irrigation installation. And just for edification, Mr. President, I think people should be aware if they are interested, the city allows irrigation meters on in-ground irrigation systems for residential accounts only. Applications are taken in order they are received and will be handled by the water division at their discretion. All applicants must pass a pre-installation inspection and follow the guidelines for basic residential irrigation meter installation and requirements as stated on the application. So as you can see from this particular guideline, you have to have an underground irrigation system. The first requirement is a licensed plumber must obtain a permit at the building department in order to install this meter. So you can't install it yourself. A certified and tested backflow device must be furnished at the customer's expense. Customers must maintain the backflow prevention assembly on the irrigation system to ensure protection of the portable water supply with yearly inspections. Backflow tests are conducted by the engineering division, and the current fee for inspection is $60 annually. So there's a $300 charge for the meter itself, and then there's a $60 annual charge. So if you don't use a lot of outside water, depending on what you're using, it may not be worthwhile from a financial standpoint to partake in this program. So you really have to sit down and figure out how much watering you're doing outside in order if this makes financial sense. All irrigation systems must comply with all local and state landscape irrigation regulations. All pipes from the service through the irrigation meter and three feet past the backflow preventer must be brass or copper material. No plastic galvanized or cast iron pipes are allowed. New and existing dwellings may split the service connection for irrigation with backflow device that has a T or a Y split to separate domestic and irrigation water. The city of Medford metering division is not responsible for pressure loss or consumption and volume issues resulting from the split connection. The meter and the reading device are issued by the city and the price is included in the application fee. All pipes from the irrigation meter must be inspected to ensure that there are no cross connections between domestic and irrigation lines. You must install shut off valves before and after the new irrigation meter. So that's pretty much what the rules and regulations are, Mr. President. I would respectfully ask on behalf of the many hundreds, if not thousands of residents that water their lawn, that tend to their gardens, that fill their pool, and use a hose outside for a number of different reasons, that I respectfully ask the Water and Sewer Commission to expand the program currently to all residents if need be, Mr. President, and also go into phase two, which would allow for the commercial application of outside irrigation as well, Mr. President. So I respectfully put that in the form of a motion, and I thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'm not opposed to looking at that and amending the resolution. So I would respectfully add that in addition to my motion, that the Water and Sewer Commissioners look at the city of Revere and how they use an outside meter for residents that does not incur the cost of hiring a plumber, as well as other associated costs. So I appreciate that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today with all due respect and honor for one of methods. Finest Brian Cronin for anyone that knows Brian has served this city with distinction for 42 years, Mr. President, over four decades of an impeccable record, uh, protecting the life and property of our citizens. You couldn't meet a kinder, gentle a person, Mr. President, everyone that I've spoken to that it has seen this on the agenda. Uh, the first words out of their mouth were we're sad to see such a man of character leave. And I'm hoping, Mr. President, that he comes back in other capacities. We were just talking about, and I didn't mention this to Brian, but we were just talking about emergency preparedness and how that position for a number of years has been somewhat of a stipend side position that's gone unnoticed. And it's such an important role in this community. And respectfully, I'd love to see Brian come back as the emergency preparedness head in our community. But with that being said, Mr. President, Brian is retiring as the Deputy Chief of Operations, a very high post within the Medford Fire Department. Brian came to us September 13, 1979. He was appointed to the Medford Fire Department. June 27, 1980, Brian received a special commendation from Chief Leo McCabe for actions at a water rescue incident at the Mystic Lakes on June 25, 1980, under the direction of Lieutenant Charles Parris. September 22, 1981, Brian responded to a house fire at 69 Jerome Street as a member of Engine 2 under the direction of Captain Paul Gennetti, Firefighter Joe Amato and Firefighter Brian Cronin located and removed Mr. Edward Whitaker from a second bedroom after first isolating the fully involved bedroom by closing the door. For their actions that day, the crew of Engine 2, Captain Paul Gianetti, Firefighter Joe Amato, and Firefighter Brian Cronin were awarded the Firefighter of the Year Award. May 3, 1987. promoted to lieutenant. October 22, 1988, Brian responded to a house fire at 20 Rockwell Ave. Under the direction of District Commander Donald McCarthy, the latter two crew of Lieutenant Cronin, Firefighter Robert Booth, Firefighter Alfred Magliari, and District Command Aid Robert Murray, located and removed two residents from the involved second floor bedroom. October 22, 2000, department commendation from Chief Frank Gilberti, Jr. for actions at the medical emergency. Engine five crew consisting of Lieutenant Cronin, firefighter Joe Frazier, and firefighter Rich Jentz responded to a Dexter Street address on a report of a woman in labor. The woman was 34 weeks along in her pregnancy with her twins. Her water had broken and a breach delivery was imminent with a single leg presentational and umbilical cord wrapped around the left hip and leg. The mother was placed in the delivery position and the right foot presented itself. The patient was allowed to push and the baby's torso delivered easily. The head was more serious situation and delivered with difficulty after some delay. The baby was suction dried, but was lethargic with the heartbeat and a severe respiratory distress close to cardiac arrest. Stimulation and additional suctioning of the baby's airway made some improvement. The baby was resuscitated with a bag valve mask. With paramedics now on the scene, this was accomplished with the umbilical cord still attached, with all personnel working in very close quarters, and the second baby beginning to crown. After several minutes of manual restitution, the baby began to breathe spontaneously. The twin brother was delivered without incident. The emergency department doctor at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, where the mom and the twins were taken, told the parents, quote, you are lucky those men knew what they were doing. Otherwise, you and the babies may not have survived, end of quote. Lieutenant Cronin praised his crew and the paramedics for their compassion and professionalism. Lieutenant Cronin, Firefighter Frazier, Firefighter Jentz were awarded the IAFF Local 1032 Meritorious Service Medal. August 3rd, 2007, Department of Accommodation for actions at a fatal motor vehicle accident on Route 93 with multiple entrapments requiring the use of hydraulic rescue tool while under the direction of District Commander Jerry Irving. Firefighter Mike Carpenito, Firefighter Mike Granara, Firefighter Rick Wilson, Firefighter Mike Endicott, Firefighter Stephen Hughes, Lieutenant Brian Cronin would receive the IAFF Local 1032 Meritorious Service Medal. November 1st, 2017, promoted to temporary captain and assigned to the training division. March 23, 2018, promoted to permanent captain. September 7, 2018, promoted to permanent deputy chief and assigned to the administration as the chief of operations. Under the direction of Captain Pat Ripley, conducted first aid and CPR training for the department. Seeing the need for permanent EMS procurement officer, Lieutenant Cronin received permission from Chief Lawrence Sands to take on those duties. With direction from chief and welcome assistance from the department members, improved EMS equipment and training shortly followed. Brian is a member of the Medford Fire Department Honor Guard, Secretary of the Medford Firefighters Relief Association from 2003 to present, and the Medford Firefighters Memorial Sunday Service Committee, 2002 to present, which many members of this council, along with the public, were present to honor deceased firefighters, Mr. President. I personally want to thank all our brave firefighters But in particular, Mr. President, the Deputy Captain of Operations, Deputy Chief Brian Cronin, who is not only a firefighter, Mr. President, he is a close friend to many. and he's gonna be sorely missed, Mr. President. His professionalism, the way he carried himself, the way he made every firefighter, no matter what position he served, all the way up to deputy chief, Mr. President, he made every firefighter, whether you're on the job for one day or on it for 40 years, like himself, he respected and made them all feel welcome and at home. And truly, it's firefighters like Brian Cronin that make the family of firefighters what they are today. And I would ask that on behalf of this council, that we honor Brian by giving Brian a council accommodation for his 42 years of dedicated service to the life and property of the Medford residents. and for conducting himself in a manner that we can all be proud of, Mr. President. I thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I want to say it's at the end of this month, but I don't have the exact date.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Anyone that knows the INS of family know them as outstanding method residents. Mr. President, a family that's been involved in this community for decades, giving of themselves at all different levels. Mr. President, Maria has been a tremendous business owner in this community giving back at many, many events. She is the first to step forward and make donations when necessary or when asked to, uh, go over and above the call of duty. Maria, INS is the first to volunteer, Mr. President, and I think that comes from her parents and the way she was brought up. If I'm not mistaken, I also believe she's a proud vocational. I believe she went to the cosmetology at the method vocational technical high school, Mr. President, where she learned her craft and it's evident in the type of business that she runs and the product that she puts out. Mr. President, anyone that comes out of there is coming out with a hairstyle that is second to none. Um, and I just want to congratulate her on her 15 years and wish her another 50 years of success in our community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank President Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. I come from a little different train of thought, Mr. President. These are method streets and the fact that it may be a private way, in my opinion, has zero bearing on the responsibility of the city to make sure public nuisance and public safety issues are not addressed. I think it's a cop-out to be quite honest with you. 40% of our 719 streets in this community are private way. So what are we saying? 40% of our streets we can't enforce on. It's ridiculous. And I've been talking about this issue for years. No one wants to discuss it. But it is an issue, Mr. President. And as far as I'm concerned, if I was the CEO, which would have happened where there would have been signs posted all in those streets stating resident only. And I would have had the tow trucks out there and the cops out there ticketing immediately and worry about it after the fact. Because what we're doing is providing parking for people that want to use the DCR land. So we essentially become the parking lot. DCR's not providing parking. We are. And it's a cop-out to say, well, it's a private road. What benefit? Ask any of the neighbors. What benefit do you have living on a private road? You have zero benefit. You pay the same tax as everyone else, and you get zero benefit. So if they're unable to give tickets on a private road, why are we plowing? That's city money. That's city resources. We're allowed to plow? To me, that has zero bearing. And if there was leadership in the community, they would have acted immediately, Mr. President. And it's no different as what's happening at the top of Governor's Ave. It's no difference. And really, it upsets me because I think the city should be the first to step up. Worry about the consequences after the fact. Send a message. We're not going to tolerate it. We're not going to allow you to invade our neighborhoods. We're not going to allow you to have cookouts in front of someone's home and leave debris behind. We're not going to allow you to change out of your bathing suit in front of our home. We're not going to allow public drinking. That's the message that has to be sent, not that we're worried if we give a ticket out because, oh, it's a private way. That's baloney. That's absolute baloney. And to hide behind that, Mr. President, is shirking your duties, as far as I'm concerned. These residents, they're right. They've been going through this for years, for years. And if it takes an ordinance change, fine. I don't know if that's going to do it all, Mr. President. We have a serious issue with over the years, over the last 50, 60, 70 years, when this city was being built up and so forth, that the city at the time allowed them to make private ways, Mr. President, because they didn't want to go through the acceptance process to accept a street. And it was done for a number of reasons, because some of these streets, Mr. President, didn't have the proper infrastructure. You go up the heights, a lot of them didn't have the proper drainage. and they tapped into the sewer system where they shouldn't have been. So a lot of these roads were created as paper roads and private ways because the city wasn't, for years, didn't really follow through on this, Mr. President. There's no reason why. If a road still wants to be a private way, fine. But we should send out a survey to everyone on private ways right now and ask them, would you like to change over? And for those that want to change over, we should move immediately to change over, Mr. President. There's a process. For those that want to keep it private, fine. But everyone should be receiving the same city services. You pay the same taxes. And police enforcement is a city service. Plowing is a city service. Your sidewalk being done is a city service. Your tree being trimmed is a city service. And there's no reason why 269 roads, which are thousands of homes and tens of thousands of residents, have to say, well, I live on a private way. I'm not entitled to the same enforcement or the same upkeep on my street. It's ridiculous. It really is. So I support the president, Mr. President. I would ask that immediately enforcement take place. And I know that request already happened through a neighborhood meeting. And I guess those saw, those wooden saw horses were broken in half and people tossed them aside. But we need true enforcement there. And if we need to station someone there, Mr. President, have a police officer stationed in that area, then so be it. This is not Mayberry. It's a city of 60,000 people, seven square miles, $190 million budget, and we can't tell residents that are paying tens of thousands of dollars in taxes, sorry, you live on a private website. We'd love to help you out, but we can't do it. You're on a private road. Unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. President, for bringing this issue up.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. Councilor Marks. So we have outside construction companies come into our community, post their own little handmade signs all over the neighborhoods. No parking or you'll be towed. But the city of Medford can't do that to help residents. It makes no sense, Mr. President. We allow outside utility companies to come in and invade our city and post these signs, but we can't do it. That should happen overnight. I agree with you, Mr. President. That should happen overnight, Mr. President. It makes no sense at all. We really need answers on this. Point of information.
[Michael Marks]: Move suspension of the rules to take public participation, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank the speakers tonight because I believe this council has tried to act over the last year to be a sounding board for residents that felt that their voice wasn't being heard. And, you know, we may have not had the ability to make substantive changes, but I think we did act as a sounding board for this community. I would like to say that I don't believe any body, whether it's the city council, the mayor's office, or the school committee, has the sole authority, Mr. President, over city-owned buildings. I do believe that the school committee had the authority to rename the school. However, I don't think there's anything that would prevent us as a city council, which is the legislative body, to put an ordinance in place that would require a check and balance on the naming of any building within the community. So at some point, Mr. President, I would like to offer that as a motion, and I'll do it here tonight if need be, that we request the city solicitor, Kim Scanlon, to look at whether we as a legislative body, the Medford City Council, through a city ordinance can require that we as a legislative body elected by the people would also have a say and the renaming of any building, whether it's municipal or school building, Mr. President. And that way, there would be a check and balance in that process. As we all know, the school committee doesn't even have the authority to appropriate funds. And these buildings are city-owned buildings, Mr. President. And I think we require closer scrutiny. So I would put that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that we ask the city solicitor whether we can do that via an ordinance. I also think when we talk, Mr. President, about this community and about the division over the last couple of years, it's important that we as a community, I think, call out hatred whenever we see it. I mean, hatred can't be one side or another. Hatred is hatred, right? So what gets me is, you know, someone will say, well, you didn't call out this hatred or that hatred. I think we all stand and I won't speak for anyone else. We can't, as a community, tolerate hatred, period. Any type of hatred. And I think, as a community, what really divides us, Mr. President, and I have to bring it up, and, you know, when you have people on social media, and God bless people that want to use social media, I'm not on it, Mr. President, and it's intentional. I think it's the demise of society, to be quite honest with you. For those that want to get on social media, Mr. President, I think they have to be careful on the words that they use. Because if your intent is to get your point across, that's one thing. If your intent is to continue to divide, I think you have to be called out on that, Mr. President. Because this is far too good of a community to let that happen. And there's one email, Mr. President, that went out. Actually, it was social media. It wasn't an email. and it was a call for action right before the Columbus School vote. I won't mention the person's name, although that person didn't mind throwing everyone else in the community under the bus, but that's fine, if that's the way they want to operate. But we as a community, Mr. President, someday this may be you that they're targeting, someday it may be your group, someday it may be your ancestry, someday it may be your religion, Mr. President. And the list goes on and on. I've always stated as an elected official, just because you have the ability and the power to do something doesn't mean it's right. And I've been saying that for decades, Mr. President. And here's a perfect example of a school committee that had the ability, had the power to flex their muscle, and they did it. Didn't matter anything else, they did it. They flexed their muscle. And in my opinion, those are not true leaders. Because a true leader will listen. A true leader will deliberate. And they'll take into consideration, Mr. President, everyone's feelings and factors, Mr. President. And that truly did not happen with this issue. And I think it's a shame. And it's why it polarized our community, Mr. President. But I do, Mr. President, want to read this hateful, hateful posting that went out. And I'm sure there are a lot of them. But this one really hit home with me, and it was a call right before the meeting for the Columbus School vote. This is a call to action. The final voting on the new name for the Columbus School is happening on Monday night during a school committee meeting. The meeting starts at 6.30. There will be public participation permitted, and the right wing of Method is organizing around this. The worst of the worst will be there in force. and they are defending nothing less than white supremacy in Medford. The groups that have been energized by this are using the Trump playbook and creating completely false narratives about what happened in the process of how the name change is being handled. We need bodies at this event in person, and we need faces on Zoom. Fear warning. The people who are going to speak are the most racist, cruel, hateful humans in method. And this action will be painful. Mr. President, I was president at that meeting. There were many, many residents present on Zoom, Mr. President, and at the meeting that took time to come down. There were many people in this community that had strong feelings about the renaming of the school. And we're all entitled to our feelings and our opinions. Take that away, what do we have as a society? And to be told that you may have an opinion that differs from someone else, that you're hateful, that you're a racist, that you're a white supremacist for showing up, is a disgrace, Mr. President, an absolute disgrace. And it's an intimidation, nothing more than an intimidation to have people say, you know what, if I show up to that meeting and speak my mind, I'm going to be lumped into this. And we can't allow, as a community, no matter what side you are on the issue, because someday, Mr. President, you're going to be on the opposite side. You may be the one they're targeting. As a community, you would hope we all stand together and we're able to decipher what's right and wrong. Put everything aside. We're all humans. What's right and wrong, Mr. President? And calling people out because they have an opinion or trying to label them in the worst way, Mr. President, calling them white supremacy, calling them hateful, the worst possible thing you can call someone, Mr. President. And for the most part, it's untrue. So that really bothered me. When I read that, Mr. President, I've been elected a lot of years, and that language alone really bothered me. I know there's a lot of language going back and forth, but that language resonated with me because, Mr. President, it's not who we are as a community. Get to know the community that you moved into. Get to know your neighbors. Get to know the people across the street or the people who live on the other side. Listen to what people have to say. Don't be quick to judge and react or pay people in a corner. Or you're a righty, you're a lefty, you're this or that. That's hard law. We all live in this city because we love it, Mr. President. And if you don't love it, you know where the door is. See you later. Because we're not going to tolerate hate, Mr. President, in this community. I hate to see all these stop hatred signs all around the community. People put them out because they feel strongly about it, Mr. President, but that's not who we are. Do we need to work on things? Absolutely. It'd be naive to say otherwise. Are there changes we can make as a community? Absolutely. And I think we're all willing to do it. We all want to do it. But we're not going to get there through a vehicle of intimidation and harassment and name calling. We're not going to get there, and we'll never get there. And if people think we're going to get there by browbeating people and calling them names, then they're misunderstood, Mr. President, because it's not going to happen in this community. We're too good of a community, and we're going to rally around this.
[Michael Marks]: I understand that Mr. President I'm fine with that just if you could just read back the motion or I'll state it again. Well, just so for the edification of the people watching now, the wording is that I request that we ask the city solicitor for a ruling, Mr. President, whether or not the city council through way of a formal city ordinance can craft the process of the naming of any municipal or school building So any facility, municipal school building, Mr. President, and whether we can do that by way of ordinance.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Council Box. Alicia, do you know how much money we currently have in the historic preservation?
[Michael Marks]: So after this appropriation, we'll have 374, 640 or 378, 640 around there. Around there, yes. The reason why I asked Mr. President is when we just met with the fire chief to discuss the fire department budget, it was mentioned to us that some of the capital plans, as well as some of the narrative from the report that was just commissioned by the mayor to look at our fire stations spoke about using CPC funds from historic preservation in order to fund some of the renovations of our fire stations. And I just want to make sure that the city administration and I won't put Alicia on the spot, but I want to make sure that these funds that are out there that I'm sure they're going to go fast, that this is one of the areas that they were looking at. And I believe the city administration, Alicia, I'm not sure if you're familiar or not, but did receive correspondence back from the historic commission stating that indeed, fire stations were of historic significance. Are you familiar with that?
[Michael Marks]: Which we found out they do, correct? Correct. Okay. The only reason why I bring it up is because I know these funds go fast. We've approved a number of preservation items before this council. And I just wanna make sure because it would be the city administration reaching out to the community preservation committee requesting funds for a particular purpose like they've done in the past. And I would hope that they're requesting funds now to look at some of the renovations on our fire stations.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could follow up, Mr. President. Danielle, thank you very much. So that's an excellent point, because the general remainder is a million three, according to the sheet we have in front of us. So if you're seeing a third, a third, or a third, there's potentially another 400,000 available for historic preservation, including the 204. So that makes a huge difference. That's excellent. I appreciate that. Thank you. Scott Bailey.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I review the records, find them to be in order and move approval. Second.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if maybe you could give our schedule for our budget hearings if anyone wants to view.
[Michael Marks]: their potential concerns on this area. We also did hear back from the traffic engineer and the city engineer regarding the design standards and safety standards that meet state and federal guidelines. And at this point, in my opinion, that intersection of Woburn and High was a free-for-all. a complete free-for-all. This actually makes a difference, in my opinion. It clearly defines going up or taking a right or a left. It clearly defines it now, which never existed. Now, if the issue is whether or not a fire apparatus can get there during snow time and clement weather and so forth, that's an issue that needs to be looked at and addressed. I don't think anyone doubts what former Councilor Pence is stating. And I'm hoping that's taking place. because we've addressed this on several occasions. But by no stretch, Mr. President, do I believe that this area was better off prior to the work that was done, because I do believe that work clearly delineates where you have to go now and where you have to stay and so forth. Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. And I don't disagree with you, but I'm saying at some point we have to rely on the experts and the professionals. And if they're telling us that this complies with all safety standards and so forth, I think we have to at least rely on that. But I don't know if that's fully been vetted out yet. And just because the state came in and did work there, to me, I think it at least, at the very least, requires an additional look. And that's, I think, what we've been asking for the last three or four weeks, for the city to take an additional look. Asking to take stuff down now and so forth, I don't have the expertise to do that. You know, I don't have the expertise to say take something down. What I do have is the common sense to say maybe it should be reviewed. But clearly, these type of initiatives, and I've been talking about them for 20 years, so I can't take a back step on it. Traffic calming initiatives do work in the community. And these are traffic calming issues. We may not like this one in particular or think it doesn't fit in this particular area, but these bump outs, these extending of sidewalks, these definitely make a difference when it comes to slowing traffic down. It's a known fact. It's not only happening in Medford. It's happening all over the state. across the country. So I think we have to proceed with caution on this. I support having it looked at. You're right, if it is a safety concern, I agree with you. That's a neighborhood. And if we're in fear that trucks may have a hard time navigating over there, absolutely. I think we're obligated to say that. But I'm not an engineer or a professional to say that we should start redesigning, because I don't know what a redesign would look like. That's not something that I do. So I will support the resolution, because I think it makes sense. But I'm not prepared to say that we have to take a step back and start redesigning things, because that's not in my realm.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I offered this last week under suspension and therefore under our council rules, it appears the following week, we had many discussions regarding the park on Riverside Ave and the usefulness of having a chess, actually a statewide chess club, being able to, on Sundays, use that particular area. And I think, Mr. Vice President, you brought up a great point about that being recognized as a park and may require permitting and so forth. But at the time, one of the organizers, Chris Donovan, who started this roughly two years ago to attract additional foot traffic to Medford Square, came up with the idea, and there's a local Method chess club. They've been going down there ever since, I believe on weekends. And it was his thought if, you know, the old field of dreams, if we build it out to suit those who play chess, for instance, Chris sent me a number of pitches, which he sent to our director of Parks and Recreation of Stone chest tables with chairs that are fixed. So they're fixed right to the ground. There's no set up and tear down every time. It's far easier for community to put on these type of events. And the, according to Chris Donovan, the city's parks and recreations are currently looking at some fixed tables, chest tables to use that are made out of concrete or steel. They're looking at shade umbrellas because as we all know, That area is pretty wide open to the sun and is not conducive to people playing chess in the sun for any more than a short period of time. So they're looking for shade. They're also looking for, which I believe they just purchased, and I want to thank the city, two foot tall chess pieces that are family friendly. So if you're not that great of a chess player, you can go down there with your family and put around with the giant two foot chess pieces And there'll be people down there that will show you how to play the game of chess, which I think is a family fun activity for all, Mr. President. They're looking to have tournaments down there and for eventually that this be one of the recognized stops in Massachusetts for professional chess tournaments. And it's just one addition to the square, which I think would be much needed for additional foot traffic. I want to thank Chris Donovan. for his efforts on this. And I know my council colleagues agree that we believe that this would be a great asset to the square and something that, you know, provide the additional foot traffic to those businesses that have been stuck with this pandemic for the past 15 months and welcome additional people into the square. So I just want to thank Chris again and I look forward to the city moving forward over the summer with this chess club, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Senior Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. That was an excellent update and I appreciate it. My question is, the T will not open unless the sound walls are completed, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Okay. So what's correct?
[Michael Marks]: So residents that abut the tracks could rest assure more or less that the sound walls, which I know they're going to depend on, will be up when this project is underway. So that's all that's going to happen.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and do we have any update on the naming of the station that would be Ball Square South Method Station?
[Michael Marks]: That's great. That pressure started largely in part because you and Jim shaking the tree. So that was extremely helpful. I'm glad to hear that it's incorporated in the budgets at the Statehouse. Just a last point, Mr. President, I know we've all stated this. I think Jim and Laurel are probably the longest serving volunteers on a project in this city. And the amount of hours, the time, the effort As you can hear, they sound like they're city employees. They sound like they're the engineers. It's really remarkable what two volunteers have done in this community, Jim Silver and Wal Ruma. And we can't say enough thank you, because if they weren't at every meeting and at the table, I think much of this would have gone unnoticed, and many of the improvements we're seeing wouldn't have taken place, Mr. President. If they weren't actively out there, and looking out for the best interest of our residents and our community. So on behalf of the council, I want to personally thank them both for their extended service on this committee, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I wanna thank again Councilor Falco and Vice President Knight. This is common every year. We go through this every year. Some years we're lucky because we don't have a heat wave until well after the middle of June, but this year we faced a heat wave at the beginning of June, an extended heat wave. The issue to me is that whether it's a management company or whether it's Method Housing, If a temperature rises above a certain degree, Mr. President, and from what I read in the paper, that some of these units were upwards of 85 to 90 degrees. You can imagine being in a unit, 85 or 90 degrees, when you open a window and get zero breeze, Mr. President, or you put on a fan and all you're doing is blowing around the 90 degree heat in a unit, that creates heat exhaustion. And if you have comorbidities, like many seniors do, and disabled in our community, that could be a very serious combination. Very serious combination. And at the very least, Mr. President, and Councilor Farquhar will hit the nail on the head, the city was slow to operate the cooling stations. It was two days into the heat wave. that the city sent out a call saying there was the availability of cooling stations. Also, some of the cooling stations, as Councilor Falco alluded to, had hours that were, you know, bankers hours. So I guess you can't overheat at nine o'clock at night if it's 90 degrees, and you have nowhere to go, Mr. President. But at the very least, Mr. President, these particular buildings should be equipped like emergency management should be in this community, which I have to say, emergency management in this community does not exist. It's non-existent. So if we depend on emergency management during a true emergency, we're in trouble in this community. We can't even attend to one building. What should have happened is portable AC units should have been immediately deployed in that particular building. immediately. Every room should have been checked. Every room should have been checked. And if we weren't able to get the portable AC systems, they should have contacted the hotel across the street or the hotels in Wellington and put people up for the night or two nights. What's more important? It was totally mishandled, Mr. President, and it's unacceptable. and we're not prepared as a community. This is a shot across the bow for this administration and previous administrations. because it's a show of a program. When we go through our budget, and when the council sees a budget for $450 for a city of 58,000 people, Mr. President, you're going to say, what type of emergency management are you going to provide to us, to the seniors, to families? God forbid a true emergency would happen in this community. The way they address the pandemic, we hear all sorts of accolades. That should also be the way we address a situation like we had last week, Mr. President, with the heat wave. That should kick into effect with the Board of Health and emergency management. Did we hear about any emergency management? Did the residents hear about any emergency management? No, they had to wait for a newspaper to write an article. It's unacceptable, Mr. President. It really is. And this has been going on for years. It's not just this administration. When are we going to get serious with emergency management in this community? When are we going to have someone head emergency management? When are we going to fully fund it? It hasn't happened to date. And this budget is no different. Last year, apparently we had the perfect budget and we got accolades for having the perfect budget and mechanically, Maybe it was the perfect budget. Maybe it was written up and it looked great and had a great cover on it. But it's the substance that matters, what's inside the budget. And we sorely underfund emergency management. No one wants to talk about it. We sorely underfund it. And when it comes up, Mr. President, I'm going to be the first to shake the tree once again and find out why we're not fully funding emergency management, why we don't have a full time dedicated person. This is not something you give someone a $500 stipend and say, Hey, here's your hat. You're in charge of emergency management for the city. There's grant funding out there. We're not taking advantage of this programs out there that we could take advantage of. There's companies that will come in and provide services at very little to no cost. But you have to ask. You have to have someone in charge. And it's not happening in this community, Mr. President. Thank you. And I thank my colleagues for bringing this up.
[Michael Marks]: The council pushed to save that emergency room and it was out of our control, Mr. President. This council didn't support saving that emergency room. You are correct.
[Michael Marks]: I didn't put mine in the form of a motion, but I'd like to put mine in the form of a motion regarding the budget and the lack of funding in this community for emergency preparedness. I'd like to get a response back from the city administration. How they're going to increase the emergency preparedness and awareness in this community. And also that if this ever happens again in this community, that portable air conditioning units, as well as putting people up in hotels, Mr. President, and public housing. or in private, Mr. President. They're making money hand over fist in these private buildings, and they should take care of their residents. So I would ask that that be part of the report as well.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for his putting this on the agenda and for also his personal words because I think his tribute really struck home with me. Knowing Bud, you know, Bud was a friend to everyone. I had him a teacher when I was at the high school. He was my teacher. You know, I didn't play any sports under Bud. I actually wrestled for Method High School, but he was the athletic director and he cared about every program. And he cared about every kid individually. And he had a relationship. I don't know how he did it with every kid. And we all respected him. And he was tough as nails when he had to be. And he let you know that he was there. And if you did something wrong, he let you know about it. But he also had a side that was very sensitive. And Bud was truly a great family man. His wife, Judy, we used to joke around, come around this time every July. His wife and I would meet, and we used to meet at Stop and Shop around the cherries that came out every July, and we'd be the first in the cherry section, and we'd pick through all the cherries because we were cherry fiends. And we used to laugh about it. And they're just a great couple, Mr. President. Bud, I think, would be the first to lend a hand, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned. If he needed something, he'd be there. He'd be the first to help you out. He'd be the first to extend himself. He'd be the first to go to bat. And, you know, that's what I remember about Bud Kelly. And you're absolutely right, my council colleagues, all three of that. You know, as we lose people of this character, people that made the city what it is, Mr. President, it truly is not just the loss of someone, it's the loss of, you know, a feeling in the community. It's the loss knowing that someone has your back. It's the loss of having someone that is there with your best interest. And I think as we lose people like that, we really lose a part of the community. And I'm hoping that we start to build that camaraderie. We start to build that sense of neighborhood, that sense of belonging. And that's what, you know, I think Bud instilled how he acted in this community. It really was a sense of pride. And if you didn't go to the Thanksgiving football game, let me tell you, especially in the high school, you weren't getting an A or B anymore. You had to go to the game and he used to take attendance, believe me. And the crowds were huge because of Bud Kelly and because of the spirit and the pride that Bud Kelly had, Mr. President. And you're absolutely right. The blue and white, I don't think you can meet someone that had more blue and whites with their veins. Um, and he will be sorely missed. I, I feel awful, uh, for, uh, Judy and, uh, Beth and, um, uh, Linda and, uh, you know, the rest of the family, um, including the son-in-laws and so forth. Uh, because Bud was an excellent husband, father, grandfather, friend, coach. You name it, he excelled at everything and found the time to do so. And he will surely be missed, Mr. President. I ask, I know my colleague would want it, that we name Bud Kelly, dedicate this meeting after Bud Kelly in all his years of service, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. So the lot on Middlesex Ave is quite a large lot. So I could see that working on Middlesex Ave. The lot on Commercial Street is a very difficult lot to get in. And I can only imagine during construction, I was just wondering if you can lay out what the plans are. You said there's a tent and you know, they're going to be able to access through the tent and drive through. Can you just explain, are they going to use the existing drive-through even though it's closed as a way to go in and out of that very small lot? Can you just explain how it's going to work?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So part of my concern, Mr. President, and I know they're actually working on the Dunkin' Donuts on the Fellsway right now. It's been closed for I believe two days. But part of my concern is when this duck and donuts originally went in, there was some grave concern about the queuing up of cars that are going through the drive-through. And the reason that was raised is we all know that engine four is next door. And believe it or not, it's not unheard of. I live in the area. that on certain days, you'll see the cars queuing up onto Commercial Street and out onto Riverside Ave, and not far from the entrance to the fire station. My only concern now is you're gonna be backing up where cars are gonna be coming in. The tent will be right where the entrance is, I assume where the doors are, and you're gonna be backing up cars queuing onto Riverside and Commercial. And depending on the flow and so forth, I have some concern, Mr. President. Is this something that has been run by public safety officials in the community?
[Michael Marks]: I would just respectfully ask, I'm not opposed to what they're trying to do, Mr. President. I just want to make sure it makes sense. Like I said, this is a much smaller lot than Middlesex Ave. Middlesex Ave can accommodate, you know, the big Apple Circus there under a tent and so forth. But Commercial Street is a congested lot. There's no access from Riverside Ave into their lot, either come into Commercial. Getting in and out of their lot inherently is difficult already. and I'm sure you would know as someone that's involved with that Dunkin Donuts, I just wanna make sure. So I would ask that approval be conditioned upon getting approval from both the fire and police chief that they don't anticipate any concerns with public safety regarding access to our fire trucks getting in and out of engine four and also safety with the president of vehicles queuing up potentially onto Riverside Ave. So that would be my recommendation, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: As amended. As amended. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: With the condition, Mr. President, Duncan Donuts receive a sign off from both the chief of police and the fire chief regarding any potential safety concerns.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor and a pleasure to rise here tonight to recognize one of Medford's finest that we have in the audience tonight. Kaylee, can you stand up, please? Mr. President, as early as age five, Kaylee used to play baseball, T-ball, in the backyard with her grandpa, Papa. And that's Richard Laidlaw. And as early as age five, Kaylee used to say to her grandpa, someday I want to play baseball for Medford High School. And her grandpa, like every other grandpa, would say, OK, maybe someday you'll play baseball. And he used to tap her on the shoulder and say, maybe someday you'll play. And then Kaylee, knowing that she was ambitious and wanted to succeed, spent countless hours practicing and honing in our skills at Gillis Park. While other kids were out doing different things, Kaylee was down there with an instructor, learning how to catch, hit, run, the fundamentals of baseball, Mr. President. It was her dream to play baseball at Medford High School. Through hard work and determination, Kaylee earned a spot on Medford High School baseball team, breaking the glass ceiling for many other young women becoming the first female to play Medford High School JV baseball. I'm offering a motion tonight, Mr. President, requesting that the city council recognize Kaylee Laylaw for her dedication and commitment by issuing a formal council accommodation recognizing her first of a kind accomplishments in this community. Also, Mr. President, I would like to recognize at this time, we have not only Kaylee here, but we have the entire baseball team. How often do you see an entire team, Mr. President? I think it speaks volumes for the camaraderie and the feelings that all the players have for each other and the fact that they have these same feelings for Kaylee and honor Kaylee. So if the baseball team could please stand up. Come on, everyone stand up. I was also told, Mr. President, from Gino DeSimone, who's the coach in the back. And the one thing he said, please don't have me speak. So I know he's a man of few words, but carries a big stick. I understand that. So we're not going to have Gino speak. But Gino has done a tremendous job as coach of the JV team. He's done a tremendous job bringing in this group of kids, Mr. President. Their record's two, three, and one. And I know they can only get better as the year goes on. But on a good piece, Mr. President, they just had a game against Lynn Classical. And Kaylee hit a double, bringing in two runs, Mr. President, which won them the game. So I think, Mr. President, what we see here tonight is really a group of kids getting together, banding together, being able to accomplish goals, Mr. President, goals in which unite everyone as a community. And now more than ever, I think we need to look to this team, as leaders, Mr. President, in a community that I believe is currently divided over a lot of different issues. And here we have youngsters that are saying how it is to work together. No matter who you are, let's work together. Let's unite for a common goal. And we're seeing that tonight here with these players, Mr. President. I want to thank the coach. I want to thank the team. I want to thank Kaylee. And last but not least, Kaylee's family, Mr. President. Because without that support at home, and the parents that drive, a lot of the parents are here tonight. I see them in the back row. They're the ones that get the kids back and forth. They're the ones that go out and get the equipment when needed. They're the ones that take the Saturday nights, the Sundays, the Monday practices, the Tuesday, the Wednesday. They're the ones that put in the hard work as well. So this is truly a family effort, Mr. President. So on behalf of this council, I'd like to personally, I know my colleagues have things to say. I'd like to personally thank the Laidlaw family. I'd like to congratulate Kaylee. I'd like to congratulate the team, the coach, Method Sports in general, Mr. President, all the student athletes. And I would ask that we send out a council accommodation and also take a team picture as well as a picture with Kaylee and her family once the council is done giving their accolades, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, it's with great honor that I rise here tonight to bring up a former resident of this community, Mr. President, Sarah Bradley Fulton. Sarah lived from 1740 to 1835 and was Method's heroine of the American Revolution, often called the mother of the Boston Tea Party. as she came up with the idea to disguise the Sons of Liberty as Mohawk Indians and helped her Boston sister-in-law outfit them. Sarah was appointed leader of the Daughters of Liberty, who oversaw the boycott of the British goods. She organized a makeshift hospital in Medford for the injured American soldiers. Following the Battle of Bunker Hill, Famously, Sarah Bradley Fulton acted as a spy, delivering dispatches from General Washington behind enemy lines. President Washington thanked Ms. Fulton for her heroics by making a personal visit to see her at her Method Farmhouse, located in the vicinity of Fulton Street, which is named after her following her death. The Marquise de Lafayette also visited Sarah at her home to say thanks. It's also fitting that the city of Medford follow the lead of George Washington and Lafayette by honoring one of their own, by declaring Sarah Bradley Fulton Day in early October of 2021. Mr. President, we have the distinct honor, if any one of the council has any questions, we happen to have Sarah Bradley Fulton herself here tonight in the audience. And if any members of the council have any question why we should recognize Sarah, I think the only appropriate person to answer would be Sarah herself. So Sarah, are you in the audience?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. If I could, just for the edification of the viewing audience, there's a great story that's on Medford Community Media. You can go on at any time. It's the story of Sarah Bradley Fulton, which is the heroine of the American Revolution. I believe it's 33 minutes long, and it's a great depiction of what Sarah did for not only the city of Medford, or the township of Medford at the time, but also for the entire country, Mr. President. And I think anyone that wants to read up on Sarah or view, I think that would be an excellent idea. I also want to thank, you probably don't know her, Laura Duggan. Who? Laura Duggan. Oh, she is?
[Michael Marks]: She's a local historian that does tremendous work on local access and keeping up with Medford history. And you know, you really should pay a visit to her as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just have to say, Mike, Mike is a pretty intimidating, intimidating person. And you know, when he speaks, Mr. President, I think, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, his words really resonate with at least with me and I know with the community. And since he's taken over the Veterans Affairs Office, there's been a renewed interest in this community. And I really mean that. And I think it's partly due because of your interest and your enthusiasm and your ability to speak on behalf of those that can't speak for themselves. You know, when you think about Veterans Day, we hear about the many volunteers and there's a lot of great volunteers that do it without any fanfare. And as the council has mentioned, they'll be out there in the morning. Council Vice President Knight mentioned working out of their trunk and not looking for, you know, to speak to a reporter or get accolades. They're doing it because they believe in it. And they believe that we should recognize those who made the ultimate sacrifice, Mr. President. But Mike not only deals with, you know, putting flags out, Mike deals with veteran benefits all the time. Mike deals with veterans that are suicidal. Mike deals with veterans that are homeless. Mike deals with veterans that have mental illness. There's a host of issues that people probably aren't aware of, but the Veterans Office is out there to assist and assist those in need, Mr. President. And I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to thank you for your action. as the veteran affairs coordinator, administrator, and whatever we can do as a community, I hope you're very vocal. I hope you come out and let us know what we can do on behalf of the veterans in our community, any way we can assist. It would be helpful to hear directly from you. I appreciate that.
[Michael Marks]: I was not aware of that, and I want to thank you. That's that's honorable. Thank you very much. Coach buckle.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We have a unique opportunity, Mr. President, to join with the Method Chess Club, which began over two years ago. And they're looking to restart its Sunday outdoor chess club at the Riverside Ave Park, right on Riverside Ave, Mr. President. And the first chess club meeting is Sunday, June 13. And the club expects anywhere from 20 to 40 people will participate over the next few Sundays, bringing in additional foot traffic, which we all know we need to help assist our local economy and our local businesses. Methodist placed, Mr. President, to become a chess haven. for New England if and when we can get these chess players, the best in New England, to come into our community. But we need a little assistance from the city. And originally when this started a few years back, the city was gracious enough to assist But now the Chess Club would like to move this into a more advanced atmosphere, Mr. President, where we're welcoming people from other communities. We're welcoming the general public. The Chess Club is looking for four new concrete chess tables, Mr. President, to help assist that could be used for multi-purposes, not just for chess. They're looking for three inexpensive sunshades, Mr. President, for a day like today when it's 95, and I'm sure we're going to get some hot Sundays. And they're looking for new two-foot-tall, family-friendly chess pieces. to be available for public use. So this is truly a family type atmosphere, Mr. President, and welcomes all Method residents to come down. And if you don't know how to play chess, there'll be people there to teach you. There'll be ways that you could join the club, Mr. President. There'll be all different ways you can participate. And if you just want to watch a friendly chess game, I happen to love chess. I don't play it often, but I happen to love chess. And it is a great, game, Mr. President, for those to play. They're also looking if the city could pitch in and provide a water spigot on that particular piece of property for larger events. And one person I do want to recognize that got this off the ground and actually got a number of initiatives in this community off the ground. He's always working on some great initiative. It's Chris Donovan, and he happens to be here tonight. And I'd like to ask him if he'd want to just say a few words. He was instrumental in getting this up and running, Mr. President, and know the needs firsthand on how to attract to make this really a mecca for chess, which I think would be a great attraction to our square.
[Michael Marks]: I think it's just a table of, yeah. I almost put it on the age of recommendations tonight, but I was told to make recommendations because the president went out of me. you know, someone from the administration's watching this meeting, we made a number of recommendations and we wouldn't need a formal vote, but if, you know, we can take a formal vote next week.
[Michael Marks]: As we all know, when we hired Clerk Kirby, that we gave him a three-year appointment. That appointment is coming up this September, September 1st, to be precise. And I think where we have so much going on with budgetary and so forth, I would respectfully request that we meet Mr. President and the committee of the whole within the next week or two. Next Tuesday night. Next Tuesday night, that's perfect to discuss the reappointment of the city clerk, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Just if I could, and I am supportive of this, Mr. President. The question I had was I was approached by a number of first responders in our community stating that there was also grant money available for those that worked as first responders during the pandemic. And I would respectfully amend this to ask if the city has filed for any grants that would be out there for increasing salary for first responders during the pandemic. I know there's money in this particular narrative, but there's also other funds out there that other communities, Mr. President, are applying for. And I would hate to see us not apply on behalf of our police, fire and EMS. Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As my colleague stated, Ralph Scopa was a dedicated employee for many years in this community. I believe three decades. And, you know, he treated every street, every road, every area of this community like it was his backyard. And really, when Councilor Scarpelli and Vice President Knight talk about him, he really had Medford pride. And that's shown right through him, Mr. President. And, you know, I think in this day and age, you know, it's nice to have people to step up and say, you know, I care about this community. Even though he was a city employee, he did many other facets in this community. It wasn't just regarding his DPW service. He stepped up to the plate each and every time. And the Scopa family truly are one of the great families in this community. And Ralph will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: You know, what's crucial to make this work is in-house training as well. And I know that's part of the resolution. You know, to me, tens of thousands of dollars to set this up doesn't sound like a realistic, you know, and we haven't seen anything that doesn't sound realistic. This is going to take far more staff than we currently have. And when you add in all the boards, the 40, 50-odd boards and commissions that meet, along with the council and the school committee, you're not going to have one person like Patrick running all this. You're not going to have two people, Mr. President. You're probably going to need a half a dozen people to be actively involved. And I'm just throwing that number out there. This is a much larger endeavor than just tens of thousands. I think you're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars to have this established, Mr. President. It's something we need to look at. We're going to be discussing budget soon. If we're serious about that, then maybe that's the time to have the discussion as well during budget. We just found out what our authority is as a council, Mr. President. And if this is not an item that's currently within the maids budget, and I don't remember seeing it in the budget we just received yesterday, that we can add this as a line item, Mr. President, if need be. So if this is something we're interested, we can definitely have it added as long as we have the facts.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Yes. Mr. President, while we're under suspension, we have members of the public that would like to speak on the public participation.
[Michael Marks]: OK. Mr. President. Council Max. Just if I could, and I think I'm obligated to say something on behalf of the residents of this community. I appreciate knowing Rick Orlando for a lot of years. I know Rick as a level-headed person, someone that speaks his mind, Mr. President, but also equally listens and hear what other people have to say. And it's very disheartening, Mr. President, when you have a resident that's been in this city for a number of years, active in so many aspects of this community, that feels that his voice is being left out of a process. especially a process, Mr. President, of a public body. That really, really enrages me, Mr. President. I understand they have rules and regulations, and they can follow, Mr. President. But when a resident comes up to the podium, whether it's school committee, city council, board of commissions, every resident should have the right, the taxpayer, to ask a question, Mr. President, of their elected officials or their appointed bodies, whether they're boards or commissions. Everyone has a right to do it respectfully, Mr. President. And to cut out people, to not allow them to speak because they may be saying something you don't want to hear is an outright disgrace, Mr. President. An outright disgrace. And that's what's happened for the past year with this circus that's going on in this community that's dividing us, Mr. President. I've never seen so many executive sessions in all my 26 years of elected office in this community. What's the cloak of secrecy that's going on that you need that many executive sessions, Mr. President? That's what the discussion should be about. If you feel strongly about an issue, own up to it, and also allow people to talk. It's when you run from an issue, Mr. President, that makes people believe something's going on that's rotten. And that's what people believe in this community, whether it's true or not. And I don't want to be part of that. And anyone that wants to come up to this podium, whether I agree or not, they have the right to do so. And if we have to take hours like we've done in the past to listen to people, that's what we're here for. And the school committee should be doing the same thing. Shame on all of them, all of them, the whole bunch, for not allowing someone standing up and allowing people to speak at a meeting. And not even a common courtesy, Mr. President, when you know there's a number of people on the same issue, to make them wait three or four hours. Shame on them, Mr. President. The people have the right to speak. And they should have the common dignity to say, we have a lot of people on an issue here, let them speak at the beginning of the meeting. Because Mr. Orlando is 100% correct. That's just an attempt to stifle people and weed people out, Mr. President. Shame on them. And people that show up to a meeting, we just talked about tonight, about having Zoom and the increased participation on Zoom. What about the participation when someone shows up at a meeting? Physically takes the time and comes down, and you don't want to hear them.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I wanna thank Todd. You know, I know there's a lot he's working on in every part of the city, So I really want to thank him. He's like a one man team. But Mr. President, every year this community pays an assessment to the team that comes directly off our cherry sheet that comes from the state. Millions of dollars we pay for MBTA services. And as Council Vice President Knight mentioned, when they start eliminating bus stops, when they start eliminating bus routes, like the 325 and the 326, that, in my opinion, is a diminishing of bus MBTA services in our community. Nowhere else, Mr. President, would you get a diminishing service and pay the same or more for an assessment. It makes zero sense, Mr. President. Right out here in back of City Hall, They have bus stops where they idle their buses, the MBTA, on city-owned property. City-owned parking lot, Mr. President. The MBTA has practical use of that parking lot out there. I don't know what's going on, Mr. President, but this community needs to stand up. And if it's a matter of holding back some money from the T assessment to get them at the table and to negotiate with the MBTA regarding what's going on regarding service and so forth, that's what needs to be had, Mr. President. This has been going on far too long. We need leadership in this community to stand up and say, we're not going to tolerate this anymore. And that project on Winter Street's no different. When that project came out about a year ago, Mr. President, I know we were all vocal, but I mentioned that a year ago, that we're going to lose control of what happens on that particular road. And when we said we're going to lose parking, Mr. President, then when they talk about putting a bike path to nowhere, those were questions that we raised that fell on deaf ears, Mr. President. And now you see a project that we have little say in, right? I mean, we heard, uh, Todd Blake mentioned. This is a state project. We have very little say. The chief executive officer has to bring these state agencies to the table. We can't allow them to roll over us on behalf of the residents. And Council Vice President Knight's a thousand percent correct when he said you're diverting traffic into the neighborhoods. And that's exactly what's going to happen. You're taking them off a major thoroughfare that's set up for this type of traffic, and you're putting them into neighborhoods, Mr. President, that's not set up. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to refer back, Mr. President, to the Office of Community Development.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So the other closest BMW is in Somerville, is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so it's strictly going to be certified pre-owned? Yes. And how long has Herb Chambers owned that particular piece of property?
[Michael Marks]: And Herb Chambers Infinity didn't last too long there. Do you know what the reasoning was behind that?
[Michael Marks]: Right. You said we had someone from the corporate office on it. I'd like to know, because honestly, when the Infinity came in, I think a lot of people were happy to see a luxury car establishment go in there. And then I'd say maybe six months, eight months, it wasn't very long. And then it's been vacant for a long period of time. And I'm just hoping that's not going to be the same scenario again.
[Michael Marks]: Can we hear from someone from the corporate office regarding the infinity, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Um, so, uh, Mr. President, um, I would ask, uh, at this point, um, if, uh, the only plans that they're going to have is to sell pre-owned certified, is that going to be the full intent
[Michael Marks]: So pre-owned, it's not going to be strictly BMWs? No. So it'll be other cars other than that?
[Michael Marks]: So I'll be able to go and afford one of your cars. That was a legit question. So you'll have other cars on the lot as well. Mr. President, Herb Chambers has been a long established as the good attorney stated, in business for 35 years. From what I know of Herb Chambers, a very reputable business. Someone that stands by their cars, I think has a great track record. and I think the Herb Chambers BMW will be a great addition to Mystic F. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Morocco.
[Michael Marks]: Right, I'm not opposed to the condition of the outside mic. I just don't know the other conditions. and they may be acceptable as well.
[Michael Marks]: So why don't we do this, Mr. President? Why don't we put that condition on and then do a six month review. And if there's other conditions, we can put them on after the six month review.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. That one condition that council one night, vice president night, and then we'll do a motion for a six month review.
[Michael Marks]: President. Council Max. Thank you, Mr. President. In the report from the chief of fire, it states that no obvious violations observed and it's pending final inspection. We've had this come up in the past, Mr. President, that I, as one member of the council, would, uh, like to see the final approval signed off prior to any issuance by this council. And we've discussed that in the past, Mr. President. I'm not sure why this is still the process that we're going through. And also under the Board of Health, it said it needs final approval from fire and the building department. So is there a reason why we're approving this prior to final approvals from department heads?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I have no problem with this particular one moving forward. contingent upon approval from the police, I mean the fire department and the building department. However, Mr. President, moving forward, I would ask that we have a meeting with the chief of fire and the building commissioner to find out what process would better fit us so that we're not approving items that haven't been signed off or at least fully signed off by and fully vetted by the departments that should be.
[Michael Marks]: So the report we received from the Chief of Staff 2021 states no obvious violations observed. And it says pending final inspection. So if these tanks haven't been put in yet, then how would no obvious violations observed? What is the chief observing?
[Michael Marks]: I think that's why we need to meet on this to find out. what's going on, but not, not this particular one. I'll move. You know, we're moving forward with this one, but I think we have to find out the language of these reports. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I'll find out. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to thank Marianne and her office. I'd like to thank the administration for the past 15 months. I would also like to thank Mr. President, the 58,000 residents of this community. over the past 15 months. Because if it wasn't for the residents, Mr. President, who stayed home when asked, who wore masks, who social distanced, who stayed away from loved ones for 15 months, what we're experiencing right now with these reduced numbers would not have been possible. If it wasn't for our first responders, Mr. President, that showed up to work on day one and never missed a beat. Day one, police, fire, EMS, teachers, and we're on the front lines. If it wasn't for the workers in the local stores, the restaurants that stayed open and had to change their businesses, in order to accommodate takeout orders and try to make ends meet, Mr. President. This is the cog in the wheel that made things happen. It was the people that made things happen. Because if you raise a city government, whether it was this government, the federal government or the state government, you'd be worse off, Mr. President. It was the people that made this happen. And I want to thank the people of this community I want to thank the first responders, the teachers, and every resident of this community that band together and did the right thing for 15 months, although it was very difficult. I want to thank the high school students last year that didn't get a graduation, Mr. President. One of the most important days of your life, graduating from high school, and they didn't get a formal graduation, Mr. President. I want to thank those students for bearing with us. This wasn't done by one particular person, one particular group, Mr. President. This was an effort by everyone. We're united. And I think everyone deserves a pat on the back and a thank you, Mr. President. So I want to make sure that that thank you goes out to the 58,000 residents in this community and all the first responders and every business owner in this community during trying times, Mr. President, when they were trying to make ends meet. And sometimes they felt like city government was against them, these small businesses. And sometimes the government was against the small businesses, Mr. President. But they made it through. And I wanna thank them as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: for offering this resolution. Mr. President, you know, this doesn't happen often before the city council that, you know, we have residents in this community that rise to such a level that deserves recognition and honor. And truly becoming an Eagle Scout deserves that honor, Mr. President. We have Derek in the audience tonight with his family. We're gonna ask him to come to the podium. You're not gonna get off that easy, Derek. If we could turn on his mic too, Mr. President. Thank you. You know, it truly is an honor, Mr. President, to rise to a level of Eagle Scout. The amount of effort, time that is put in, Mr. President, not just by Eagle Scout, but the family, because the family is involved in a lot of aspects of becoming an Eagle Scout, whether it's trips into the woods, Mr. President, or doing projects or public service and community projects, there's much involved that involves the whole family. And I think that's what being Eagle Scout is all about, is to have the camaraderie and the family unit together. And being Eagle Scout is truly a family unit. I would just ask Derek, if you can give us a little brief synopsis of your time and working up to the Eagle Scout, what your community project was, because I know that's a requirement of the Eagle Scout badge. And if you could just give us a little tidbit about the involvement, I know your parents are here and I believe you might have a sibling here as well. If you can just give us a little synopsis.
[Michael Marks]: Can you tell us a little personal about yourself, schooling or anything that interests, what other interests do you have, Derek?
[Michael Marks]: That's great. I'm a proud graduate of the method vocational school as well. And your parents should be very proud. You seem like a great young gentleman. And I see great things in your future. And I know my colleagues have other things to add as well.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. I want to thank Councilor Falco for bringing this up. This is a very important subject. And when it comes to the residents of this community, I think everyone should at least rest assured that if they are getting gas or using one of our measurement devices in any stores, that at least they're paying what they should be paying, Mr. President. So I think this is a worthy thing to track. I would also ask, Mr. President, I believe as part of the weights and measures position, that they also check the octane of the gas. And they have the ability to check the octane. And that's also another issue, Mr. President. I'm not saying it's happening currently, but when you're paying a higher premium for a higher octane gas and you're not getting that, That's another thing that the city is supposed to be checking to make sure that you're receiving what you're paying for, Mr. President. So this is a job that's little known. You don't hear much about it, but it's a very important role in our community, Mr. President. And I think it's something that we should get an update immediately on in the interest of not only the consumers, but in the interest of knowing Mr. President that all our department heads are working and everyone's doing their job, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I forgot to mention also too, that the oil trucks that are located for many oil businesses in the city of method, they have to go to the city of Somerville to get their trucks checked as the president, which is usually done by weights and measures. in every community. So that's another thing that we're sending outside of the community. And as Councilor Falco mentioned, rightfully so, revenue is going outside of the community. And that's something that we should be mindful of. Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'm not sure if a city engineer can answer some of these questions, but I would ask that when we do meet that these questions be answered prior to that, Mr. President. One is how much do we have in the retained earnings for water and sewer enterprise accounts? Last time I believe there was over 5 million in those accounts. And those accounts are used, Mr. President, for infrastructure improvements. And this would be an infrastructure improvement. So I'm not sure why we would borrow when we have $5 million in raised money currently sitting in an account for such purposes. My other question, Mr. President, is the MWRA program, assistance program, used to provide 0% finance loans to low cities and towns. I believe that is still ongoing. And I would ask for the last three years, if Method has utilized the allocation that we would be given for 0% finance loans for infrastructure improvements. And if so, how much has been used and for what projects? And the city administration is also referring to grants. Is there an active grant that the city is pursuing now in which they perceive will pay for this particular loan order. And if so, I'd like to know what the grant is that's out there, Mr. President, and if the city plans on applying.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. The affirmative, motion passes. Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I would just ask that where we have an increase in public participation here at the chamber, that the chairs be set up, Mr. President, formally to conduct business here and accommodate the increase of public participation here.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, we had a loss of a longtime Method resident. I just found out about Richard Sullivan, better known as Dick Sullivan, Dickie Sullivan, from the West Method area. Many of us knew Dick Sullivan, Mr. President. He was a longtime resident of the West Method area. You'd always see him frequent the businesses and stores at the West Method Spa and a number of stores there, Mr. President. and we recently lost Richard Dickey Sullivan, and he will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, Councilor Marks you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank President Caraviello for putting this on the agenda tonight. When this issue was presented to the city council, that was one of the recommendations the president council, President Caraviello just mentioned, was to have the area be paved in totality. So rather than space it from one intersection to another, which didn't make sense, was to have that stretch, which is only maybe a couple hundred yards, four or 500 yards, to have it paved curb to curb the entire length. And that would increase the longevity of the construction, the roadwork itself. And it only made sense, Mr. President. Secondly, this council voted unanimously to continue the bike lane, which starts in front of Brooks School and goes all the way up to the top of High Street. And then where it bends down, it actually stops. And we ask that they continue the bike lane to Winter Circle, Mr. President, because there'd be nothing worse than riding your bike there and all of a sudden come up to a decline where you're gonna pick up speed and there's no more bike lane. It makes absolutely no sense. So I know we have the city engineer on the line. I'm hoping maybe he can let us know if that is still under consideration, because I believe that was something the city was gonna look into. So I would ask maybe if Tim McGiven could give us a response.
[Michael Marks]: What does the city engineer say, Mr. President? The chair recognizes Councilor Mux. I think what we're hearing, and I hear what Councilor Prentice stating, I think what we're hearing is a commitment from the city engineer and a commitment from the traffic engineer to take a look at this first thing tomorrow. And if they deem it to be a safety concern, then naturally they'll address the safety concern. So I don't wanna put anything out there that we have to remove something or let's leave it to the experts and let's see what they say when they go out and take a look at it.
[Michael Marks]: Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank all my colleagues for their work on behalf of the residents that are impacted by this Eversource project. This project, Mr. President, started in November 2014. That's when initially Eversource presented to the mayor at the time their wishes to install an underground transmission line roughly 3.2 miles through the heart of the city of Medford, which involved saw cuts, excavation, installation of pipe, backfill, temporary restoration, cable pulling, cable splicing, permanent restoration. And that's not it, Mr. President. Residents in the area for the past two, well over two years, have to deal directly with vibration from the construction, with trenching that's being dug. Excavating, Mr. President. Heavy equipment noise. Road plates that cling when you drive over them constantly. Dirt and debris in the air from the excavation. Additional traffic. Fumes. Construction noise. And to top it off, as we all heard from residents, countless sleepless nights, Mr. President. We actually had residents that had to go to a hotel because they couldn't sleep, Mr. President. That's how bad this construction got for residents in the area. Now, one would say, well, look, we're getting underground transmission line that's going to benefit the city. There's zero truth to that, zero. There is zero benefit from this project to the city of Medford. This has zero benefit. It has all the inconvenience and problems, Mr. President. Putting that all aside, over the last two years during this construction, like I said, this process started in 2014 when we started to notify residents of potential hearings and what's going to happen, and they may not be able to get out of their driveway at certain times, and all the other stuff associated with construction that lasts for years, Mr. President. The city, during this process, signed a memorandum of understanding. And I assume it was the mayor at the time. I don't know who else was in the room on behalf of the city. So it was between the city and Eversource. And the memorandum of understanding states that the city of Medford will receive a city field engineer to monitor work activities. So during this process, they were gonna pay for someone to monitor the activities. Sounds like a regular construction site to me, Mr. President. So I'm not sure if that was a win for the city, but it was part of the memorandum of understanding. Curb to curb street restoration. So imagine they came in and dug a three mile trench and then also put nine 12 by 12 cement vaults along the way. So you can imagine the disruption and the digging and so forth. And they decided that they are going to pave curb to curb when they're done. Isn't that tremendous? They dig up all the street, no benefit to the city, and guess what? We're going to get curb to curb restoration. Yippee, Mr. President. Yippee. You can tell the residents after two years of construction in front of their home, they're getting a new street in front. Yippee. part of the memorandum of understanding. Three ways crosswalks along the project route and a speed radar trailer for use during construction near Method High School. For use, they didn't buy it for the city, although we could use one. This is for use during the construction time. How magnanimous of Eversource to provide a temporary speed radar trailer. I don't know why you need it in the area, because they're in such bad condition, the roads, you can't speed anyways. With the metal plates, the dirt, the debris, the tar, anyone that go up and down Winthrop Street can speak for that firsthand, Mr. President. So in addition, the city also signed the following projects. Let me just add, Mr. President, out of the 3.2 miles, Winthrop Street had 6,400 feet, 1.2 miles of road, by far the largest residential construction site for this Eversource project, by far. They were the ones, Mr. President, a lot of people were impacted from traffic, surrounding areas, I understand that, surrounding roads, but they were the ones, Mr. President, that felt the digging, that had the fumes, that had the construction in front of their homes. And what else did they get, Mr. President? The restoration of Winthrop Circle Rotary and high street sidewalks. Doesn't say how many high street sidewalks. Then, Mr. President, 50,000 for the installation of 220 linear feet of sidewalk curbs, curb ramps from Lorraine Road to Smith Lane. We all know where that little stretch of road is, near the high school, across the street. 220 linear feet. And then rather than continue that, Mr. President, which makes sense, like we were just talking about paving the whole length of high street during the construction, right after that area, there are areas with no curb and no sidewalk. So like putting a bike lane to nowhere, Let's put a sidewalk that doesn't lead to another sidewalk. So all the residents are asking, Mr. President, for all this disruption, all this noise, all this inconvenience for the past two years is to extend the sidewalk that they're doing from Lorain Road to Smith Lane to include Wildwood Road to Placeland Road. Finish it off. Make it a complete sidewalk, complete curbing. make it so pedestrian safety comes first. It's a small price to pay. They're saying the cost for 220 linear feet is $50,000 from Lorain Road to Smith. That's double it to $100,000 to go to Placeton. Even if you have to triple it, Mr. President, to $150,000. That's a small price to pay. And we paid a large price as residents, as inconvenience, as traffic, as debris, as equipment left on the roads. Vibration. We all got the calls when homes started to shake. What do I do? So I respectfully ask, Mr. President, this contract is still ongoing. And the other part that I just read was in addition to the original MOU, that provided for the sidewalk and the rotary. And I would ask, Mr. President, respectfully, and I'm gonna offer a motion tonight, on behalf of the residents of Winthrop Street, that we continue the sidewalk and install new sidewalk, curbing, curb ramps along the even side of Winthrop Street, from Wildwood Road to Placelet Road, which continues from Lorraine Road to Smith Lane, Mr. President, in the interest of public safety. We may have some residents that are on tonight, and I would ask if you can indulge them, Mr. President, as well. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Just to address Mr. Cassano's concerns about who he can go to, as far as I'm concerned with the Eversource project, it should be the city engineer, right? The city engineer should be the contact person. If there is a clerk of the works, that person's name should be given out, but ultimately the buck stops with the city engineer to be the communicator. Additionally, Mr. President, when it comes to plowing, as Mr. Cassano mentioned, if they're plowing one way or another, it's helpful information when you get this from residents, because that's how the city should, you know, when they put together their plan of attack, when it comes time to snow plowing, how they address it. So this information that Mr. Cassano has given is important and it's vital that we have residents at the table. So he's a thousand percent correct. When we have these type of projects going on, The neighborhood and the direct abutters should have the first say in what's happening. And clearly that did not happen during this project. It's after the fact. that neighbors are given the leaflets and the door knockers and all that stuff, Mr. President, which is not helpful. They have to be at the table ahead of time. And maybe we can address some of the concerns. But regarding the plowing, again, you probably reached out, but it would be Brian Kerins, the head of DPW, that really should be responsible for making sure that they don't plow just one side or another, and that they move snow appropriately. So it really should be that, Mr. President. And I would say, ultimately, the buck stops with the mayor. The mayor runs the day-to-day operations of this city. All the department heads report directly to the mayor. So if there's a concern, the mayor should be addressing these concerns, Mr. President. And I'm hoping, in a multi-million dollar project of this magnitude, when we're asking for some just minor mitigation, Mr. President, this is minor stuff to increase the length of sidewalks and curbing. that this would be something that the mayor meet immediately with Eversource to address. So I'm hoping as part of the motion, Mr. President, the clerk would also send that we're requesting the mayor meet immediately to get an answer from Eversource and they can renegotiate the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the residents of that area. Seconding the form of amendment, Mr. Councilor Marks?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I can ask Tim, because as he mentioned, he is responsible for the street openings. Mr. Engineer, if the city is not happy with the progress, not happy with the quality of construction, not happy about what's going on in the community, what's our recourse as a community to stop this project?
[Michael Marks]: I'm not asking that it be shut down. I'm asking to find out what the process is, if it's a cease and desist order, or what the actual steps are, because in my opinion, in dealing with utility companies on this council for the last 20 years, That's what they understand is when you play hardball, in my opinion. And I think if the city takes a laissez-faire approach to this, and just let things proceed as usual, then they're never gonna take us serious. So I think at some point when we raise our concerns, and I'm hoping this comes from the administration about the sidewalk, that they take us serious, Mr. President. They're not gonna wanna come back to the table and renegotiate an MOU, but guess what? If we hold their feet to the fire right now, I think we'll have that leverage to do so. And we experienced the same thing on Riverside Ave. Another utility digging up, we were talking about having sidewalks that were level with the street. So even though there was curbing, the street was done over so many times that it was as high as the curb to the sidewalk, therefore creating an insecure pedestrian pathway. And we got the same feedback from the MWRA and National Grid. Oh, it's not part of the scope of the project. Oh, we can't afford it. We can't do this. We can't do that, Mr. President. We have to hold their feet to the fire. And if it's a cease and desist order and having them stop, it's going to hit them in the pocket. That's what they understand. And maybe that's what we need to do. That doesn't worry me about a potential lawsuit or whatever else it might be. The residents come first. And I think we're at a point with this project that we need to reshape the work in this project and make sure we're leading and not falling behind this. So I appreciate council Scott Belly bringing that up. I hope the mayor's on the phone tomorrow morning. We see a lot of press releases, but I hope we get a press release that matters. A press release that comes out and says we're doing something positive that impacts residents, Mr. President. I hope we see something positive. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Locks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Just if we could, I just want to follow up. Rick Orlando hit the nail on the head. because he's absolutely right. After the fact, it's increasingly difficult to try to get any type of mitigation or any agreements. And we should have some form of metrics. He's 1000% right. And he was part of the building of the new schools. And I know that's where a lot of the metrics came from. And, you know, Mr. President, when you sit down and negotiate, And you're looking at a project of this magnitude and the impact of the community and look at a few items of sidewalks and a winter circle being done over and the mitigation was next to nothing on this project. And he's absolutely right. You should have a contingency and say, we're going to put $2 million in a fund that if we're not happy with the outcome of this project, we can take money to do additional sidewalks, signage, marking streets, whatever it might be. We don't even know what damage is being caused to personal property, a neighbor's wall, the cracks in their ceilings and so forth. And I know there's other insurance binders for that, but he's a thousand percent right. I hope moving forward, Mr. President, the city engineers on the call that we do have some type of listing when it comes to metrics and a check off. We don't have to recreate the wheel, a check off. Do we do this? Do we do that? Do we do this? And that way, at least we know when we're working through a project that we did our homework. Because right now, when I look at the memorandum of understanding, It says nothing. It's two paragraphs. It really says nothing. I mean, whoever negotiated that, don't ever have to negotiate on my behalf because the city got nothing, Mr. President, on this project. And the residents, which comprise of this community, got nothing in return. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So the date I have for this, this was a response back. This date is March 9, 2017. OK, thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I offered this resolution several weeks back on behalf of the residents of this community that would like to see their recycle in their trash barrel. How to wash Mr. President. We then asked waste management if they provide the service. The city came back last week and stated they do not provide waste management does not provide that type of service. So last week I was unable because it wasn't on the agenda to ask that the city administration uh, hire a private contractor to come in during trash pickup and alert residents that barrels will be washed right after the trash is picked up, Mr. President. Power washed in the interest of public safety, in the interest of rodent concerns, Mr. President, when you have lingering food and other smells coming from a barrel. And I would ask that the city administration immediately hire a private contractor to provide that service on behalf of the residents of this community. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, Council Member Max. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on. And let me tell you, over the years, the seniors have received a lot of lip service. Just recently, Mr. President, in the last mayoral debate in this community, it was stated by one of the candidates that seniors would get free parking. Free parking, Mr. President. And that can be accomplished very simple. Anyone that has a car registered, that's of senior age, Mr. President, would get a senior sticker. Right now you have to pay $25 for the sticker. That doesn't sound free to me, Mr. President. So there's been a lot of promises made. And when the time comes, a lot of things promised, but then never followed through. I would ask, Mr. President, where is the senior free parking? What happened to the senior free parking program? I think that's a valid question to ask, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: And by Vice President Knight.
[Michael Marks]: And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight.
[Michael Marks]: And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by Vice President Knight. And by us all, including the community, an update, Mr. President. So I would ask that we receive an update. I would also ask that we receive an update when the senior center is going to open. As you heard from my colleagues, the seniors rely on talking to other seniors, getting their information, socializing, Mr. President. And there have been 14, 15 months without being able to socialize. And it's about time we get our seniors back in the senior center. And for those seniors that can't get out there, let's offer them the service that's provided by Mystic Elders service to allow the seniors that aren't in mobile to get them there as well, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, just to follow up, I don't want to beat a dead horse, But you hear all the different dates. May 29th, you can take your mask off. June 15th is the date that the governor said that you can stop meeting without having a mask on. Then are you allowed to go in stores? Are individual private owners of stores allowed to keep you out if you don't have your mask? There's a lot of questions, Mr. President, that this is the time we should be hearing from the city. And they're nowhere to be found.
[Michael Marks]: I don't know whose job it is, Mr. President, but you know, someone has to do it.
[Michael Marks]: We have the Memorial Day ceremony that's gonna take place at the Oak Grove Cemetery. Yes. That's been a tradition for a hundred years in this community. Yes. And we're gonna actually, last year we were unable to meet due to COVID. We just got a response that we're gonna have an in-person. Yes. And as part of the letter it stated, this is gonna be on May 31st, correct? Correct. As part of the letter it stated that you have to wear a mask. These are the inconsistencies.
[Michael Marks]: The letter I read said you have to wear a mask at this event from the city administration. That's what I read in the letter. And that's fine if that's what they want to do. But these are the inconsistencies that I think we need some type of direction on, Mr. President, not just for our benefit, for the residents of this community. No, I agree.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could, all along in this community, we've been following the governor's order. And we've been following the CDC. And we've been heard that our border health is bound by the governor's order and the CDC. Now the governor is saying that you can go outside without a mask. The CDC is saying the same thing. But the city has yet to come out and say why we have to wear a mask or why we don't have to wear a mask. Are they no longer following? Now they're coming up with their own rules and regulations. These are the questions that we need answered, Mr. President. The school committee is coming back June 7th. I heard last night at their meeting, they're gonna come back in person on June 7th. And there was one particular member of the school committee that spent more time figuring out how you're gonna throw residents out of the meeting that aren't wearing a mask than deciding what the rules and regulations are and social distancing and so forth. But they're more concerned about throwing people out of meetings, Mr. President. So I don't know what direction we're going in, but we need direction from this city administration.
[Michael Marks]: That's why we need these.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'm aware that you met recently with the city administration. Can you just give us an update on where we stand with the budget?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for your leadership, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's a real honor and privilege tonight to mention the name of Frank Andre. For those that do not know Frank, Frank was an instrumental part of this community for many, many decades, Mr. President. Frank Andrew was born in Worcester, Mass., and moved to Revere as a young boy, and then permanently located to his beloved Medford in 1936, living on Fulton Street for the next 80 years until his passing in 2016 at age 94. Frank lived in Method with his parents, Michael and Phyllis, and siblings, Anthony, Nicholas, Francis, and Lena. The family settled at 131 Fulton Street, a home that is still in the family today. A few years later, Frank met his future wife, Norma Luongo, who lived a few doors down at 105 Fulton Street, and later at 115 Fulton Street. The couple married in 1946 and had one son, Chuck. Frank and Norma purchased a new home at 125 Fulton Street with his grandson, Michael, and his wife, Gwen, and their two sons currently reside today. To complete the family's occupation of the stretch of Fulton Street, Frank built a house for his parents at 137 Fulton Street in 1956, which is now occupied by his granddaughter, Carla. Frank was involved in many businesses in Medford in the 1940s and 50s. Among other things, he owned a bicycle rental shop, opened Frank Andre's restaurant, and then was involved in Andre's Market with his family, all located on Salem Street and Riverside Ave. In the early 1960s, Frank focused his attention to building when he founded the Andre Construction Company in Medford. Andre Construction went on to build over 300 houses, with the majority built in North Medford. Frank's home still dominates streets like Gaston Street, Haines Street, Mitchell Ave, Andrew Street, Saunders Street, Reeder Drive, Doonan Street, Fulton Spring Road, and many, many others. He also owned many commercial properties in the city, primarily in Medford Square. It was through his building and investing in properties that he first became interested in the Dyer Building that was formerly housed the Medford Theater, located at 36 Salem Street, which had fallen into disrepair and had closed in 1964. Frank eventually purchased the property along with the prominent local physician, Dr. Anthony Graffio from the Hackett family in 1965 with the idea of converting the building to the then novel idea of constructing office condominiums. Things suddenly changed for the city of Medford, and in particular Medford Square and its merchants, on the night of November 1st, 1965, when a general round fire ravaged Medford High School. when plans were announced a short time later to construct a new high school on Winthrop Street, Method Square had become dependent on businesses from almost 3,000 students, suddenly was facing a crisis. with the square facing the reality of many businesses leaving due to the high school relocation, then Mayor Jack McGlynn approached Frank and asked him to consider renovating the dilapidated theater, building and reopening it as the cornerstone of the Medford Square community. Frank knew nothing about the theater business, but did his investigative work. And true to his Medford pride, and in an attempt to revitalize Medford Square, he met with Mayor Jack McGlynn and the city council and renovations began. On August 2nd, 1967, Frank proudly opened the newly renovated and then state-of-the-art Medford Cinema. The cinema opened to long lines, with the first two movies being Disney's Snow White and the comedy hit Never Too Late. In 1968, Frank opened Cinema 2 by renovating the old Colonial Hall that was located in the second floor of the building. In 1969, the complex expanded to Medford Cinema 1, 2, and 3, with the opening of Cinema 3 and the then converted balcony. Over the next few decades, it was mission accomplished for Medford Square as long lines of patrons waited to watch their favorite movies at Medford's only theater. Hits like The Sound of Music, The Godfather, and Jaws brought thousands of people to Medford Square each week. Frank became well-known in the theater circles in 1970 with his innovation of Dollar Night. On Mondays and Tuesdays patrons could pay just $1 to see the movie of their choice. This spawned huge crowds and also drew the attention of the Massachusetts State Police as it was not uncommon to have traffic at a standstill on Route 93 trying to get into Medford Square. Local businesses thrived because of the success of the cinema. Carol's Restaurant, Papageno's, the Pewter Pot, the Method Cafeteria, Savage's Deli, Brigham's, Baskin-Robbins, the Peking on the Mystic, the China Ocean, as well as the counters at Grant's and Woolworth's were all jam-packed before, between, and after all shows. In addition, local merchants in the square started to stay open later and began to thrive again, enjoying the many patrons of the cinema that suddenly became newfound customers. Method Square became revitalized. Frank operated the cinema for decades until the advent of the mall-style multi-screen complexes that put an end to almost all neighborhood theaters. Frank's other interests also included the owning of the Andre Thoroughbred Racing Stable. Frank was involved in local sports as well, serving as a long-time manager of the Hawks in the Nob Method Little League, as well as vice president of that league over a decade. Frank was a staunch supporter of Medford High School athletics, and his biggest joy was watching his son, Chuck, and grandchildren, Michael and Carla, participate in Medford sports. In fact, his son, Chuck, and his granddaughter, Carla, are the only father-daughter duo currently inducted into the Medford Mustang Hall of Fame. Frank's family continues to make Medford their home today. Chuck and his wife, Kathy, are both lifelong Medford residents, as are their grandchildren, Michael and Carla, and his two great-grandchildren, Leo and Miles. Frank's son Chuck is the founder of Remax Andre Realty Services in Medford Square and continues to own and operate the Andre Chiefs, formerly the Hosmer Chiefs, Medford's only semi-professional baseball team. Kyle is a teacher at Medford High School, while Michael is an executive at neighboring Assembly Row. Frank's contributions to the city run long and deep and are still evidenced today by his legacy and ongoing participation of his lifelong Medford family members. Mr. President, I respectfully ask that we as a council vote on the motion tonight. that a dedication and a plaque be placed in front of 36 Salem Street, which formerly housed the Medford Cinema, honoring and recognizing Frank Andre for his unselfish dedication to the residents and business owners of Medford. Mr. President, you know, you hear this a lot, but I happen to know the Andre family. I knew Frank and his wife, his lovely wife, and Chuck. And you couldn't meet a gentler, kinder man, would be the first, Mr. President, to extend a hand if he needed, would be the first to donate, and he did many, many times, keeping Method Sports going, Mr. President, and would be the first to step forward when this community needed. And I think that's evident in what he did, Mr. President, during his part after that awful fire at Medford High School on Forest Street. And he was one of the driving forces. There were other people, Mr. President, But it's fair to say he was one of the driving forces to make the revitalization of Medford Square happen once again, Mr. President. And I wish we had people like that around now, because we really could use the strong foundation, Mr. President, when it comes to looking at the revitalization currently of Medford Square and the vision that was had back some 40, 50 years ago that I think would still apply now, Mr. President. Hard work and vision. And that's what Frank Andre and his family was all about. So it's with great pride that I ask that this be sent to the administration, Mr. President, and that a plaque and a dedication be held in the very near future on behalf of Frank Andre in his commitment to the residents and business owners in Medford Square. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Is she trying on her end, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: It's great technology.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today for a very sad news, Mr. President. Fred Papa Calangeli, known as Papa, passed recently, Mr. President. Longtime Methodist resident, beloved husband of Joan Domenico Calangeli. And he was a family first gentleman, always with his grandkids, always with his wife, Mr. President, and his own kids. He was a very active member of the St. Joseph community. a longtime member of the Sons of Italy and the Elks, and he served in the Korean War. That's a mouthful, Mr. President. He lived many lifetimes, and he was a man of great stature. He owned and operated his own company as well, construction, and he specialized in masonry and underground pools. He was a man that was always on the move, was always willing to help out. If you needed something done, If you needed your cement stairs fixed over, it'd be the first thing you'd do with this little barrel and a cement equipment to help out Mr. President. Never looking for anything, but to help you out. That was the type of person he is, Mr. President. And he will be sorely missed. And I would ask that we dedicate this meeting in the name of Fred Papa Colangeli, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank Councilor Falco for putting this on and he consistently brings it up every year. A few weeks ago, I think we voted unanimously by this council to have DCI look at all the state areas in the community to pick up trash. I think we're at a point right now, Mr. President, we have so many roads in this community that involve participation from a state agency, which is DCR, that I think we have to bring them in. I really do. Today, I happened to take a walk in Wellington Circle across from Cappy's, and I wasn't going into the liquor store. I probably should have gone into the liquor store, but I wasn't going into the liquor store. And when I tell you, Mr. President, really take a ride by. It is so filthy and dirty. Think about everyone coming through Wellington. It's a disgrace with the trash and the objects that are just left out there and the overgrown grass. It really is a disgrace. And it's everywhere. that these state roads are, I hate to say it, that we're not seeing a consistent pickup and cutting and mowing and so forth of DCI. So I would ask respectfully, Mr. President, that we ask them to appear before the Medford City Council. probably be nice next week because the nice weather's here. Come before the Medford City Council and be able to address what is the schedule for grass clipping, for pickup, and let them explain in every section, as Councilor Falco mentioned, you mentioned, I know Councilor Scarpelli, everyone behind this rail has mentioned, Mr. President, and have them explain what is the process and what is the schedule that they're going by. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Also because these state agencies sometimes like to thumb their nose at local officials. If we can invite a state delegation as well.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President and my two colleagues Council beers and Council Falco, I think hit the nail on the head. I just would say, Mr. President, this has been an ongoing issue. And if we recall, I think it was last year, maybe the year prior. that we had faculty members, we had parents come up to this very Method City Council. And we had a teacher, Mrs. Castagnetti, that called to light a number of the potholes and curbing. And then shortly after that, Mr. President, she actually tripped and fell on a pothole in the square and did some serious damage to herself, Mr. President. And these are very serious incidences in the community and deserve the utmost attention. So I would ask that we get a report back immediately as Councilor Falco and Councilor Bears alluded to.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. Mr. President, according to our sign ordinance, we don't allow movement on signage. However, this council over the years, at least as long as I've been on, we have allowed a few signs here and there. And for extenuating circumstances, if you have a tough location, if the visibility is difficult, this is not one of them, Mr. President. And if you drive by, you know, it's great that they give out free vacuums in there, but it looks like it is 45 octopus around the building. You got all these new signs. The awnings haven't even gone up. I don't know what else they want at that particular location, but I do not support movement, Mr. President. So if, you know, I mean, we can have a subcommittee meeting, but I will not be supporting this based on the fact that I do not support movement at this location, because I don't see any extenuating circumstance for that location, Mr. President, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Joe Viglione, 446 Charles Street, Malden Mass, 02148.
[Michael Marks]: I'm ruling it out of order. I want to talk about political speech. We are ruling it out of order. You're retaliating against the Boston Criminal Court. And this man and the bank is public speech.
[Michael Marks]: Good evening, David McKillop 94 Rockland Road I just wanted to make mention of a couple of things that we spoke about earlier, you spoke about earlier tonight. Just suggestions, the first suggestion is, even if it's doable Mr. President, if we are having issues with the state. making sure that their roads are clean. Is it possible that we could actually take the step to actually do it ourselves and charge the state? Is this something that can be done? Because why should the city be penalized for their ineffectiveness? Why can't we just get it done and then charge them? That's something that I think that we should look at and forcibly make that happen.
[Michael Marks]: Well, that becomes an actual administrative and budget issue. And that's a totally different thing. But speaking about budget issues, we're talking about schools and how their maintenance issues are a huge issue. And they've been a continual issue for quite some time. And there's no denying that. In fact, when the McGlynn was built, there was supposed to be money put aside for maintenance. And that obviously went into the general fund from what I understand. Are we going to hold the administrative accountable for line items to get that maintenance out there and really structure so we can get these things done. Those are some suggestions that I have. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. McKillop. Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Just if I could, Mr. McKillop brings up a great point. And in this city, we have an ordinance called the clean it or lean it ordinance. So the city of Medford, if they don't like how you clean your property or maintain your property, they can go in there, put a lean on your property and hire an outside contractor to clean your property. But here we have a state agency that can leave their roads in deplorable condition, can leave them unkept, Mr. President, and there's no recourse we have as a community. So I agree with Mr. McKillop that there should be something, some type of recourse that we have to say, you know, enough's enough. And the cleaner the cleaner, I don't know if the state would fall back on our local ordinance. You know, the residents are at our mercy, but I'm not sure the state would, Mr. President, He brings up a valid point and so does Vice President Knight about maybe in the spirit of cooperation, that we can sign some type of agreement that would enable us to do. I've said that for years. If you live on a state road right now and want your tree trimmed, you've got to go to the state. If you live on a state road, you want your sidewalk done, you have to go to the state. And it's an act of Congress to get it done. You're paying the same tax as someone else that doesn't live on a state road. So there's no benefit of living on a state road other than the fact that you have to chase the state to do stuff on your street. So, you know, I've been saying this for years. I would personally like to see the city take over all these roads, Mr. President. and have us accountable to the residents because the residents know us. They don't know these people in DCR or in these other state agencies. They know the people here and the local officials and the local government. And I think it's a much better approach to have us responsible rather than some state agency. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Jean's family for coming up tonight. You know, Jean's name made it to the final 18 because of what Jean did in this community and the number of people she impacted over the many decades. and her public service to this community. So it is a fitting tribute. And I think it speaks volumes that Jean is a finalist because of her past, Mr. President, and what made her such a great person in our community. You know, one thing I can recall, and this is going back many, many years ago, when I was first elected to the school committee, I was a real youngster at the time. And we had our first negotiations with the Teachers Association and the school committee. And we'd sit in separate rooms, I don't know if it's still done the same way, we'd sit in separate rooms and we'd go back and forth, volley back and forth with, this is what we're gonna offer you, this is what we want you to give up, back and forth. And it got so contentious, Mr. President, for several days, wasn't until Gene Barry stood up and said, why don't we meet in the same room together? You know, what a novel idea, bring people together, rather than have them in separate rooms. And you know what happens when you're in separate rooms, you're tougher in separate rooms, right? And you want to play hard guy when you're in separate rooms. And when we Gene brought us together, Mr. President, And the words still went back and forth. Guess what? It was Gene Barry that stood up and said, we need to do this, not just for the teachers and the administrators, but for the children. And that really struck home to a lot of people, Mr. President, because we said, let's put politics aside, right? And it was Gene that stood up and brought us together and made for a successful negotiation. And that was my very first, really, my very first introduction to what I'd say is politics in this community. And it was Gene that stood up to bring people together. And she did that over her whole career. If you ever saw Jean in the street, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, she'd be walking with her and her husband. They'd be out there in the community, Mr. President. She'd wave to you. She'd say hi. She'd take a second to talk to you, even if she was on a power walk. That was the type of person Jean was. It was in her heart. There wasn't a phony bone in her body. That's who Jean was. You couldn't change who Jean was. And Mr. President, I think what I'm hoping happens during this process is that the 18 names that came up, Mr. President, they'll probably be vetted out, they'll be looked at, Mr. President, and they'll be discussed on merit, Mr. President, not on other circumstances that may become political or may be used as a political tool, but from the circumstance of the person's life and what that person did. And clearly, Gene Barry, represents everything that this community stands for. And I think everyone would be honored if that's the case, to have Gene Barry's name on the school, Mr. President. Everyone would be honored. Thank you, Dr. Marks. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: John Petrova, 61 Locust Street. I'm honored. Longtime resident of Medford, Very proud to say that, I love the city. I can stand here and talk for hours about Gene. My wife, if she could make it tonight, would be doing the same. No one's gonna say a bad word about Gene. The only one that's gonna say something bad about Gene is on the committee to decide what the name's gonna be for the Columbus School. And I don't know if you are all aware of this. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. We're all aware of it, okay? There's a couple of people on that committee.
[Michael Marks]: I will not mention anyone's name. I would never do that. Thank you. I would hope you know me better than that. Anyhow, there's a couple of people on the committee. I was like, it's just, I can't even begin to tell you. how frustrating and how depressing it is to have this committee that was put together by the school committee decide who's gonna have the school named after him. Because I'm gonna tell you right now, I'll be the bad guy. it's not going to be what the people of Medford want it to be. No one can tell me different. Nobody. What was said about Gene was disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. And I assume you guys all know, and you're saying about Facebook chatter, and this ain't about people disagreeing, and this ain't about politics, okay? It really isn't. This whole Columbus school is devastating, it's tearing the city apart, okay? It should have never happened, okay? It became an issue, it was brought up, regardless of all the signatures and the 1,200 or 1,300 people that didn't want the name change. I think I speak for a lot of people, Italian Americans, when I say that we would be honored, honored to have Jeannie. But how could we possibly believe after what was said by two members and the person that appointed them to that committee. How can we believe it's a fair process? I'm asking somebody, this whole process, okay, should be just, this committee needs to be, to just go away, all right? Because Gene would win by a landslide, but that's not the way it's gonna happen. I mean, look at the 18 finalists. Gene's got, I don't know the exact numbers, 130, closest person to her got 20 votes, 25 votes. but I can almost guarantee you that when, and it's unfortunate, but when it comes down to it, we all know what's going on with the school committee. I have nothing against nobody. I really don't. It's good to see you all here. And it's, you know, like I said, I love this city. I really do. And there's a lot of other things I wanted to bring up tonight, but this has got to be for Jean and Jean only tonight in the Columbus school. There was also comments made about white Italian Americans. Those were the only ones that voted for Jeanne. And we don't know how she treated black children. That's what was said. Okay, so. I'm just disgusted. You won't get a person anywhere in the city to say anything bad about her. Yet we have people on that committee had the nerve to say those words, to put them on a post. They need to be taken off that committee. That whole committee should be just completely You know, it just needs to be done. Someone's gotta stand up and speak for everybody. Somebody has to stand up. It has to be done. The Columbus School name change is a fuss. Everyone in Medford knows it. You know, in the old days, we'd call it a bag job. And that's what this is.
[Michael Marks]: The mayor is silent, everyone's silent. Everybody, the human rights commission, denigrating the American flag, the police chief, The mayor... Okay, we're getting up. I'm just saying it's silence. It's silence. It's got to end. And this is where it's got to end with this Columbus school. Someone has to do something. I don't know who can do anything. But this committee needs to go away. It does. It needs to go away. And I'm sure you guys are all aware of what's going on. So I'll leave it at that. Nothing else I can say. Any further discussion?
[Michael Marks]: I don't disagree with Vice President Knight, but I think what you're hearing tonight is a sense of frustration. This council has always been the only forum that people can come up and speak. And over the last year and a half, Mr. President, the school committee, you can only see them on Zoom, Mr. President. Mr. President, and I think we have to maintain that this is the forum. There may be things said that we don't want to hear tonight. There may be things that go off topic, but this is the forum, this is the people's forum, and we have to allow people the ability to come up and say things that may rub us the wrong way, we may agree with, but they have the right to say it. And once we stifle that-
[Michael Marks]: You got to do this. We don't have the power to do it. I agree a thousand percent. But what I just want to make sure is that, you know, it's been a year and a half where people were unable to come up and address their public officials, Mr. President, face to face. And there's a lot said about being face to face than being on Zoom, Mr. President. And I think now what we're seeing is people want to get out, they want to voice their opinion. And I think this needs to be the forum, because if we stifle it, there is no other forum in this community. So we have to maintain this as the ability for people to have a mechanism to vent their concerns, Mr. President. And I agree with Councilor Knight. We have no bearing on a school committee vote. We have zero bearing. You know, if they want to rename the school and set up the committees, really, the only bearing we have is November. If people want to make change, November's the time to make change, if you want to make change.
[Michael Marks]: David McKillop 94 Rockland Road. I did speak to the city council on zoom about this issue. I'm sure some of you might be might have been aware of it. And I found not sure shy of begging them to just table the issue. So we could have the time to absorb what was going on. And I was met with complete silence. Hence the reason why I came to the city council and spoke to the city council in a level of frustration which today I probably apologize for because I know you physically can't do anything about changing the name, but there is something you can do. There is something. If these schools are asking and pairing up with stop and shop or some of these other places for money to raise money for the school, and yet we are spending money on changing a name when we don't need to be doing that, it's a budget issue. and you folks sign off on the budget. So maybe there's an area there that you can hold the city council accountable for. Because if they're wasting money on changing a name, which could be tens of thousands of dollars or thousands of dollars, or whatever the cost may be, You folks could actually sit there and say, hey, put the brakes on. You got people out there begging people for, you're selling mattresses, you're buying cookies, you're doing this, you're doing that. These kids have no paper, they have no pens. We're begging everybody for money, but we can spend money on a change of a sign. Mrs. Cuno said, we need to bring Medford back. No, Medford's here. Medford's right here. Every single one of the Medford society citizens are right here. They're talking to you. They're begging. I'm begging. I mean, I don't even want to wear this mask. We need to stand up and say enough is enough. This community is a great community. These people are great people. Do we have differences? Do we have problems? What city doesn't? Listen, folks, there's no such thing as perfect. And anyone that tells you there is, they're lying. There is no utopia, no society in the history of the world in human beings has ever achieved utopia. There's no utopia. There are only really great people trying really hard to stick together, find a way to live together, to commune together, to have fun together, to grow families together. That's what a community is. And Medford is that community, and this is ridiculous, what we're allowing to happen in our city, and you folks should stand for it.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to follow up with what Dave just said. I sent an email. Name and address of the records. Name is John Petrella, 61 Locust Street, lifelong resident. Proud to say it again. I just want to follow up with David. I sent an email requesting information about the cost. I don't know what's going on with it, but I had to go through Captain Kress.
[Michael Marks]: She is in no way part of, as far as I'm concerned, she's spoken up and she's done, I think she's done a great job. Probably the only one. But anyhow, the message I got was, this was from Catherine and she got it from the mayor. John McLaughlin responded that a sign just the sign could cost upwards of $15,000. So I just thought I'd let you know that that's an email, you can have a copy if you want, but I've tried to get more information, but I guess they're not too concerned with, you know, what the total cost is going to be. And the only other thing, I don't know how, politics, city politics, what you can and can't do. I keep hearing can't, can't, can't. I guess you can't, but why can't we? I mean, do we have to go to the clerk? Can we get a petition? Can we get in the city something going to stop this proceeding with this Columbus school renaming committee to put an end to it? I mean, especially with what's happened, there's gotta be, can't someone do a motion? Can't something happen? You guys can't even do a motion. The same council of method can't put forward a motion to stop. You can't put it on the ballot. That's, even if it's non-binding, I'm asking a question.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not questioning you. I'm not questioning. anything that you just said.
[Michael Marks]: We're not looking to necessarily start the name change. You guys can't do it.
[Michael Marks]: I don't know, I'm at a loss here. I mean, to me, this is just, it's sad that this school committee and the committee that they assigned, is going to get away with this.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not questioning you guys have a tough job. No one's questioning that. We know what's coming up. We know it's a tough year with the budget and we know everything else, but, you know, just to have this procedure, it's just that it breaks my heart that this is going to happen and that's all.
[Michael Marks]: Let me get an argument from anyone in the city about that. We appreciate you guys. And like I said, we know what you do, but understand the frustration And us knowing that this is, I mean, it's a scam is what it is. They're pulling off a scam. I hate to say it, but that's what it is, you know? Horrible words to use, really. And I don't like using them. But that's basically what they're doing. So there's nothing we can do.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: please.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. No. Every, every, every, every listen, everything, everything that counts appears always says is to the extreme is to his opinion with what he is entitled to his opinion. Absolutely. So are we. He ends everything with white supremacists. He ends everything. You said that Bedford is a racist city. I will, I will, I will speak to the chair. Everything with him ends in white supremacists. I debunk everything he says and he never responds. Never. Okay. He puts things out there as fact. I find it extremely hard to believe that a 70 year old woman was pushed to the ground in front of 25 people and nobody helped. I don't buy it. I just don't buy it. Anything that anyone says is taken as word, put out there as extreme, and that's what critical race theory does. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if we could. Thank you, Mr. President. We received in our packet our correspondence regarding resolution 21-336 from the mayor This is dated May 6th, and it's regarding my resolution that was offered two weeks ago about seeing if waste management could provide the residents a service of washing or power washing their recycle and their trash bin. And this is the response we received from the administration. It says waste management does not have the resources to perform the requested service of washing the cots. per waste management, they have not been asked to wash cots for any other community. Instead, residents are instructed to rinse their cots with a hose and let dry in the sun. Spraying the interior with a cleaner, like a simple green, before washing will help the cots that are excessively dirty, Mr. President. So this is a multi-multi-million dollar corporation, Mr. President, that doesn't have the whereabouts on a multi-multi million dollar yearly contract to assist residents on barrels that may, after many years, have a stink to them, Mr. President. And you're asking senior citizens, disabled people, and other people, Mr. President, in this community, to take a barrel that's four and a half feet tall, that weighs some 35 pounds, and flip it over and wash it out, Mr. President, I think is unacceptable. So I would respectfully ask that the administration, where they failed to convince waste management that this is a good idea on behalf of the 58,000 residents of this community, that the city now find a contractor, Mr. President, at their dime to find out who would come out and clean, Mr. President, go around like they pick up the trash, they can go around and clean these barrels up, Mr. President, on behalf of the residents of this community. And I would put that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that the city seek out another vendor if waste management is not willing to do so. to clean the barrels throughout the community.
[Michael Marks]: Cracked the barrels in half.
[Michael Marks]: I will hold on to it, maybe if the motion to adjourn. That's fine, that's fine, that's fine. Councilor Behr has offered a motion, Councilor Scarpelliic second. The motion to adjourn by Councilor Beall. Wait a second, Mr. President. We do have someone that just came up that wasn't in the room.
[Michael Marks]: Excuse me. Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if Ms. Blackburn would be willing to speak tonight, if you want to speak tonight, I'd be more than happy to suspend the rules. We are up here and allow you to speak. It's up to you if you want to speak on that issue. Well, I want to know, is this issue all settled now? We just heard from residents, we have not settled anything.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I put this on the agenda tonight because of the number of phone calls I've taken and the number of emails I've received, Mr. President, over the last several months. This by no stretch is a new issue. in this community. And I wanna thank my colleagues, Vice President Knight, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Falco and President Caraviello over the years, I know have put resolutions on regarding the poor condition of our roads and what capital plan will we have to assist us in a systematic approach to repaving our roads. And to date, Mr. President, I think it's clear to state that we have no systematic approach to repaving our roads. The mayor recently put together a capital plan which does include paving the roads, but that's the last I heard about it. I haven't heard anything else, Mr. President. And over the years, there's been a lot of talk, a lot of lip service, but no formalized plan to address the over 719 streets in this community, which are broken down by 500, I'm sorry, 450 city streets and 269 private ways in our community. So we have over 719 streets. And currently right now, Mr. President, what we put into the actual city budget to repave streets, not to fix potholes, to repave streets is a big fat goose egg. That's what we put in our city budget every year to repave streets. We do rely on chapter 90 funding, which on a given year, we get roughly about $980,000. I can tell you firsthand, Mr. President, over the past four and a half years, we repaved nine streets out of 719 in this community. Those were full streets that were paved. And we partially paved another 21 streets. So even at best, if we said there were 30 streets done, Mr. President, in the last five years, And if you look at it, the life expectancy of a road, and depending on the maintenance and how you keep up, depending on the traffic, depending on if you allow heavy trucking on streets, the life expectancy of a street can vary. But typically, you're looking at a little over 20 years. So if you look at doing 30 streets every five years, After 20 years, you'll have paved 120 streets, which is 28% of the 450 streets. And that doesn't include private ways. So if you take that into consideration, Mr. President, we are never going to get ahead of this. will always be repaving and never have an approach where someday we can be proud and say, look at our roads. They're in beautiful, pristine condition. but we have no such plan, Mr. President, of addressing this. And that doesn't even count the 269 private ways, which is about 40% of all the streets we have in this community. So I offer this tonight, Mr. President, because I think when you look at a community, And you look at the livability. You look at how vibrant a community is. You look at how well it's taken care of. You look at how city government operates. I think it says a lot about a community when you see streets that are torn up. There was a street right next to me, Bradbury. They just did a gas line, Mr. President. And we see this all too often. They dug maybe a four or five foot trench, two feet wide. And it goes up the entire length of the street. And I asked whether or not they're going to do curb to curb. And I was told, oh, absolutely not. That wasn't part of the recommendations. And what they are going to do, Mr. President, is just refill that trench. So if you had a driveway or a new driveway and you allowed someone to come in at no fault of your own and dig up your driveway, you would expect to get your driveway repaved. Not a patch job, which after a few years, if you're lucky, starts to sink. and then there's mix match and it creates craters and potholes and a lot of other concerns, Mr. President. So I ask that we find out from the administration, even though we did get a correspondence regarding this capital plan, if we can get an in-depth report on what's going to be done with the roads Mr. President, also today there was an announcement that there was $37.4 million that's going to be coming to the city of Medford from the federal government. I realize there's still ironing out and hashing out what it can be spent on over how many years and so forth. But we have to find out before we do any budgeting if that money can be spent on capital needs, which I believe it can, Mr. President. and I would prefer it be spent on capital needs one-time cost in the community and our roads should be at the top of the list. So I would ask Mr. President that in the form of a motion that we find out more in depth about the mayor's capital plan for the refurbishing of our roads I would ask that the $37.4 million I believe that came out today, if that could be used to fund new roads in the community, infrastructure improvements. And I would ask, Mr. President, that we come up with a systematic approach to addressing our roads that will one day have us see all our roads done over a period of time. and not just 15 to 20, and then 15 to 20. And by the time you get to that second 15 to 20, the first 15 to 20 you go back to, because it's 20 years. So it makes no sense, Mr. President. And I'd put that in the form of a motion. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Just while we're on the subject, because it's somewhat related, I'm not going to offer it tonight, but in addition to the streets, Mr. President, all you have to do is take a walk around the neighborhood and see the hundreds of old tree stumps that are lined on our streets, up and down. I'd venture to say there's thousands in this city. I've done a count just in my neighborhood alone. And there's literally 30 or 40 just on abutting streets. And you can tell they've been cut down for years. This is not new stumps. These have been stumps that have been around for years. And this council has asked, Mr. President, about the stump list. And in the past, we've got, well, here's a list. Then we get a partial list, not a full list. And then we got an indication a couple of years back that they went through 90% of the stumps. Where? Where? They're all around the community, Mr. President. So tree stumps, raised sidewalks, trip and fall hazards everywhere. Someone just sent me a photo of a woman that fell over the weekend in the square, busted her nose open wide, Mr. President, on a sidewalk that was slanted up. But this exists everywhere, Mr. President, throughout this community. Rose is part of it. Broken sidewalks, tree stumps, double poles, It speaks volumes about a community and a community that cares. And, you know, you take a look around this community and, you know, I hate to say it, but it looks like no one cares, really. And we got to do a better job. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if we could. Thank you, Mr. President. While we're on the tree stump subject, I'd like to put a motion forward that the city administration do a thorough walkthrough of the city and give us an exact count of the number of tree stumps, Mr. President. Because I don't think they have an understanding on how many are out there. And then we can address it this year's budget because it's actually gonna be a budget of mine. Councilor Knights, absolutely right. You had people in this community that paid a very high tax, Mr. President, and not receiving the city service. Do you wanna make that a big paper? Yes, I'd like to make it a big paper. And when you can use these particular stumps and double poles as a reference, when you tell someone to take a left at the double pole and then take a right at the tree stump that's been there a hundred years, you know, they've been around a long time. So I think Mr. President, we have to get a handle on the number and address it in this year's budget. Thank you. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. May 9th through May 15th is National Police Week. I offer this resolution tonight to honor one of Method's very own and Method's very finest. On May 13th, 2021, Harold McGillivray Jr.' 's name will be placed on the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington, D.C., along with another 22,611 heroes. The memorial was established to tell the story of American law enforcement and to honor the fallen who protect and serve, Mr. President. Harold F. McGillivray Jr. was appointed to the Medford Police Department on May 31st, 1964, and served with distinction until his later appointment to the Metropolitan District Commission Police Department on December 1st, 1967, and then was signed to the Old Colony District in South Boston. Harold McGillivray, during a routine traffic stop on the Southeast Expressway on November 13th, 1978, at approximately 1.40 a.m., was struck by a vehicle at a high rate of speed and was rushed to the University Hospital, where a team of four doctors began a 13 and a half hour life-saving operation. Post-surgery patrolman McGillivray spent 13 days in the intensive care unit before being placed on the cardiac floor for the next four months. Officer McGillivray would spend the next several years in and out of the hospital undergoing additional procedures as a result of his injuries sustained during the traffic stop. Patrolman McGillivray eventually made it back to his beloved job at DDC police and was forced to retire on December 31st, 1984 due to injuries sustained in the line of duty. Patrolman Howard McGillivray, Jr. served the residents of Method and the Commonwealth with honor and distinction for over 20 years, Mr. President. Harold McGillivray, Jr., a debt of gratitude for his service, not only to the citizens of Medford, but to the residents of the Commonwealth. Anyone that knew Harold knew he was a man of integrity, a man of faith, a man who loved his family, and a man who took his job very seriously. If you were in need, Harold McGillivray Jr. would be the first at your doorstep, Mr. President. That was the type of person he was. We have his brave son now serving in the Method Police Department and is our dog officer and does a tremendous job. Harold McGillivray Jr., he didn't need a dog. He was the bulldog. Anyone that knew him, he was tough as nails, but he had a heart of gold, Mr. President. He'd be the first to step forward and help. And this is a huge honor to have his name placed on the monument in Washington, D.C., with 22,611 other heroes that protect every day the citizens of Method, put their life on the line. to do their job. And as I stated last week, for one of our state police officers that retired after three decades, Mr. President, I say the same about Harold McGilvery Jr., a man that was dedicated, a man that cared about his community more than anything else, and someone that should be recognized. And I ask that this meeting, Mr. President, be named in honor of Harold McGillivray Jr. for his commitment to this community and the residents of the Commonwealth. And I want to show our appreciation for having his name placed on the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington, DC, which is going to happen on the 13th, which is this Thursday. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Make no mistake about this. A vote to merge the director of diversity human resource director is a vote to take a step backwards regarding diversity in this community. Make no bones about it. Councilor Falco was a thousand percent correct, Mr. President. A vote tonight to support that will be a vote to do away with the director, a standalone director position that has existed for years in this community with the sole responsibility of looking at diversity through a lens of this community. and the people that live in this community. So in my opinion, it's taking a step, a giant step backwards. This council also met within the past year, Mr. President, seven of us and discussed and put together a list of priorities that we voted on unanimously. And one of the votes was not to merge this position, it was to keep a standalone diversity director. That was a vote seven zero, Mr. President. So, you know, we've been consistent on this issue. If others want to flip flop back and forth, that's their call, but we've been consistent on this issue, Mr. President. And now's the time to stand up against the administration and say, this is far too important of a position to have it go by the wayside. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Bearsley.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, and I appreciate we have the finance director on. In the past, in this finance director, Alicia has been around for a while. There's always been discussion about tapping into our, retained earnings or free cash because it may impact the bond rating. I was just wondering at what point in this particular account, if we were to vote for a higher dollar amount, would that impact our bond rating? or the potential of our impact?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so if I could, Alicia, what do we anticipate every year of additional funds to retained earnings?
[Michael Marks]: I understand that, but this account grows every year, sitting on the council. So I'm trying to anticipate once we use 500,000, It's currently $6,059,000. That'll leave us with about $5,500,000. What do we anticipate this time next year having in the account?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And I can appreciate that. I can tell you firsthand that this amount of money is not gonna ease much off the rate payers. I think it's a good symbolic gesture, but it's really not gonna ease the feelings of the rate payers in this community. And if anything, the 6 million that's out there, as you stated, is an overreach of the city charging too much for water and sewer, and that's how we end up with the retained earnings. But putting that aside, there's been some discussion recently, and I brought up the issue within the last couple of weeks about our water meters. And this discussion has been that we're close to the life expectancy of the water meters that were installed some years back. And is the administration, if you can't answer this, I understand, it's not under your jurisdiction, Is the administration currently looking at water meters within the community for replacement?
[Michael Marks]: So is there potential that the retained earnings, which could be a one-time cost for infrastructure, be looked at for the replacement of water meters?
[Michael Marks]: DPW or the water and sewer commissions?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but who would ultimately approve the new meters? Would it be the water and sewer commissioners?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so the recommendation doesn't come from the Water and Sewer Commissioners?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So that's, you know, when I was on the council, when we last replaced the water meters and the water and sewer commissioners were an integral part, of the replacement, along with the DPW, you are correct. So my, you know, one concern is that if we don't request more money for retained earnings to offset the increase, we're at 3% now with the 500,000, then if we are gonna use this for new water meters, which I think we all can remember the time and Councilor Penta brought it up a couple of weeks ago about the number of abatements. I believe it was over 700 abatements given in one calendar year because we were estimating over half of our water and sewer bills because of malfunctioning meters. We never want to go back to that time. So if we can get some type of commitment from the administration that the funds will be taken out of this account I will not look to further tap this account because I think in general, it's going to ultimately save the rate payers by having an accurate meter and it serves the same purpose. So at this point, I'm not gonna have an additional dollar amount as long as we know that the money is coming from these particular funds for the new meters. And I guess at some point, the mayor is going to ask for an appropriation. So it will require a council approval, but I just want to go on record that that's what I would be supporting at this point.
[Michael Marks]: President, I have time to review the records and ask that they be reviewed next week.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I wholeheartedly agree with Vice President Knight, but I remember at the public hearing and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the mayor was gonna supplement the decrease in funding and the community block grant money with money in the FY22 budget. Is that not correct, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: So we did receive a commitment and maybe Alicia can speak to that. Was that a commitment that was made by the city administration?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, do we have an indication of what the dollar amount will be?
[Michael Marks]: So it requires a vote tonight to put into it for a 30 day comment period?
[Michael Marks]: Rita Lennox has been a fixture in this community for a number of years, and Councilor Knight is absolutely correct. Rita was very involved in the community and someone that was instrumental and volunteered our services for many years. I had the opportunity to work with Rita at the Registry of Deeds back some years ago, and indeed, she ran the Registry of Deeds as well, Mr. President. So Rita, in whatever capacity, was always a leader and still is a leader. and I wanna congratulate her reaching her 90th birthday, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Vice President Knight for putting this on. I don't know how he gets all the birthdays but But truly, Nancy White, Mr. President, touched so many lives of students in this community for many, many decades. She was a star worth within the school department. I consider Nancy White someone that has always been behind the scenes and the person that makes everything happen. You know, you always have the person out front that takes the credit. But Nancy White, when it came to the school department, she was the one That was behind the scenes, Mr. President, making sure the school department operated appropriately. But with the Democratic Ward and City Committee, Nancy White was the one that put together all the meetings. She was the one that sent out all the minutes. She was the one that was really driving it for so many years. And then you had a face of the committee, but we all knew where the work was taking place. And that was Nancy White. I want to congratulate her on her 80th birthday and wish her many, many more to come, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Baxton. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Beaz and Councilor Morell for putting this on. As they stated, Max Heine has been an outstanding teacher, exemplary teacher for a number of years. He's a brewmaster and now a poet. I never knew he was a poet. And I'm thinking he may have got much of his inspiration from Method Eel to write some of his poetry. So maybe I might try some Method Eel and maybe give me a little inspiration, Mr. President. But I wanna thank him for all he does in this community, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I rise tonight to honor one of our very own, Mr. President, and that is Detective Lieutenant Richard Mahoney, a lifelong Method resident, someone that if you know him, Mr. President, you'll know that he loves this community. He loves his family. And, you know, he's a gentleman that served with distinction for 34 years to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He was a gentleman that served in very trying times, Mr. President, and has had an unblemished career for 34 years. I think that speaks volumes on the type of person that Rich Mahoney is, Mr. President. He finished his illustrious career as detective lieutenant with the Massachusetts State Police. Every day, Mr. President, going to work, putting his life on the line to protect and serve the residents of this commonwealth. And he did it with honor and respect. And I think that says a lot about his character, Mr. President. Rich was also very highly respected by his peers. And as he rose through the ranks, Mr. President, he got there through hard work and dedication. And his commitment to this commonwealth, I believe, goes unmatched. And in this day and age, you hear a lot about police, about defunding the police, about police this, police that. And it's fair to say that Rich Mahoney is one of the 99.999% of police officers that get up every day, serve the public, Mr. President, do a tremendous job, put their life on the line every day. There's not many professions you can say that. Police, fire, are a few that come to mind. And that's every day, not knowing if you're gonna come home, Mr. President. And, you know, I really believe that, you know, when our officers retire, Mr. President, they shouldn't just go out with a thank you. They should go out with a warm welcome and thank you from the residents. And I wanna thank Detective Lieutenant Richard Mahoney on behalf of the residents of this community, on behalf of the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And I wanna also thank him, Mr. President, for being the family man he is, because with Rich, family comes first. And I wanna thank him for all his years of dedication and ask that the city clerk send a citation to honor his career on behalf of the Commonwealth and the residents of this community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Vice President Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention his lovely wife, Marianne. And Marianne's the one that got him up for work every day, combed his hair, laid out the clothes on the bed, laid out his uniform, and got him to work, Mr. President. And I want to thank Marianne, Mr. President, as well. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'll be brief on this. This was what was brought up last week under community participation by former city councilor Robert Penta. I think it speaks for itself. We're asking for whether or not the city still looks at acceptor reports, which are reports that show a spike in the usage of water throughout the community so we can notify residents if they do have a leak within their home or on their property that they're unaware of, Mr. President. and being charged, so I move approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, just if I could follow up. I appreciate Mr. Castagnetti. He always brings reason to a conversation. Mr. President, I think that was the whole, if we recall back so many years ago, as Mr. Castagnetti mentioned some 18 years ago, the whole intent for this system was to draw out any exceptions that we have throughout the community. And it's not that, you know, that we're waiting till something happens and then after the fact say, okay, we just throw money at it. This was to be proactive and say, we're aware that this spike spikes within your account. And there may be a leak because ultimately what happens is we don't just forgive a bill. So even if someone gets an abatement, guess who's paying for that? It's the rest of the rate payers that are paying for that. So the whole logic behind this was to get these spikes ahead of time so we don't have to pay, whether it's through the surplus money, as Mr. Castagnetti mentioned, over 5 million, or not approving the abatement and having the resident pay. That was the whole anticipation. And I think what was brought up by Councilor Penta was 100% correct. If that's a service that we pay for, we want to know, indeed, is someone looking at this daily? If so, how many people have been notified in the last year regarding spikes in their water? How many snowbirds may be in Florida and don't realize they have a leak for four or five months? This is very costly. And if we can work on behalf of the residents through this reporting, then I think we're obligated to do so, Mr. President. and I appreciate Mr. Castagnetti coming up. Thank you, Councilor Markswell.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This was another issue that was brought up by Councilor Penter under community participation last week. We couldn't take a vote on it, Mr. President, because our new rules require that it appear on the following agenda for proper notification. So that's why it appears tonight. Mr. President, I support this wholeheartedly. I believe from what we were told that the current city administration is actually looking at the life expectancy of our existing meters. As I spoke last week, we purchased meters back some 18 to 20 years ago because the city was estimating over 50%, 50% of our bills, water and sewer bills, were being estimated. And that's not a way to operate a city, because your bill could either, you could be good and get a lower bill, or you could be on the other end where they're charging the extra of water that you're actually not using. And the best way to do it, Mr. President, is to have an accurate and fair bill. And that's why we went to new meters. And we never want to go down that path again where we had hundreds, I think it was 750 in a year span of abatements that residents, 750 residents came forward and said there was a problem with their water and sewer bill, the way it was being tabulated. And we never want to experience that again. So I'm hoping that the city administration moves forward with notifying this council on what the next steps are to look at our aging water meters to make sure we never experienced what we did back some years ago.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Council Box. I can't miss an opportunity to speak about INI. And the council vice president's right. It's been two decades that I've been speaking about inflow and infiltration. And it's not a sexy issue. Underground, like I always say, out of sight, out of mind, unfortunately. But Mr. President, over the years, we've talked dating back so many years ago that someday your water and sewer bill will be higher than your tax bill. And we're approaching the point where it's getting in that realm. It may not be that close, but it's getting in that realm. And residents will always say, how can we lower our water and sewer rate? And there's really not many ways, Mr. President, other than looking at the infrastructure. And INI is all it is, is water that's seeping. This is rainwater that's seeping into the ground and then finding its way into our sewer system, through cracks, through holes and so forth. That water, which is just rain runoff water, which typically goes into the Mystic River, now is going out to Deer Island and being treated as raw sewage at a great expense to the taxpayers and rate payers of this community. Multi-million dollars a year. goes to INI. I lost check. I think it was about 45 to 50% of INI in our community is through infiltration. And it's a major concern. It's a major concern to the taxpayers. You hear very little talk about it, but it's happening every year and it's costing us, Mr. President, every year. So I appreciate Councilor Knight bringing that up. And I think these are the conversations that probably aren't going to be brought to us, but we have to keep on speaking about them, saying what's happening. And I have to say over the years, the city has made some headway on INI. They reline pipes. There's a system where you don't even have to dig up the pipe, you just reline it. And it's a real cost effective efficient way of relining our pipes. There's another system, Mr. President, we have right now, we have catch basins, which are supposed to catch rain runoff water and send it out to the mystic. These catch basins are hooked up to our sewer system. So that we know every time it rains, it's going right into our sewer system. And we have ways of indicating where these catch basins are. They drop what they call a smoke bomb into the catch basin, And if it comes out the manhole cover, the sewer system, you know they're connected. So we're aware of at least, last I heard was probably 10 to 12 of these catch basins. Every time it rains, you can imagine the gallons of water that are pouring into our sewer system and going out. Is it expensive to take these catch basins and reline them and make them go where they're supposed to? Absolutely. But is it worthwhile in the long run? Absolutely, Mr. President. So these are the issues I hope We continue to discuss in our community on behalf of the ratepayer.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I put this on the agenda because our budget process is coming up soon. And I wanna make sure that this council is aware of our role during the budget and aware of what we have as recourse when the budget is presented to us. And last week, Mr. President, I was told by an administrative staff that this council has a line item cut authority, which over the years, I guess, depending on the administration, I've been told otherwise. I won't speak for my colleagues. And I think we should set the record straight. I looked at chapter 44, section 32. I looked at some old opinions from former city solicitors. I looked at a letter from the Department of Revenue that was submitted back in 2014. This council over the years, not many occasions, has offered cuts to the budget. I remember back some years ago, and this was what I referenced last week, there was a motion to cut the then assistant director of DPW, because we're in tough budget times, and the motion passed, and the administration decided not to make that line item cut, but cut somewhere else within the budget. There was a motion a while back to take money and cut the water and sewer budget, Mr. President, by over $600,000. This was back in 2014. And the council voted to cut 600,000 and use, if we remember, use the water and sewer surplus account, which you can only use it for two purposes, One is to use it for infrastructure improvements. And the other one is to offset water and sewer costs and rates. So the council said, you have 5 million in an account. And I can't remember the exact dollar amount at the time. Why do we keep on raising the rate? So we thought within the budget that slashed this line item by 600,000, take it out of the enterprise account. The mayor at the time, Mayor McGlynn, didn't like that idea. And he vetoed our cut, Mr. President, And then we overrode the mayor's veto and that stood actually. But I think it's so crucial now that we understand what our role is, Mr. President, and what our abilities are to make cuts. And I ask that we either contact the Department of Revenue, or we ask for an opinion from the city solicitor, what our responsibilities are on the budget. Do we just make bottom line cuts to departments? Do we just make bottom line cuts in general? From my reading of the Department of Revenue in chapter 44 of the general laws, it states if we do make bottom line cuts, we also have to indicate where the cut, what lines will be cut. So I think this would be very, you know, I've been on the council a lot of years. When I received conflicting information, one administration saying you have zero authority over line items. And then another administration saying you have the ability to cut a line item in the last budget. That's conflicting to me. And at the very least, I think we need clarification. So I would ask under your leadership, Mr. President, that we seek out that clarification. And I would put it in the form of a motion that we ask the city solicitor what role the council has in the either approving, rejecting or cutting line items within the city budget.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on. He's 100% right on all these issues. Council Vice President Knight is correct. We put a laundry list of conditions and the staging I think was your condition. I remember you speaking about having a staging area set up so they can put the equipment in trucks. I think it's vital, Mr. President, that we find out who the clerk of the work is on behalf of the city of Medford. We also should be asking this person if they're adhering to all the conditions, because let's be quite honest, I'm not looking and I'm not on that job site every day. to make sure that they're adhering to all these. But clearly, if you take a ride by, you're seeing the equipment left overnight. Clearly, I forget who brought it up last week. I can't remember if it was Councilor Bears or Councilor Scarpelli about sweeping after every day's work. And we were notified and then the Councilor Falco, I apologize. And these things aren't happening, Mr. President. When we also discussed, we made a recommendation about having the three crews be put back. When you have the area residents on Winthrop Street reaching out saying, we've already had to put up with this for the last year and a half, two years. And if you want to extend the project, by not having enough crews, that just makes my life more miserable. So we're already hearing this from residents. So it's unacceptable for the chief, Mr. President. And if he was on the line, I'd say it right to his face. It's unacceptable that the chief unilaterally is going to make a decision to slow down a project that we've been working on for the past five years, Mr. President. And that's impacting residents now. It's unacceptable. unless he can tell me it's a public safety concern. If you can't get enough offices on the detail, Mr. President, go outside the community. They do it every day. Go outside the community, find some offices, Mr. President, that want to fill the detail. But to slow down a project of this magnitude and have residents put up with this, it's unacceptable. It's extremely unacceptable. So I agree with Council Vice President Knight, we should find out what that laundry list of conditions are from the Clerk of the Works, find out who the Clerk of the Works is, first of all, and have a discussion regarding that. Regarding the parking program, Mr. President, I believe the parameters within Park Method, their contract only states that they can operate on resident permit parking streets. They cannot operate outside of that contract. So if indeed they are going around giving out tickets on non-resident parking, permit parking streets, then we should be notified of that and find out when this change took place, why it took place, Mr. President, and maybe this was their decision and they want to increase their revenue. I don't know, but that's not the way we should operate. If we have a signed contract, we should operate within the four walls of the contract. And that's my last impression of that contract, that it was only on resident, permanent parking streets. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank Council Vice President Knight for bringing this up and Councilor Scarpelli for his passion on this issue. He's been dealing with the youth of our community for many decades and I think has his finger on the pulse You know, anytime you can expand the seat at the table where decisions are being made, I think is a positive step. And to have youth involved in decision making, I think is a very positive step in this community. I remember the days back some years ago, Mr. President, the council, under the leadership of the president of the council, would allow members to invite a business owner behind the reel, invite a student behind the reel, invite any one of your choice per week, Mr. President, and they would sit right next to you and they would have input, naturally they didn't have a vote, but they would have input during the meeting and be able to discuss and give input about how this may impact their business or impact their life or impact their family or whatever it might be, Mr. President, And I just thought it was a great way of all too often you hear people saying that they don't have a seat at the table or they're left out of the process. And that was just a nice way of including members of the community. And I really would like to see us get back into that, Mr. President, and maybe under your leadership, we can once again reignite that and allow the council members to invite someone behind the real of their choice, Mr. President, to partake in city government. But getting back to this, I support this wholeheartedly. I support anything that would bring additional people to the table and therefore get additional opinions on how city government should operate. And I support this wholeheartedly.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just one clarification, and I want to thank Chairman Beers and Councilor Falco. I think we're making some real headway on housing issues within our community. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, the 50,000 that we asked to be in the budget was for housing assistance and not rental assistance. I just want to clarify because I know there was some contention around why not just make a general statement regarding housing assistance and not rental. So I just want the record to reflect it's, I believe it's housing assistance.
[Michael Marks]: Appreciate it. Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Chairman Beers and Councilor Falco. I have to say we've been working on this ordinance for a period of time, but we're finally making some serious headway. And I think, Mr. President, it's not going to be just a knee jerk reaction. It's a very thoughtful process. And I think, you know, the ordinance itself, which has some accountability within the ordinance, which I think will go a long way for pedestrian improving pedestrian safety. But secondly, Mr. President, I think adding a component of city responsibility, you know, the ordinance originally was a focus on residents, residents have to clear the corners, residents have to clear the sidewalks, they have to clear the front of the hybrids, residents have to do this, residents have to do that. And I think the subcommittee after digesting some of this said, you know what, in order to get a buy-in from the residents, we need the city to also step up and take responsibility. And I think what we found is by offering this priority sidewalk, where we're looking at 26 miles of Ontario roads. So every road that's currently being swept right now in our pilot program will now become part of, over a certain amount of inches, will now become part of an automatic plow that goes on the sidewalk and plow the sidewalk over a certain number of inches. What that does, as we've discussed, myself, Councilor Falco and Chairman Beers, is create the connectivity that we're talking about from business district to business district from school to school, from elderly housing to elderly housing, from bus stop to bus stop, and it creates that automatic connectivity. And for the amount that we're looking at for upwards of $3,000 to $4,000 on an average snowstorm for a city this size, I think we all felt that this is our biggest bang for our buck to implement such a program. How it gets implemented, whether we outsource or see if we can handle it in-house, still remains, and still a work in progress. But I think we've made a lot of headway in improving pedestrian safety. And I would welcome Steve South to any one of our open meetings. They've all been open. We've had members of the Chamber of Commerce. We've had members of WOC Method. We've had members of WOC Boston attend our meetings and give input. And we're always welcome to hear input, Mr. President, on how we can better improve this process. You know, the big issue that we've been struggling with is the crossings. So right now, the ordinance states that the homeowner that lives at the corner would be responsible for clearing out the crossing. And as we all know, many of the trucks plow to the corners, and in a big storm, you could have four, five, six feet of ice. And how do you have a homeowner that's gonna be responsible for clearing that out. So part of the process for the priority sidewalk was to have 26 miles of these corners cleaned out automatically with these bombardiers. And we're still trying to create a process that we can have snow counted off, or we can have a better policy on the city side where they don't plow directly to corners. So there's some administrative stuff we can work on, some ordinance stuff, and maybe some contractual stuff to help improve pedestrian safety in this community. And I just want to thank my colleagues. We've put a lot of hours into this, and I hope eventually when we present it to the council for their input, that they'll see the amount of hours that we put into this and, you know, have their input as well, but see that really, I think this makes a lot of sense for our community. And again, I want to thank Chairman Beers and Councilor Falco for their input on this. And the DPW commissioner as well, he's been instrumental in this process, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. Councilor Marks. Just for the identification, you know, Councilor Bears gave a great explanation. I just don't want anyone to think that we didn't share the information as we go along. So at no time could someone say, geez, I didn't know they were working on that. We laid it all out on the table, what we've been looking at. If anyone wants to give input at this particular stage, they're welcome to do so. This has been an open and notorious process, and we welcome input at any time. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: There's something going on.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with both my colleagues, Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Knight. I think this warrants a far more in-depth detailed meeting, which would be precisely a committee of the whole. So I agree with that assumption. The question I did have, Mr. President, And it's great to have the full membership of the Traffic Advisory Commission. However, that was the first step in this process. And I think it would be equally as helpful to also have someone from the administration present, because the next phase of this, to my understanding, is rollout, implementation, and so forth. And that's a vital component. This was fact gathering and making recommendations. I believe there were 21 really worthy recommendations made, but there's also two other steps in the process. And I wanna make sure that this doesn't just end up in step one, that we see this to fruition, step two and three. So I would ask that the committee of whole also includes representatives from the city administration that can speak on this, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Over the last several weeks, I received a number of phone calls and emails from area residents concerned about our waste collection. And the fact that for many residents of this community that have to deal with residents that putting their barrels out too early, and it's creating not only debris, Mr. President, on these windy nights, as we all know, it's also creating an increase in rodents throughout the community. And I'm getting complaint after complaint in many of our neighborhoods about an increase in rats. And we were told on many occasions, if you give them a water source and a food source, rats will come. And indeed, putting the barrels out too early is an additional food source. So I asked Mr. President not to be punitive and ask that the city find residents, but to notify residents that there is an ordinance, Mr. President. And the reason why I bring it up is You never hear much discussion regarding the ordinance itself, but it does exist. And I happen to have done a little research and asked our police department, code enforcement and border health, how many tickets were issued over the past year for a violation of section 70-4, which is the placement of receptacles, which are trash bins. And I was told, Mr. President, that there were 55 tickets written in the past year, not all for putting out trash too early, for putting out So for other items that are against the ordinance that are left overnight, Mr. President. So it's clear to me that we've probably issued a dozen or two tickets for putting out trash too early in this community. And I would just like to read the solid waste ordinance so people are aware, Mr. President. I don't think people are malicious. I know I'm always trying to get my trash out ahead of time to make sure it's out on the the street, Mr. President, but I think once people are aware what the rules and regulations are, they will comply, Mr. President. And it's not just compliance for the sake of compliance, it's for the sake of not having trash blown all over the street. not having rodent problems and so forth. So section 70-4 of the solid waste article states, article one states, placement of receptacles. All receptacles containing ashes or rubbish, I think that shows you how old this ordinance is, shall be placed on the outer edge of the sidewalk. It shall be placed in such a manner so that the free flow of travel on the sidewalk is not obstructed nearby. No such receptacles containing ashes or rubbish shall be placed on the sidewalk earlier than 7 p.m. of the day immediately preceding the day appointed by the city for the collection of the receptacles. So if your trash is on a Tuesday, Mr. President, you can't put your barrel out before 7 p.m. on the Monday night. So if you put it out at three, four, five, six in the evening, you're in violation of the ordinance. It has to go out after seven, Mr. President. And I think once residents are aware of that, they will respect the ordinance, Mr. President, And I would ask that even if the reverse 911 call went out on this, just to notify residents, Mr. President, because it is becoming an issue. I was going up on Riverside Ave the other day, and as we all know, it's been windy the last few days. Literally trash, it looked like a tape parade. Trash was blown everywhere, the tops were off the barrels, and really it was a mess and a hop. Mr. President, and that's not what we want to give the impression of our community. Also, Mr. President, section 70-6, collection for businesses enforcement, all business establishments, rubbish shall be placed on the sidewalk for collection no earlier than 9 a.m. on the day appointed by the city for collection of rubbish. And I know some businesses have put their trash out the night before because they may not get in to put the trash out the day of it after nine. And that is also a concern, Mr. President. And I would just ask if the Chamber of Commerce can let their membership know that, indeed, there is an ordinance that covers that. And it also states, Mr. President, which someday may require an update from this council, it shall be the duty of the police officers to enforce the provisions of this section. And from what I'm being told by the building commissioner, Paul Mulkey, who I spoke to today, It's typically the Board of Health and court enforcement, our court enforcement officers that are issuing the tickets, not the police department. So I would ask that subsection B of section 70-6 be updated by this council, probably the public works subcommittee to include language that would include enforceable by DPW, I'm sorry, by the building department and by the Board of Health. So that's pretty much it, Mr. President. In the interest of just getting the word out, I would ask that the city administration offer an amendment. The city administration do just an informational 911 alerting residents of the both business and homeowners of the trash ordinance and when trash receptacles are allowed to be put out on the sidewalk for pickup, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just if I could, Mr. President, I realize that we signed a long-term contract. Actually, the administration signed a long-term contract with waste management. But in my opinion, over the years, this council has offered a number of resolutions requesting different solutions to some of the constituent calls that we're getting, Mr. President, to no avail. And it seems like either the city administration, and I'm not saying this administration, but past administrations are not willing to sit down because of a long-term contract and talk to waste management You know, during COVID, it hasn't been much of an issue, but I can tell you firsthand that waste management picks up trash between seven and nine o'clock on the major thoroughfares when people are rushing to work. And I can tell you, it makes traffic go back 20 minutes, Mr. President. On any high street, Riverside Ave, Salem, you mentioned on many of the major thoroughfares, that was one request they offered over the years, that they stay off the thoroughfares between certain hours, and that would be seven or nine in the morning, and, you know, four to six in the evening, when we know there's a high impact of traffic to our community. And for whatever reason, that always falls on deaf ears. And I think would alleviate some of the concerns when we talk about congestion in our community. So I want to thank you for your recommendations as well.
[Michael Marks]: You know, looking at the whole section, it probably would require an update. This language is probably 60, 70 years old. So I wouldn't say we look at the entire section.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. We just have to send it with our request because we can't just send a paper to them. So I think we have to also include what we're trying to accomplish.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, we'll probably end up going to subcommittee anyways, but yeah. Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, good. Mr. President, if we could also let the record reflect. Also, there's a service that's provided by waste management. And I've asked this a million times. where they will come around and clean the barrels, Mr. President. And it's a great service. I've asked a number of times that they provide, I think they subcontract, to go around. We've had these barrels for years. Many of them are big and cumbersome to work with, and it would be a great asset to have them come around and clean the barrels out, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to congratulate my former colleague, Councilor Camuso, on this prestigious appointment. Mr. President, little known fact that Paul Camuso used to skate for the Method High hockey team. And I'm supportive of this as long as he's not teaching our youth how to skate, because from what I recall, he wasn't a great skater, Mr. President. And as long as he's in the administrative end, I do support this, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I want to thank you, Mr. President, because I know you've been on top of these particular roadways, and in particular the underpass on Riverside Ave that had the lights out and so forth. And I know you've been a big advocate of that. I would ask Mr. President also that they take a look in general at all the state roads, Mr. President, within the city of Medford, in particular Wellington Circle and along the Fellsway because of The number of businesses there, because of the number of cars that pass through that area, Mr. President, at any given time, if you take a walk through there, I think you'd be appalled on the amount of trash that is all over those. And really, DOT needs to step up and do it far more frequently than they do, Mr. President. You are correct. Thank you. So I have that as an amendment, Mr. President. Mr. President? Councilor Baca.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It is with a heavy heart, Mr. President, that we just lost one of Method's finest, Bob McGovern, who we all knew affectionately in this community. You never saw or rarely saw Bob without his lovely wife, Ian. They were always together. They own the Superette which had the best soft-serve ice cream on Spring Street for many years. It was known as McGovern's Superette. They were truly a family-owned business, Mr. President. If you didn't have the money to pay for an item, they put you what was called the cuff. They put you on the cuff and they allowed residents, Mr. President, that may have been just squeaking by to gain access to a lot of supplies within their Super Red. And they were truly, truly just a real good family in this community. Bob loved spending time with family and friends. If you ever saw him, he was always the first to talk politics, but also asked you how your family was doing and how you were doing. And he really cared. He didn't just ask and didn't wait for an answer. He wanted to know how you were doing. and if there's anything he can help you out with. And that's the type of person Bob was. He grew up in the Wellington area, so I got to know him very well, Mr. President, and he will be sorely missed. I would ask, there were two people that passed recently, Mr. President, I would ask that this meeting be dedicated on behalf of Bob McGovern for his many years of service and dedicated volunteerism in our community and for being the type of person that I think everyone wants to emulate as a family man, a businessman, and someone who really cared about the community and not about the bottom line. And that is hard to find in this day and age, Mr. President. And on behalf of this council and his entire family, I want to wish them the utmost sympathy during this very trying time. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: We can do it together.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Bob McGovern and Thomas Cangiano, a name synonymous with volunteerism in this community, Mr. President. He served on a number of boards and commissions with distinction over the years. We lost his lovely wife, Jane, back a few years ago, and they were inseparable as well. You always saw them, they're like frick and frack together. And Thomas was what, I would say is the model citizen. He was a guy that I had a lot of respect for, someone that shot from the hip and told you how it was, Mr. President, and was doing it in a caring way, and someone that really cared about his community. And I know he was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and every time you saw him, He looked like an imposing guy when you saw him, but he had a heart of gold, let me tell you. And again, a person when you bumped into, the first thing he would ask you is, how are you doing? And in this day and age, you don't hear that too often. Everyone's self-absorbed and looking at their own. And he was always a person that would ask how your family's doing, how are you doing? And is there any way he can help you? And he truly meant it. So I would ask Mr. President, for these two Method residents, that we also name this meeting, Mr. President, after Thomas Cangiano on his recent passing. So both Mr. Cangiano and Mr. McGovern, that this meeting be in their memories, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. And anytime my former colleague starts off with, I want to go back to 2002, I think we all know we're in trouble. But, you know, I think what Councilor Penta mentioned, Mr. President, is valuable institutional knowledge. And when I say that, Mr. President, many of us behind the reel probably don't remember the days when, as Councilor Penter alluded to, where we used to have five, six, seven, 800 abatements in the water and sewer department a year. And that wasn't because, you know, everything was running smoothly. It was the fact, Mr. President, that we were estimating probably 50 to 60% of our water meters. And that was creating so much confusion in this community. It was really a crazy, crazy time. It was probably one of the biggest issues of that day, Mr. President. And when we moved to the new water meters, we really, in my opinion, solved a lot of the abatement issues, a lot of the issues of why is my bill so high, what's happening, and so forth. And now, as Councilor Penta rightfully alluded to, we don't want to go back to those days, believe me. Because I remember those days, and they were awful, Mr. President. The number of phone calls and the number of research that was taken, the amount of research, I should say, that was taken on each and every resident's complaint was unbelievable. And as Councilor Penta alluded to, I believe the life expectancy was around 10 years. We far surpassed the 10 years and eventually we're going to get into an issue and it's going to be all of our issue. It's not going to be, well, that's water and sewer or the city administration. It's going to be this council's issue that we go down that slippery slope again, when these meters one at a time across the city start to malfunction, we don't replace them. And eventually we just start to estimate, which was the slippery slope we got into back in 2002. as Councilor Penta mentioned. And I think it's only appropriate, this is not a sexy issue. It's not something that people are gonna be banging your door down until it impacts them. And why not head it off as Councilor Penta mentioned, we have over 5 million in the water and sewer enterprise account. And that money can only be spent to offset a deficit or infrastructure improvements. Why not look at the replacement of either the batteries or a new water meter right now, Mr. President. Why not head off the potential of this heartache that you know is going to come down the line? Also, Mr. President, as Councilor Penter alluded to, the city used to do a lot of I&I, inflow and infiltration, with the sewer system. It also was very aggressive with the leak detection program. When we discuss the meters, we have to look at INI and leak detection to see where we stand with that. Because those two alone cost the taxpayers millions of dollars a year in this community. And it's strange, but if you know anything else in this community that was costing you as a rate payer millions of dollars, you would say, let's address it. But for some reason, water and sewer, it falls under the radar. Because the pipes are underground, You know, it's something that we don't look at. Out of sight, out of mind. But it's an inherent problem in this community that needs to be addressed. Also, Mr. President, when we brought the system back some years ago, we were sold a bill of sales by the former engineers, Councilor Penter alluded to, Don Roulette, who I had a lot of respect at the time. It was a big job, and as you know, every department was understaffed, and this was a big undertaking to change the meters. We saw the bill of sales that the program was also going to have what they call an exception report. And what that was, Mr. President, was a report that was run daily by the city, or at least they had access to running it, that would show spikes in water usage in the community. So if you're a snowbird and you went to, you know, Florida in December, and you happen to have a leak in your house, and you weren't home and no one was there, you could see the spike because you'd be using water at two, three in the morning. You'd be using it on off days and so forth. And the city would be able to spit out a report saying this particular address had an exception, had a spike. And that's invaluable, Mr. President, to a resident and a homeowner that someone's watching over saying, hey, we're going to make sure that if there is a concern that we can address it and notify you as a resident. You also may have an internal link. So you may have it a week that's not coming through a ceiling or a floor, but your bathroom toilet may be running constantly, and maybe you're not aware of that. Or maybe you have several toilets that are running constantly. Or for instance, I got a call last week from a management company, and I won't mention the management company, and I won't mention the condo building in Method, but a management company reached out to me and said that they received, a $40,000 water bill. I got the same call. You got the same call, Mr. President. And they were not notified for two billing cycles. So it was 40,000 and 40,000. Their typical bill may have been $4,000. And once the management company found out and alerted the Condo Association, by that time, you know, and then they try to figure out, they hired plumbers and so forth, they found a leak was internal, so it was after the meter on their property, but it was underground. In the end, the ground was absorbing the water, and no one was the wiser, Mr. President, other than the bill. But if there was an exception report that showed, hey, typically, they're using just, say, 32,000 cubic gallons a month, and now they're using 450,000 cubic gallons a month, That's an exception. And the city should be notifying people saying, there's a huge exception, there's a problem. Because how do you turn to a homeowner, a condo association, which are homeowners, and say, you know what, your bill went from $4,000 to $40,000. That could have happened to any one of us behind this wheel, or anyone in the community, Mr. President. And what do you do? What a hardship that would be, right? When the city reaches out and says, you owe us 40,000. How do you dispute that? The leak was on your side. It wasn't the city's leak. It was your leak. And then the great fight is on, Mr. President. So that is extremely important with the exception report. I'd like to offer an amendment to Councilor Pinter's, if we could vote on it next week. That's fine, Mr. President. But I'd like to offer an amendment, Mr. President, we can bring up next week. whether or not the city is still actively involved with looking at exception reports, and if they have the capability, because this was some time back, if they still have the capability of running exception reports for unaccounted for water on behalf of residents and homeowners of this community. And also, Mr. President, an amendment next week, because Council Vice President's right this wasn't formally on the agenda. And under our new rules, it has to be formally on the agenda. And also Mr. President, that the 5 million surplus of water and sewer enterprise that the administration report back the status of the water meter systems in our community. And when and if and when these meters are being looked at for replacement in our community, where we stand. I think it's only appropriate we get an update on that.
[Michael Marks]: That would be great.
[Michael Marks]: That'd be good. Whenever you could set it up, Mr. President, and the edification for the viewing audience and also this council, because water and sewer is a multi, multimillion dollar charge to this community through sewer and water. I think it's important that we all receive updates periodically to know where we stand.
[Michael Marks]: We have the clerk. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on. The Boyd family has been a long established family in this community, giving back much to the city over many, many decades between Bill Boyd Sr. and Bill Boyd Jr. They are a tremendous family. I want to congratulate him on his seat to the New Hampshire State House. I believe they're only a part time legislative body, but still, Mr. President, it's great to see someone with his integrity, put their hat in the ring and run for public office. And I just want to congratulate him. Thank you. Councilor People.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I had the opportunity to attend the third and final public hearing on April 14th of the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee. They took, total of 44 applications that were submitted by Verizon in over a three-day hearing. They adjudicated all 44, Mr. President. It wasn't until the April 14th meeting, after listening to resident concerns in the Hillside, Method Square area, and in South Method, that we finally were able to get a denial from the Small Ad Hoc Cell Committee. And the denial was based on two particular Method residents who, in my opinion, did their homework and did their due diligence and presented the Small Ad Hoc Cell Committee with a number of issues and concerns. and the two sisters, in my opinion, I believe, set forth denial standards now that can be followed by other Method residents if and when Verizon or any other vendor approaches the city for more applications. What was presented that night, Mr. President, by the two sisters and many of this document, much of the documentation has been presented to department heads here at City Hall, the city administration, members of the city council. But the, according to the denial reasons that were issued by the small ad hoc cell committee was the chairman, Chairman McGiven cited the interim policy 2-J, which is part of the mayor's interim policy. and 2-J states description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations from a community perspective, including visual aspects, proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, or playgrounds. So the chairman, in his denial statement, mentioned the interim policy 2-J. They also mentioned, Mr. President, which was brought up by the two sisters, Barbara Kendall and Marilyn Jordan, that they were concerned about the aesthetics of having this particular antenna within 20, 15, 20 feet of their windows in their homes. And they were concerned from an aesthetic standpoint. So that was the first thing they raised, Mr. President. The other thing was the proximity to their home and proximity to an open front porch where they sit. And right now, there are no setback guidelines that the committee follows. But apparently, if residents raise concerns of the proximity to their home, and the proximity to where they sit, whether it's an open front porch, whether it's stairs, you may sit in your stairs like I do. You may sit in a chair in front of your house. So those two, three items, aesthetics, proximity to home, proximity to open front porch were mentioned. The neighbors also suggested suitable other locations. So Barbara and her sister Marilyn said, what about this location? What about this pole? What about that pole? And they listed a number of surrounding poles in the area. And I think that falls in line with the policy 2-J, which mentions are there other similar superior locations? And at the time, Verizon said that they couldn't locate any other locations. However, the board did not see fit and ruled for denial. The two sisters also presented a petition from area residents saying that area residents were also opposed that lived on Sheridan to installing a 5G antenna at that particular location. So based on these particular denial reasons, the five that I just mentioned, aesthetics, proximity to home, front porch, suggestions of other suitable locations, and the presentation of a petition. It doesn't have to be an act of Congress. We, the undersigned, do not support 5G antenna on Expo. That's all it takes. I believe, Mr. President, this opens up the door for other residents down the line to offer the same other standards, the same other criteria, Mr. President, why they don't want it in front of their home. And from my sitting on probably 10 to 12 hours of public hearing for that committee, I heard not only these two particular sisters, but a dozen other people mentioned very similar reasons over and over again. And the only one that got denied was this particular petition. And there was another petition, I believe there were two of them, based on clearance, ADA compliant clearance. You need 36 inches in width, And we were told that all the polls were pre-examined by the city to make sure they were ADA compliant. And come to find out, maybe we missed a couple of polls, or maybe that review was still in process. But indeed, that wasn't the case, Mr. President. So I just want to put that out there. This issue is not going away, and I think every resident, Mr. President, should be aware if this is something that they eventually receive a notice saying we're going to have a 5G in front of your house, this is the way, in my opinion, that you can combat that. I offered the suggestion last week, Mr. President, and it was ironic to hear the chairman of the committee state that when these two sisters brought up a concern about their property value potentially being reduced because of having 5G in front of their home, the chairman immediately stated, well, he doesn't want to dispute that. However, he believes it could be the opposite, that people in the community want the 5G, want the additional access, and that's precisely what this council voted unanimously last week, saying, let's reach out to the general public, find out who's interested, and if they wish to have 5G, let's make it happen. So I'm glad to hear at least the chairman recognized there may be a better approach to this whole process. then we're currently undertaking right now. So I just want them to put that out. There were no formal motions tonight, Mr. President. This was just for the edification of people in the community and possibly how, when, if and when they are presented with this means that they have to arm themselves and be informed on how to fight back, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. Councilor Marks. I just have a question. This may not be to Councilor Bears, but maybe to the city solicitor. What defines domestic partnership?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Mr. President, if we could, Mr. President, I realized that we have been reading the governor's order since March of 2020. And I would ask that we send this to our city solicitor regarding language that states no in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted. That is not, right now what we follow, Mr. President, as you know, we received from our local board of health, the approval of having in-person attendance. We follow all the local board of health guidelines, as well as the CDC guidelines. So I would ask that this be sent to our city solicitor for a potential update, Mr. President, on that language.
[Michael Marks]: Is there any way the gentleman could maybe move up the sign and speak into the mic? Because I don't think people at home are going to be able to hear. at that distance. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Knox. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for their comments, and I want to thank BJ's for being present tonight. What I did hear at the outset, Mr. President, was that BJ's values their club and they value their members. What I did not hear was that BJ's values the neighborhood. And it may be because I live a couple of blocks over, Mr. President, that I could tell you firsthand the number of emails and phone calls I've received over the past many years regarding BJs. And it's great to say that this is their first club, this is their flagship store, it receives extra maintenance. Mr. President, all you have to do is open your eyes and see that none of that is true. All you have to do is go along Woodruff Ave and see the many breaks in the fence, year after year after year. and the debris from their parking lot blows out into the neighborhoods. It was just about three days ago. So if anyone went by there and looked at Woodruff Ave and said, what a nice clean area it is, it was my call to DPW, which happens two or three times a year, Mr. President, to Steve Penaglia, the head of our highway, that got that area once again cleaned up. And it was our DPW that went out there that would cut down the debris and so forth. Yes, BJ's has done some improvements after many, many, many calls. And I've personally made them to the store managers over and over again, the district managers and so forth. And they will eventually make some improvements, Mr. President. But it's clear to me, if you look at the lot, you look at the debris, you look at the fact that it is not a pedestrian-friendly business. Anyone right now that has to walk to BJ's, so if you're an area resident or neighbor and you wanna walk there, you're taking your life in your hands going through their lot. That's how dangerous it is, Mr. President. And that's why the Community Development Board made the recommendations they did, Mr. President, regarding circulation. It wasn't just for vehicular traffic, it was for pedestrians as well. That's how dangerous it is, Mr. President. I remember getting the calls over and over again, Mr. President, because the sweeping that they do in their parking lot, two, three in the morning, the sweeper would be out there. You can imagine the noise and the echoing of the noise in the neighborhood. And I can't tell you how many times, how many calls I had to put out, Mr. President, in order to get BJs to act. And then they stated they did something, and within three weeks, it's back again. The noise. Idling trucks overnight, Mr. President, with the refrigerators, parked in the lot for hours and hours and hours, idling trucks. It wasn't until we brought BJ over and over again and asked them, what can they do about it? I believe they started locking their lot. I don't know if they put a chain in the front back. They started locking their lot, Mr. President. But still, at night, that lot remains open on many occasions. Drag racing. You might say, how can you drag race on the back of the lot? They start from the beginning of the lot on the Fellsway, Mr. President, where that little stretch of road runs along Woodruff into the parking lot, and they drag race inside there at night. These aren't made up stories. These are what the neighbors have to put up with, Mr. President. You know, BJ's has not been a good neighbor, in my opinion. I've lived in the area 30 years. They have not been a good neighbor. And I don't believe they value the neighborhood, Mr. President. If this is their flagship store, shame on them. I'd hate to see what the other stores look like. You know, they mentioned about substantial improvement to the circulation, to the landscaping, to the lighting on their lot. They haven't mentioned the concerns of the neighborhood, Mr. President. We heard that this new station is a great distance away from the homes. I challenge anyone to take a walk down there tonight, and we'll see what this great distance is from the homes. We'll see, Mr. President, the 64,000 gallons of flammable gas that's going to be in very close proximity to homes in that area. and ask if you would like to live that close in that area, or anyone from BJs, if they'd like to live that close. This is a secondary use for BJs. And it's great that they wanna take care of their members, that's great. What else does the membership want? Where else can we put that lot? It's a big lot. How else can we accommodate the membership of BJs and disregard the neighborhood? And that's exactly what we're doing here, Mr. President. If I'm not mistaken, BJ's approached the city council some many years ago for a license for gas storage on that property, and they were denied. For many of the same reasons you're hearing here tonight, Mr. President. You know, we heard about trucking, one truck a day. That's for the gas. That doesn't include their other operations. how many other trucks are coming in, 18 wheelers, and so forth. Operational noise. They're not putting this gas station for no reason. As the gentleman stated, I believe it's near Woburn BJ's. People would like to have one closer. So we'll divert a lot of that traffic to Woburn, into Middlesex Ave, into the Fellsway, into our neighborhood, Mr. President. additional path trips. It was stated. I happened to have attended the Conservation Commission hearing on January 15th, and I spoke and represented what I believe the neighborhood concerns, and they did a good job as well. I also spoke at the September 16th Community Development Board meeting. And let's not forget, Mr. President, we can thank the Community Development Board, the Conservation Commission, But guess who represents the neighbors in the neighborhood? It's this Method City Council. And we're the ones, Mr. President, that feel the complaints, that hear the concerns. So, Mr. President, what I would ask is for BJ's tonight to present to us what the lighting impacts associated for this proposal on the residents. What are the direct lighting impacts on the residents? I'd like to hear from them tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate your comment.
[Michael Marks]: So you're going to add an internally illuminated sign?
[Michael Marks]: But you're going to add an additional sign? No, sir.
[Michael Marks]: So you're going to have the one BJ sign, and then you're going to replace it with a BJ and gas sign in one sign?
[Michael Marks]: And what about, you're going to have a canopy around the station?
[Michael Marks]: And is any illumination associated with that canopy?
[Michael Marks]: What about on the exterior of the canopy? Anything that's lit up on the exterior?
[Michael Marks]: So what about, okay, that's, well, that's, additional sign. It's additional lighting that wasn't mentioned. I just want to lay everything on the table. I understand. So there's no surprises. And I want to be what about gas prices? Are you not going to say what your prices are?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so that's not what we just heard from this gentleman. He said they were replacing the existing sign within the frame of that sign. That's right. And I'm sure you can't fit your pricing in there as well. Yes, we can. So you're gonna take that existing sign, you're gonna have the BJ's logo, you're gonna have the new station saying gas or whatever it is, and then you're gonna have your illuminated prices for your regular unleaded, high test unleaded, and so forth. That's all gonna fit in the same sign.
[Michael Marks]: And you're not gonna expand the square footage?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Okay. In regards to the emissions of odor from the gas, how are you addressing that?
[Michael Marks]: All right. So what happens when someone overfills it leaks onto the ground. Are there any vapors that are emitted from that?
[Michael Marks]: I'll be honest with you, it happens with me all the time.
[Michael Marks]: All the time. I try not to, but it happens.
[Michael Marks]: Is this self-serve or full-serve or both? Self-serve. Self-serve. So you will not have any type of attendant on that property?
[Michael Marks]: And is this only available to BJ's members or can anyone from the public use that?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So why does a company like Stop and Shop provide a discount for their Stop and Shop customers, but also allow you to purchase gas there as well with no discount? just so you don't stop and shop. And yours is just an exclusive. So it's only for BJs. So if I'm driving there and I'm running out of gas, I can't use your gas.
[Michael Marks]: And how does that benefit the neighborhood and the community?
[Michael Marks]: And those of us that are not members, we're not welcome. We want to make you a member, sir.
[Michael Marks]: I see the value if I'm a member. I don't see a value if I'm not a member. And that's, I think, something that your corporate office should really look into. So regarding the- Okay, Mr., I'm sorry.
[Michael Marks]: No, that's all right. During the testimony at one of the public hearings, an outside expert came in regarding the report for traffic engineering. And they mentioned in their report that they predicted the traffic impacts have been underestimated by your traffic expert.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I'd like to hear, you know, I realized there's two experts and one saying one thing, one saying another thing.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate your comments. Mr. President, if I could just end my comments and I appreciate the council indulging me and I appreciate BJ's not taking exception to what I had to say, Mr. President, but much of this has been pent up over a number of years with the lack of attention by BJ's to this particular neighborhood. And, you know, it's great that they're at the table and they're willing to make some improvements, but they're also looking for approval from this council. And it makes me wonder if BJ's would be at the table if that was not the case. The council's review of BJ's application for a gas storage and sale license may consider fire and safety hazards associated with the 64,000 gallons of fuel storage next to a residential neighborhood. The council can also consider noise associated with the construction, increased trucking and car trips, and along with operational noise. which we know will happen, Mr. President. I just want to lay out my concerns regarding gasoline emissions, additional trucking, additional noise, additional car trips, fire and safety hazards associated with that amount of gasoline storage next to a neighborhood and the traffic impact on area residents, Mr. President. And I appreciate everyone indulging me while I made my comments.
[Michael Marks]: I think, uh, I'm not sure if the petitioner is allowed to waive that requirement. I think that's a statutory requirement. Um, and at this particular time, Mr. President, this issue has been out before the community for close to two years. There's been ample input by both residents, by this council, by BJ's, and at this junction, based on what was brought up by this council regarding additional trucking, additional traffic impacts, additional car trips, noise, regarding gasoline emissions, fire and health concerns, regarding the amount of storage, regarding that BJ's has not been a good neighbor, In the area, Mr. President, I would move for denial, Mr. President, of the application. Yes, sir.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, I have a motion on the table, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. I'm not quite sure. I know Council Vice President Knight mentioned that fact that they may not have to go back before the Community Development Board or the Conservation Commission. I'm not quite sure without having our legal counsel give us guidance on that, that that is indeed correct. And I would state at this point, that we move forward on the motion that I made Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I still ask that we take our vote Mr. President. This is a Medford City Council meeting.
[Michael Marks]: What's that?
[Michael Marks]: This is to deny, yes. This is a two-year process. It's been a two-year process.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Rice. Mr. President, thank you very much.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. My colleagues, I think, did a great job on this. Mr. President, I think it's only appropriate that we receive a correspondence from the chief of police regarding his reasoning for only allowing the one crew to start off on April 20th. And what are his expectations to have more crews added and what that timeframe is. I think residents should be aware of what's going on, Mr. President. And I won't reiterate what my colleagues stated, but this project, as Councilor Falco mentioned, has been going on since 2017. And really, I think this has to come to some type of resolve.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, please.
[Michael Marks]: In my opinion, Mr. President, this process has been lackluster at the very best. There's been insufficient community outreach. And I think if you attended any of the two hearings that have taken place so far, you will hear that from residents, even the emails we receive and the phone calls that many residents feel left out of the process, feel that they haven't had any decision making within this process. and feel that their concerns don't matter. And that's their own feeling and their own opinion. And residents are entitled to that, Mr. President, because indeed, I have the same feeling, Mr. President. And I attended both meetings that were held, both public hearings. And to say that the public hearing is a place to allow for public comment, I believe falls short of the mark when residents are given two minutes to speak and really can't get their message out within that period of time. If we recall back a little over a year ago, I believe it was, there was a meeting up here with well over 100 residents that got canceled. Then there was a follow-up meeting, as Council Vice President Knight refers to, that was held by the city in Verizon, and it was like a science fair. that you come in and you just walk around to different exhibits that were laid out here in the chamber, and you never really got to sit down and hear what other residents have to say, never got really to participate in a back and forth dialogue, and I believe that was part of the insufficiency regarding community outreach. The city, Mr. President, And it's no reflection on the board members. I hope they don't take it personal on the small 5G, but the city was ill prepared for this much anticipated 5G hearing that took place, the two that took place over the last two weeks. The city did not present one subject matter expert, but relied heavily on Verizon and their subject matter experts. And I think that lends itself right there, Mr. President, to people in the community feeling that there's no one there looking out for their interest. And I think they have every right to believe so. We've had ample time to bring a subject matter expert on board that can give us some guidance. People I've spoken with aren't necessarily against 5G, they're concerned with the proximity of 5G to their home, to their bedroom, to their front porch, to where their kids play. That's their concern and they have every right to be concerned, Mr. President. I think right now where the next public hearing is coming up to finish off the remaining 20 applications. I believe there are 44 altogether. I believe there's roughly 20 left or right around that. The next hearing is coming up. And we should be discussing next steps now. Because from what we heard, Mr. President, this was the first of many applications that are going to be submitted, not only by Verizon, but other vendors as well. And I think we learned from this first process a number of things, of which that the small ad hoc small cell committee, we need to prepare for the next round of anticipated applications and putting safeguards out there that will indeed address resident concerns and next step suggestions. So tonight, Mr. President, and I know the clerk is looking at me with an evil eye, because we've often, this council has approved so many amendments and suggestions, but Mr. Clerk, just bear with me. The next steps, Mr. President, we have to look at discussing improving the public outreach. If we continue to have a process where people feel left out, It's going to make this process very difficult, not just for 5G, in general going forward. We need to devise a better way of reaching out to the community, getting feedback, implementing that feedback, and doing additional public outreach. Just notifying people of a public hearing, in my opinion, is not enough public outreach. We need to discuss immediately to bring a consultant on board that has 5G expertise to protect our city's interests. It's not too late, Mr. President. That has to happen immediately. We need to discuss amending the existing interim policy or creating a new ordinance to add community input and additional health and safety guides. This council over the last year and a half has offered probably close to 18 to 20 amendments asking the city administration to look at the interim policy and make some changes based on what we believe could provide some protection for our community and answer some questions in our community. That is yet to happen, Mr. President. I'm not opposed to creating an ordinance at the time, if we recall, The interim policy was created because Verizon approached the city back in 2019. They sat down with the city administration back in 2019. They sat with the city engineer. They sat with the board of health. They sat with the city solicitor at the time. They sat with the mayor at the time. And Verizon said, we're coming into the community. The city was under the gun to create some type of policy, some type of mechanism to hold Verizon accountable. They put forward an interim policy within a matter of 24 to 48 hours. They sent it to the council after creating this interim policy. And we use that as a guide, Mr. President, knowing these applications were being submitted. There's nothing that prevents us as a community to creating an ordinance now, enhancing the existing interim policy. In my opinion, an interim policy has the same teeth as an ordinance. So if we already have the current document, let's work with the current document. But I'm open to any suggestions, Mr. President. We also need to start immediately to discuss expanding the ad hoc small cell committee to include resident participation on the small cell committee and an expert in 5G on this committee. Why would you create a committee with an even number of members? What happens with a two-to-two vote? Can anyone tell me? What happens with a two-to-two vote?
[Michael Marks]: It makes no sense, Mr. President. And some of these things can be done at the wave of a pen. That's all it takes. Remember, an interim policy is far less rigid than an ordinance. It's far less rigid, and it could be far more fluid and changes and thinking and quick reactions, Mr. President, to safeguard this community. We need to discuss mitigation. This council has voted on it. I'll bring it up again. We need to discuss mitigation. This council has requested 7-0 to ask the small ad hoc committee to stop moving forward on applications. Last week, last Thursday, when they brought it up, I specifically mentioned that one recommendation, even though we voted on a number of recommendations, and we were told by the lawyer from KP Law, not our own lawyer, that not quite sure that has any bearing that the council wants the small cell committee to stop at this point. That's what we were told, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Well put. That's exactly what's happening. That's exactly what's happening right now, Mr. President. So that is a major issue, Mr. President, that recommendations by the community and by the council are being ignored, in my opinion. When you have a unanimous vote by the council, it should carry some merit in some way, Mr. President. And there's no rush to judgment. No matter what 90-day shock rock we keep hearing, that Verizon is saying, Method, you're on a 90-day shock rock. We're in the middle of a pandemic, Mr. President, for the last 14 months. in the middle of a pandemic. And yes, indeed, Verizon submitted their applications a while back. But this community has every right to test out what's going to happen in this community, and every right to stand up. Even though FCC regulations may say you can't discuss certain things like health, and you can't put a moratorium, which are FCC regulations, we have every right as the protectors of our residents and our community to stand up and say, wait a minute. we want to take a closer look. And we're not going to go by any 90-day shot clock, Mr. President. We also need to discuss a community meeting with our state and federal delegation to address the 5G rollout and the concerns we have with the FCC regulations and this declaratory regulation that ties the hands of local municipalities, that does not allow local municipalities to make their own decisions. The last thing we need are people up in Congress and people up in the White House, Mr. President, to be making local decisions. Who knows best about local government? Not the people sitting in Congress. I can assure you that, Mr. President. I would also ask, Mr. President, and this is a process of proven suggestion. I was thinking about the process. Right now when Verizon comes in, They fill out an application. They submit their location criteria, where they think the best poll is. They submit their insurance binder, they're saying they have enough insurance. They submit a lot of different paperwork, and they submit it to the city. This is where we'd like to be, in front of 102 Main Street. And that person that lives at 102 Main Street, then gets notice. Here you are, Verizon wants to be in front of your home, go to a public hearing if you have a problem. Why not, Mr. President, why not have an application of interest? Why not require through the interim policy that if Verizon or any other entity want to come in the community, the first thing they do is submit an application of interest. We are interested in coming into the community, and we are interested in going in front of this location, or that location, just of interest. That would trigger off the city, then, Mr. President, to do guess what? Public outreach. Why not address, Mr. President, if there are people in the community that support 5G, People in the community don't believe that there may be associated health risks of being that close to the poll. Why don't we reach out to the community and ask those that wouldn't mind having 5G in a poll in front of their home? Sounds like a novel idea. That way you're not just placing polls, Mr. President, you're asking for public input. And if you happen to get 20, 40, 50, 60, 100, 200 people that said, you know what? I don't mind it in front of my house. Why not be armed with that information and then go to Verizon and say, now when you come in, you have your application. These are the locations, when you do your grid and your networking, these are the locations we prefer you select. Therefore, we head off all the public resentment, Mr. President, all the concerns that may be out there, which are rightfully so, about being in close proximity to 5G, and we head a lot of that off. This is a suggestion, Mr. President. And I think it's a worthy suggestion. And if we were sitting around a table discussing this and not just having Verizon force feed us what the next steps are, which is currently happening now, we're being force fed this by Verizon. Rather than us leading this, we should be leading the discussion, not Verizon. And it's the reverse right now. So I make a motion, Mr. President, that the mayor amend the interim 5G policy to include similar language that I just proposed. And I'd be willing to sit down with the administration. I'd be willing to sit down with the small cell ad hoc committee to work out some language in their interim policy. I think it's a worthy suggestion to look at, Mr. President. Also, Mr. President, I think it was quite telling over the last two meetings of the public hearings that And out of the four board members, there was one board member that voted some petitions up and voted some petitions down. And the board members have every right to vote. That board member was the head of the Board of Health, which to me carries an awful lot of weight when we're discussing public health in this community, an awful lot of weight. So I think it's only appropriate, Mr. President, that we put in the form of a motion, I'd like to know that the Board of Health Director state whether or not 5G is a public health risk to the citizens of Medford. I'm asking the Board of Health Director whether or not 5G, she considers 5G a public health risk to the citizens of Medford. I think we all have the right to know when someone takes a vote, Mr. President, especially a vote that goes one way, then another way, then another way. What is the reasoning for that vote, Mr. President? And if there's a public health concern in this city, I'd like to hear it directly from the horse's mouth, which is the head of the Board of Health. Also during the meeting, Mr. President, Verizon asked for a waiver. And the reason why they asked for a waiver, Mr. President, was the fact that our policy states that These small cell antennas have to be located within a shroud or a canister. Says it right in our policy. It's black and white. There's no ands, ifs, or buts about that. Verizon stated at the public hearing they had their expert. Unfortunately, we didn't have an expert. They stated that their 5G cell doesn't work if it's located within a canister. I'm being told other communities have asked that, and they are receiving that, Mr. President. But I'm being told that our board is going to give Verizon a waiver to waive that section of the interim policy. So on one hand, these members can waive policy, but they can't consider amendments offered by an elected board, seven members of the council. So I find that a little ironic, Mr. President. Another point, Mr. President. It was mentioned during one of the meetings by the city engineer, and he could speak for himself, he's a very capable person. He asked, which I thought was an excellent question. He said, in my background as an engineer, we do post-testing, I mean pre-testing and post-testing. So for instance, 5G has this cell device that they wanna locate on our poles. 5G Verizon does rigorous testing in a control environment. Then they take the 5G antenna out of that control environment and they locate it on a pole 10 feet from your bedroom window. Now something goes awry with that 5G. Supposedly Verizon has a mechanism that sends an alarm to Verizon saying we have a concern This pole, there's something wrong with it. They may be emitting too much microwaves in that area. It's not functioning the way it should. And supposedly, that mechanism will send a truck out, and they'll do the testing they have to do. The city engineer mentioned a great point. He said, what about having twice a year, three times a year, quarterly a year to have post-testing? So Verizon will come out to our 50, 60, 80, 100 locations, which won't take them long, they're a huge company, and test them by hand and make sure they're functioning properly. You're not relying on a little bell to go off, or you're not relying on some safeguard that who knows, may work in the winter, may not work in the summer, who knows under what conditions, because it hasn't been tested. Mr. President. It was tested in an environment, a control setting. And we all know it's not a control setting in the winter, in the summer of New England weather. So I thought that was a great suggestion, Mr. President. And Verizon pooh-poohed the idea. But other communities, Burlington, I looked at their policy. Cambridge, they have it built in for periodic reviews of their 5G. They have it built in. But for some reason, I don't know. It looks like we just bend over for Verizon. Next, Mr. President, Chapter 74, Section 225 of the Municipal Ordinances of Medford states, not making this up, Section B, extensions shall not be made on any pole without the approval of the superintendent of wires. So if they have an extension with this device, to me is an extension. Some of the poles in the city now are higher than other poles. These are extensions. That ordinance, Mr. President, has not been followed. We need to know how many extensions has Verizon put on these locations and other locations. As we heard, I think it was from Councilor Penta last week or the week before, stating that they've been around the city for well over a year now preparing for this and working on polls that they're not even requesting applications for. So there are extensions going on, Mr. President. And I don't think we should be giving a waiver to a city ordinance, Mr. President. The last thing, Mr. President, is I believe in many of the conditions that the small ad hoc committee put on, I think we're rightfully so to help benefit this community. But when you have 12, I think it was 12 last count I had, 12 conditions on an application, I think it speaks volumes to what is going on. Why do we need 12 conditions? Maybe the interim policy is not enough. Maybe the interim policy needs to be tweaked. Maybe the interim policy, Mr. President, needs additional follow-up. So I would ask, Mr. President, that we receive an immediate opinion from the city solicitor, and I'm putting this in the form of a motion, regarding Chapter 74, Section 225, regarding Verizon's poll extensions and whether or not these approvals and this process, Mr. President, should be valid and should continue forward when I believe it's in violation of city municipal ordinance. I want to thank my colleagues for listening again. I want to thank them for their support over the last several weeks, many of which have made their opinions known. And most of all, Mr. President, I want to thank the community for uniting around this issue and making sure whatever is done, Mr. President, we know what the long-term impacts may be to this community. And right now, we don't know what the long-term impacts are. And let's not rush to judgment on this. Thank you, Mr. President. Council Member Rowe.
[Michael Marks]: If it wasn't part of it, I'd welcome that.
[Michael Marks]: That's correct, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Correct, correct, yeah, emergency meeting.
[Michael Marks]: No, I have no problem voting them as one, Mr. President. I would just ask that if we can add the public comments regarding the discussions that we should be having, I laid out, I think it was seven different comments regarding what the next step should be. And I don't know if that requires a formal vote, but if we can add that into the minutes of the record, and I can go over them with the city clerk.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And I won't reiterate what my colleague stated. But the one thing I remember about Joe was that you always knew where you stood with Joe. And, you know, he would come out and tell you, you know, if you were talking to him and he disagreed, he let you know he disagreed. He never sugarcoated anything, and I respected him for that, and I think that's what made Joe who he is. As was mentioned by my colleagues, he was a true family man and really cared about the people that he was in contact with. And on behalf of this council, I just want to send my condolences to his family and his wife.
[Michael Marks]: Present.
[Michael Marks]: So Chief, that's one of my main concerns is that the headquarters, as we all know, was pushed off when we were gonna do a combined police and fire center. And we only ended up moving forward with the police side. And at the time, the headquarters had a lot of immediate needs. And now what troubles me is that the mayor's capital plan calls for looking at the headquarters in year, I believe it's four or the five year capital plan. And we all know that who knows what's gonna happen in year 2024, if that will still be the priority of the city, would be other needs that jump ahead of that. which I hope is not the case, but it was the case last year when other needs jumped ahead of the headquarters, the fire headquarters. So I'm concerned now that we're putting off immediate needs with the expectation that in year 2024, we may get a new station, a new headquarters, but that remains unseen. We don't know that. So we're kind of kicking the can down the street once again on the headquarters and, you know, I realize we don't want to put good money after bad money into the headquarters if it's going to be replaced. But I think the immediate needs, Chief, that we saw, the front of the facade that's pulling away from the building, the bathrooms that were in poor condition, as you know, the kitchen that's close to where the apparatus parks and contagions and everything else in the living quarters where these firefighters are. You know, I think these issues, although they're probably costly, need to be addressed immediately. And I'm hoping that under your leadership, Chief, that the fire headquarters is not last on the list, but should be first, Mr. Chief.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so that's what I mean about kicking the can down the street on a building we already know, you know, it was housed where the police department was housed, and in my opinion, was in no better shape than the police department, which we condemned that building more or less and built a new police station. So I just want to put that out there, Chief. I know the brave men and women of the fire department deserve no less. And I'm glad to see after all these years of the council and residents talking about the condition, as well as the firefighters, the condition of the buildings that at least something's being acted upon. So I'm pleased to see that. I just hope we're able to get to each building and the needs that they have Chief. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Yes
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the number of residents that came out to attend this public meeting here tonight of the Medford City Council. After attending the March 31st ad hoc small cell committee public hearing, I am concerned that corporate grade and commercial benefits of 5G will outweigh the potential long-term health effects of 5G on our residents, home values, and environment. Method must delay any wireless build-out until the law and public policy catch up to the science. The Federal Communication Commission's declaratory ruling effectively tied the hands of local municipalities to make decisions best for their community. The city is prohibited from taking any action that is seen as prohibiting Verizon's 5G rollout. Verizon representatives at one point during the hearing told Method residents unequivocally that the FCC regulations would not allow for health concerns to be discussed as a reason for not approving their applications. This comment, true or not, is outrageous and requires a formal complaint be filed with the FCC and our congressional representatives on behalf of our community. The city, in my opinion, was ill prepared for the much anticipated 5G hearing. not presenting one subject matter expert to represent our city's interest and its residents, and only relied on the one-sided Verizon paid expert witnesses in which there were many. The city has not requested any potential mitigation from Verizon to address further disenfranchisement of the communities in Method who can least afford Verizon's new 5G. At the very least, Method should request Verizon provide free Wi-Fi to our communities of need, as well as schools, senior housing, and low-income housing. 5G will substantially increase resonant exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment. We need to engage the U.S. government to require the FCC to do an independent study of radio frequency standards and health risks. We should support the recommendations of the 400 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand our government officials fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and environment. Human exposure guidelines for radio frequency used by the FCC are more than 20 years old and address only thermal, not biological impact of exposure. Over the past 20 years, A robust body of independent science has emerged showing significant biological impacts from exposure to radiofrequency microwave radiation, including clear evidence of cancer, neurological and cognitive harm, heart abnormalities, and reproductive effects. Populations especially at risk include pregnant women, Children, the elderly, individuals with implanted medical devices, or cardiac or neurological problems. Mr. President, at that particular hearing, I asked a number of questions of the committee, as well as many residents, of which many remain unanswered at this particular time. I am going to offer a number of questions that were asked at that meeting with the hopes that we will be able to get answers prior to the Thursday meeting that the Small Ad Hoc Subcommittee will have to go over the remaining 43 applications that's before us. Question number one, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for co-sponsoring this with me. He's been there every step of the way and I appreciate his support in this. I know he has a lot to add as well. Question number one, the city's interim policy under the application process states, for residential areas, guidelines on structure height, lengths and minimum setback rules from dwellings, parks or playgrounds or similar recreational areas. I asked that question last Thursday, Mr. President. What are the setback guidelines that were created under this interim policy? And to date, there has not been one setback guideline in this community. So we don't know what the minimum setback. We heard from residents, and I think there's a resident here tonight, the small cell that they're going to put on the pole in front of his house is about 10 feet from a bedroom window. This admits, Mr. President, harmful, in my opinion, harmful exposure and radio frequency to residents of this community. We don't know what the impact is. There hasn't been enough studies. There's enough reading out there, and I must add on both sides, but we don't know what the studies are. Why are we going to move forward hastily without knowing what the impact is, the health impact. Whether the FCC allows it or not, we are here to represent our residents. The FCC doesn't care about the residents of this community. We are here, that's our responsibility. And we'd be negligent not to bring these up, these questions, and ask for answers before approval, Mr. President. So that's question number one. Question number two, under the city's interim policy, the applicant must provide a description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations from a community perspective, including proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, and playgrounds. Verizon submitted their location selection criteria for each of the 44 applications stating it is not directly adjacent to a park, school, or playground. And I asked this question last Thursday. Why did they omit dwelling? Why does their location criteria not in line with the city's interim policy that states it should be dwellings, schools, and parks, their location selected. They left out, Mr. President, dwellings. You know why? Because many of these are within yards of dwellings, bedrooms, front porches, play areas where kids are, and so forth. My next question, Mr. President, and I hope these questions don't fall on deaf ears. I know we have a meeting Thursday. And we got a robo call and we were already told by some members of that committee that they don't want any further discussion at this next meeting, which is outrageous, Mr. President. Outrageous at a public meeting to say you're going to pick and choose what public input you're going to accept. Outrageous, especially for a department head to make that comment. My next question. Under the current interim policy, the applicant is required to provide a certificate of liability insurance. The policies submitted by Verizon currently are all expired for each of the 44 petitions. I brought that up at the meeting. The chair of the meeting thanked me for bringing that to his attention, and then proceeded to say they can make that a condition of approval. Anyone else, Mr. President? If you wanted to file for a license in this building or an application to build, they would not let a submission of an incomplete application move forward, except for 5G. They'll make that a condition. Unacceptable, Mr. President, in my opinion. Amendments, Mr. President. Those were, I'm sorry, I have a few more questions on the back. Next question. How are the neighborhoods being chosen by Verizon for the 5G rollout? Wasn't my question at that meeting. A lot of residents asked Verizon representatives, why did you start off with the rollout with these particular neighborhoods? We could not get an answer. We could not get a straight answer, Mr. President. In my opinion, the neighborhoods that they picked out We're going to be the neighborhoods with least resistance. My personal opinion, which I'm entitled to. I also believe, Mr. President, if you talk to anyone in this community, and they'll tell you when they drive through certain sections of this city, that they lose their phone call. They lose their internet service. And by the way, it's not in the areas where they're rolling out. It's in other areas that they're not rolling out. that are the most complaint driven. That says a lot about this process, because the minute they get 5G in this community, it's gonna be extremely difficult for the other 150 applications, which are coming, this is 44, there's gonna be another 150 and maybe two or 300 after that from other carriers. Once they get their foot in the door, there's gonna be no stopping them. And that's what they're looking for Thursday to get their foot in the door. The next question, Mr. President. So I'd like to know why they selected those particular neighborhoods for the rollout. I believe it was South Method, Method Square, and the Hillside. The city's interim policy under aesthetics and requirements states each small cell wireless infrastructure antenna should be located entirely within a shroud or canister type enclosure. Why is the ad hoc small cell committee not following the city's interim policy and allowing Verizon not to locate these devices in a shroud or a canister? Why are they allowing a condition of approval? Why did they ask Verizon what their preference was? Why are other cities like Cambridge stating that every single cell that they're putting up will be enclosed in a shroud or a canister? But here in Medford, it's fine to ask Verizon, the petitioner, what's your preference? And guess what? They prefer not to have it enclosed. My last question, Mr. President. There's four members of the board, this small ad hoc committee. They're all department heads here at City Hall. And I must say, this is a very, very difficult decision for them to make. It may sound like an easy decision. It's not an easy decision. Our hand is tied. And we really should be looking at our federal delegation, our congressman, a woman, and our senator. or our senators to be asking for relief, Mr. President. But why, out of the four representatives, when they took the first vote, which they approved, was the vote three to one? Three in favor, one against. The one against, Mr. President, in my opinion, did not state a reason why they were against. And that one person was the director of the Board of Health. That should be concerning for every resident of this community, and I'd like to know what the reasoning is for the Board of Health Director to state that she was against these 5G small cells within our neighborhoods. That's an important thing, and I'd like to know why, Mr. President. I have eight amendments, if you could just bear with me, and I'd like to go through them. I know the clerk does a great job capturing these, I feel comfortable that this is all being captured. I'd like to make a motion, Mr. President, my first amendment. The city's interim policy should be updated to include a cap on the number of 5G installations allowed in Medford. Currently, there is no cap at all. You can locate 10,000 of these in the city of Medford. There is no cap, no restriction. So I would ask that as my first motion, Mr. President. The second motion, the city's interim policy should establish setback guidelines to address the distance small cell wireless facilities can be placed from residential housing. So before we move forward, before we take any other vote, Those guidelines, we've had plenty of time. This policy has been in effect since 2019 from the previous administration and currently 15 to 16 months with this current administration. The interim policy was created by Mayor Burke at the time. It's a policy. It's not a city ordinance that would be created by the council. It's an interim city policy. So that would be my second motion, Mr. President, the guidelines and distance from housing. Third motion, amend city's interim policy to include the following language. In residential zoning districts, installations should not be placed directly in front of a residential home. Where there is a side yard setback with open space or other space, preference should be given to applications to locate an installation on the public way in front of a side yard setback. I didn't create that. I wish I did. That's in the city of Cambridge's policy. Mr. Clerk, if you don't get all this, I have it in writing so I can give it to you. Fourth motion. The city amended its interim policy to create a location requirement which lists the most preferable locations. Right now, we don't have such policy. The following are the most preferred location areas for 5G installation in order of preference. Industrial districts, number one, if not adjacent to a park, playground, school, residential district, or historic district. The second most preferred location, public rights of way areas, if not adjacent to a park, playground, school, residential district, or historic district. Motion number five, amend the city's interim policy to include the following language. No application may seek approval for more than five proposed facilities. No applicant or closely held applicant may file more than two applications within a 60 day of one another. So right now we have 44 applications that were filed, if not all the same day, within a day or two. Other communities state no one application can have more than five and no applicant may file more than two applications, so that would be 10 within a 60-day period. How did we end up with 44 with another 150 to come, Mr. President? Why? Because our interim policy, for better words, stinks. Thank you. It stinks. But it can be changed. Motion number six. to request the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee not approve any more 5G applications until the city has ample time to review questions and policy comments submitted. Be it further requested, the city consult with its own 5G subject matter experts regarding issues of concern raised by residents regarding health and safety setbacks FCC 5G regulations, potential mitigation, and other issues of concern. So I'm asking for a vote tonight, Mr. President. We can separate these motions. I'd like to do them all at once, but I have all night. We'll take a vote on each. But this motion is asking that we send a message Thursday night to the ad hoc committee No different than the message we sent, Mr. President, to the Zoning Board of Appeals back so many years ago when this council stood up and we thought that the Zoning Board of Appeals extended relief to a developer that hurt a neighborhood that we sued our own Zoning Board of Appeals. If Verizon doesn't like it, bring it on, Mr. President. Bring it on. Lawsuits don't scare me. Bring it on. What scares me is health concerns in our community and not being at the table and being able to have input. Motion number seven, request our federal delegation calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and the environment. That is crucial, Mr. President. That has to catch up with the science, Mr. President. Currently, the FCC is working off 20-year-old information, and there's much more information that has been updated over the last 20 years. Currently, Mr. President, another amendment, the city's policy states, and I offer this as an amendment, only one small cell wireless facility shall be eligible to be approved on a poll and support structure in the this is the town of Burlington, and this is what they state. So the town of Burlington states only one wireless on each pole, for each provider. I'm sorry, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And that makes sense, Mr. President. However, many communities require co-sharing, and they write it right into their policy. So if Verizon wants to come in and you see the ads for AT&T now all over about 5G, They're coming in. There's no doubt about it. They're coming in. And to allow them to go on separate polls means they're going to be in front of every hall. You can guarantee they'll be in front of every hall. So at least if we can safeguard, if these are going to be installed, which I'm opposed to, that my motion would read, It is the town's strong preference, on this case the city, that whenever an applicant poses to place a new small wireless facility, that the applicant co-locate the same on an existing wireless support structure. And I would ask that that be adopted into our interim policy, Mr. President. And the last thing I just want to give is notification like I did last time. There was over 160 residents that were on the Zoom call. on March 31st. 160, Mr. President. You really, very seldom, I attend a lot of hearings, meetings, very seldom see the like of that. And let me tell you, if you had it on Zoom and opened it up to the public, that small ad hoc subcommittee should be meeting here at the chamber. If this is not big enough, let's meet at Chevalier. If that's not big enough, let's meet at the Bosch at Karen Theater at the high school. all handicap accessible, Mr. President. So I don't want to hear the excuse about COVID. We can accommodate and also accommodate the social distancing requirements. So that alone, Mr. President, we had 160 on Zoom and we shut out many people that would love, that don't have access, that would love to come up like we have up here tonight and also participate. Many seniors that have concerns, Mr. President. And again, I would respectfully ask the committee, they're under no obligation. They can continue the meeting. They already continued it once from the 31st. They can continue it again to have an open public forum where people can attend in public as well as Zoom. I don't want people to start calling me up and saying, I'm trying to discourage Zoom. I'm not discouraging Zoom. I'm saying add another avenue for people that may not access Zoom or may not want to use Zoom. We can do it in a safe fashion, Mr. President. So I would ask anyone that's in shouting distance that this Thursday, April 8th at 6.30, the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee will meet once again. And the meeting is a continuation of the meeting originally begun on March 31st at 6 p.m. And it's a continuation of the public hearing for Verizon applications for 43 proposed small cell infrastructures in the city of Medford. And I would also state, Mr. President, that if anyone tells you on that committee they're only hearing certain testimony only allowing certain public comments. If you already spoke, unless this is directed directly in front of your house, they're not going to allow it. They are in violation as far as I'm concerned, of the open meeting law and allowing for public input. They're in violation. There's no way that states that you can only speak one time, Mr. President. There's no way that states that you have to be directly impacted to speak in a public hearing. The Zoom information, meeting ID, for those that want to go on Zoom, 933-7697-5064. And the passcode, they really don't want people to get on, because usually you go on a Zoom meeting. This has a passcode on top of it. 035-999. And the dial-in number, which you can, 929-205-6099. Mr. President, I know there's a fair amount of residents here today that took the time. I know Councilor Scarpelli, which co-sponsored this resolution, and we spent much time going through many of the recommendations here. And I'll let him speak for himself, Mr. President. And I want to thank my council colleagues for indulging me on this very important matter, Mr. President, of safety and awareness in this community.
[Michael Marks]: So question number three, Under the current interim policy, the applicant is required to provide a certificate of liability insurance. The policies submitted by Verizon are expired. They were submitted when they originally filed the petitions back in 2019. And the life on these was a year, and many of them were from just say June 2019 to, you know, the end of, yes, May of 2020.
[Michael Marks]: That is a requirement of the interim policy.
[Michael Marks]: So, you know, and they weren't aware of it until I brought it up. And that's a very important, it may seem like a small thing, but insurance certificate of liability is a very important thing to safeguard our residents, our poles, safety walking underneath these poles, and so forth. I appreciate you bringing that up.
[Michael Marks]: I will do so. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Absolutely.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Present. Councilor Falco. Present. Vice President Knight. Present. Councilor Marks. Present. Councilor Morell. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: All rise, salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Board of Health Director for being on tonight. Mary Ann, could you give us a brief update on where we stand with our application to be a mass vaccination site? And where do we stand with the Tufts University proposal?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and I'm sure you're aware of this, but the number one call I'm receiving is the fact that residents have to go outside the city to get their shots, many of which that may be homebound or unable to travel too far. So the quicker we can get this on board, and I realize there's a lot of moving parts, so I'm not pointing the finger at the city, but the quicker we can get a local vaccination site on board would be beneficial to our residents. In particular, we're gonna be opening up, I guess, for everyone over the age of 16, is it? Sometime at the end of April or May. And I think the numbers that are gonna need the shot are gonna quadruple in the city. And I'm a little concerned that we're not gonna have anything set up by that point. So I just wanted to put that out there.
[Michael Marks]: So are we working with agencies that deal with people that are homebound? to reach out and do some proactive outreach in our community?
[Michael Marks]: So Marianne, what percent do you think we identified of having their first or second shot in the community that are homebound?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So that's excellent work, but I'm not quite sure that I would list it as great because I don't know the total overall number of homebound residents in the community. And if we're talking, you know, vaccinating 10% of them, to me, that's not great. So it's really hard for me to put a handle on this until I have, and I realize you're not going to get exact numbers, but do we know what percent that is?
[Michael Marks]: So we're really not able to measure a success rate of outreach and making sure our most vulnerable population is getting vaccinated.
[Michael Marks]: I'm just trying to figure out what our numbers are in the community. When I turn on the news, and they tell me throughout the state X number of seniors are already vaccinated. I think I saw a number tonight 16% of Massachusetts, the entire population now has a second second vaccination, which sounds like there's progress happening. But I'm just trying to get a handle on our own numbers.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. but that doesn't include homebound or may include a portion of homebound.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so you're saying 76% of what we have recorded have received the second dose.
[Michael Marks]: Say that again, sorry, I didn't get it.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, well, I didn't know that number. That's good to hear. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Why not?
[Michael Marks]: Hi, Mr. Mallon, how are you? So I've looked at all of your documents, everything seems in order, but I mean, to keep it simple and streamlined, could you give us just a brief synopsis of what's happening with the site that's there now and what you plan to be doing there? I believe it's just a turnover, but if you can explain it, that'd be great.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, perfect. That's all I just want to be clear just because I, um, the way you answered it might've sounded as if you were adding something new, but this is just an existing, um, uh, a body shop, a repair garage that is just changing over, hours operations staying the same, parking for your vehicles are staying the same, everything seems to be in order, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, so everything else I see, Mr. President, all of this paperwork is in order, every department has signed off on it favorably, so I would move approval, pending any questions from my fellow councilors.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Franco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Launch Memorial for their update. I believe it was several weeks back, residents across the street on Governor's Ave raised concern about the perimeter lighting around the hospital and how it was shining into windows up and down Governor's Ave. And I believe last I heard that many of the lights were redirected. And as we heard from Council Vice President Knight, that they are turning lights off at night and still maintaining safety in the lot, which is important as well. So I want to thank them for that, Mr. President. The last outstanding issue that I know residents brought up was the cooling tower that's on the top of the front of the facade. And that still remains an issue for area residents, Mr. President. So I would ask that we move that. We asked about the update for the cooling tower, and if they have any current plans on addressing some of the aesthetic concerns of neighbors.
[Michael Marks]: To the coverage around the cooling tower. That's been made an issue for some time now.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Council Falco. Yes. Vice President night. Council marks. Yes. Council Morell. Yes. Councilors compelling President Gary off.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my two colleagues for putting this on tonight. I'm glad to hear what I've been preaching about for the last 20 years about the MBTA and the assessment that it's starting to actually finally get some traction. because I've offered several resolutions before the city council requesting that the millions of dollars in tax exempt property that the MBTA has offset what they're charging us for millions of dollars on the cherry sheet, Mr. President. So, you know, I think it's about time we take a look at the services we're receiving in this community. And let's face it, many people come to the city of Medford because of our transportation services, and they're not paying the additional tax on their cherry sheet, Mr. President. Based on that, we are as a community. The T has three different revenue sources. One is the percent of the sales tax that they get. Another one is the fares when you go onto the train or the bus, which has been hit because of COVID, Mr. President. But I think what we have to do is take a long, hard look at what we're actually paying now, several million dollars a year, for service in this community. And guess what? That assessment the T is assessing us, it's only gonna get higher with the green line. And so I think we really need to take a close hard look at why our assessment is so high in this community and why the T, as my colleagues mentioned, continue to cut routes and much needed buses that impact the most vulnerable community, Mr. President. Many of us don't have to worry. We get in the car and we go to stop and shop, or we go to a convenience store. We do our shopping and we get around. There are many other ones of us, Mr. President, that rely on public transportation. And to have a population in particular with this route is in the heights, Mr. President. This is gonna really impact, even if it impacts dozens of people, that's a huge impact, Mr. President, when it comes to needs that we just heard about getting to and from Wegmans and stop and shop in the hospital. These are dedicated stops on that route for the 710 bus. And that's not just a luxury when you're going to a doctor, when you're going to get food, that's a necessity. And that's something that really shouldn't be cut, Mr. President. I just heard the news, the city of Boston is fighting now the MBTA cuts in the city of Boston. And I agree, we have to get more vocal as a community. You know, it's great to send out a letter to the T and the head of the T, and then they respond back saying, we'll look into it, we'll investigate and so forth. And then it ends there to be quite honest with you. There's never any follow-up. We have to take action, Mr. President. And I don't know what it's going to take. Maybe we have to sit at the table and refuse to give the $3 million or so that we give on the cherry sheet every year. Maybe we'll be the first city in the state to do that. I don't know. But it takes bold action sometimes to get bold results. And I'm willing to do that. And I've been talking about this issue for 20 years. And when, you know, and I brought up before fell on deaf ears, no one wanted to talk about it. Now the team's making some big service cuts and all of a sudden it's the topic of conversation, the cherry sheet and why we're paying so much. So I'm glad to hear that's it, Mr. President, but these are things that should have been looked at over the years. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Nights? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? President Caraviello?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this is a very important issue that we will be confronted with in the very near future. And that is losing affordable housing within our community after so much talk about how we increase our affordable housing stock here in the city of Medford. According to the city's draft housing production plan, which I think we're all gonna receive a copy of very shortly, there are 35 HUD subsidized affordable rental units in Method that are set to expire in 2023. It's only a mere year and a half, two years away, Mr. President. And those units, those 35 units are located at 42 Water Street. And there's another three that are subsidized by DHCD, Department of Housing and Community Development, which are run by Tri-City Housing Task Force for the homeless. And they're at 196, 198 Fellsway, and they're set to expire in 2025. So that's a total of 38 units that are subsidized, Mr. President, for low income residents that could potentially be lost in this community. And in my opinion, that is extremely sizable and something, Mr. President, I am going to fight hard to make sure we maintain. And there is a way of maintaining it. And I'm hoping that we can get some answers from this resolution tonight. But the affordability of privately owned affordable housing units that were produced using state or federal housing resources can expire as owners pay off their subsidized mortgages. or opt out of their existing Section 8 rental subsidy contract. When such affordability restrictions expire, property owners can convert the affordable units to market-rate housing. On November 23, 2009, the governor signed a general law, Chapter 40T, which is an act preserving publicly-assisted affordable housing. And what this legislation did, Mr. President, was aimed at helping preserve existing privately owned affordable housing in Massachusetts. It also established notification provisions for tenants along with modest tenant protections, very modest, I should add, and terminate the right of first refusal for DHCD or its designee to purchase publicly assisted housing. I was never aware of this law, Mr. President, and maybe because we haven't seen the likes of so many housing units coming up, affordable housing units, coming up at once in this community. But if you read Chapter 40T, Section 3, which deals specifically regarding the right of first refusal for DHCD, and the ability to sign a designee if someone is interested, i.e., in particular, a municipality, if they are interested in becoming the designee to publicly purchase the affordable housing before it gets on the market. And I found that very interesting, Mr. President. If I could, it's pretty brief, and it's part of my motion, so I'd just like to read what, for the edification of the viewing audience and my colleagues, section three. It says an owner shall offer the department an opportunity, when they say department they refer to DHCD, an opportunity to purchase publicly assisted housing prior to entering into an agreement to sell such property pursuant to the time periods contained in this section. But no owner shall be under any obligation to enter into an agreement to sell such property to the department. Then it goes on subsection B. The department may select a designee, that's DHCD, to act on its behalf as purchaser of the publicly assisted housing and shall give the owner written notice of its selection. So my first motion, Mr. President, is has DHCD selected a designee as purchaser? So that's my first motion. The section goes on to say the department shall probably consult with the affected municipality before selecting a designee and shall immediately designate the affected municipality as a designee upon written request of the affected municipality. Motion number two, has DHCD reached out to the city of Medford and has the city of Medford expressed interest in becoming the designee for these two particular properties, which is 42 Water Street and 196-198 Fellsway. And then it goes on to say, unless the department determines that such request is not feasible for the reasons set forth in the department's regulations, the department shall enter into a written agreement with its selection designee, providing that the designee and any of its successors assigns agreed to preserve the affordability of the publicly assisted housing. Once such an agreement is executed, the designee shall assume all rights and responsibilities attributable to the department as a prospective purchaser under this section, section four. My next motion, Mr. President, is that we create a committee of the whole meeting I believe we have one scheduled for next Tuesday. So if that's the case, Mr. President, that would suffice for my resolution. But my motion is that the city council meet and committee the whole to discuss options for preserving the existing privately owned publicly assisted affordable housing and method and review housing production per housing production plan. And as part of the motion, it's to invite the consultant that was hired by the city, Jen Golson, from the firm of J.M. Golson, and to invite our consultant attorney, Bob Bobrovsky, to be a part of that meeting, Mr. President, to discuss what our next steps are so we don't use or lose this opportunity for maintaining our affordable housing. One other portion I'd like to bring up, Mr. President of NLN, is that Many people realize Chapter 40B establishes a goal that every Massachusetts community must work to provide affordable housing at a minimum of 10% of their overall housing stock. And if you read the housing production plan, you will notice, Mr. President, on page 82 of the draft plan, it states that Medford has four 40B projects currently right now in the pipeline. If all four of these projects come to fruition, Method will have an additional 1,087 units eligible to be counted on the subsidized housing inventory, bringing the city's portion of the subsidized housing inventory units to 11.7%, which would be above the 10% better right now. Many people are eager to move on from 40B, The true hard facts is the only way we really been making significant change in this community for affordability has been through the state law, chapter 40B, Mr. President. That's where we've added the most affordable housing in this community. There are other ways which the housing production plan addresses and that's something we're reviewing as a council, but I would strongly ask the administration because they are looking at these 40B projects in court right now, I would strongly ask that they take a closer look, Mr. President, at what these units can bring to our community in regards to affordability and move forward on these 40B projects in the interest of adding more affordability in our community. And that's all I have, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: And tax revenue, absolutely. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not opposed to that, Mr. President, but according to J.M. Golson report, this 120 page report, they listed those two particular properties. I'm not sure maybe because they're the most recent, but I would hope this is a thorough report but I am not opposed to looking at, you know, this all 10 years, I am not opposed to that. We have to plan and I think that's a worthy suggestion.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Michael Marks]: Next Tuesday, right?
[Michael Marks]: So as one of my motions, we can meet that night. We don't have to meet a separate night to discuss that motion. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If we all recall, our former esteemed councilor, Councilor Bob Penta, appeared under community participation a few weeks back. At that time, the council requested that the city council take a vote on several requests for information. However, because it was offered under public participation, we could not take a formal vote and I recommended that we put it on the agenda so we can take a formal vote. So at this point, Mr. President, I would welcome up former councilor Penta for his presentation.
[Michael Marks]: I think, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just want to be clear. fellow cops can help, but the committee that you're referring to, is this the traffic committee that the mayor just put together? Is that the committee you're referencing?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so I believe they said that they had no privy to discuss anything dealing with Republic Park. I believe that's what they, that's what was quoted to us that when we asked questions about Republic Park to them, that they were directed not to, that wasn't what they were looking to do.
[Michael Marks]: Isn't this the transparency administration though? It's supposed to be. Mr. President. Councilor Locks. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank my colleague, Councilor Penta for his insight on this issue. You know, when the mayor first established this working committee, I was under the impression they were going to look at the parking program in the city of Medford. And I did hear bits and pieces of what their mission statement is, but I wasn't aware that they're not going to look at the current entity that oversees parking, which is Park Medford in this community and their contract. I wasn't aware that They weren't going to look at taking this service in-house, which has been an issue since, as Councilor Penta mentioned, since 2009, when the committee I sat on for two years, Mr. President, we visited, we did our due diligence, we did our homework. We went to the city of Boston and met with their chief parking clerk. We went to Malden. We went to Everett. We went to Somerville. We spent countless hours and came up with recommendations, Mr. President, all of which were to do meters and take the service in-house. Those are the major recommendations of which the mayor at the time, and that's his authority, decided to do neither. And he hired an outside company and he put kiosks all over the streets. So what we spent two years for, he did the total opposite. Now I'm hoping, Mr. President, because as Councilor Penta mentioned, there was a commitment made by this current mayor back in 2019, that seniors were going to get free parking. It's 15 months later. Seniors have not received free parking, Mr. President. Elimination of the kiosk, 15 months later, and taking it in-house, parking enforcement. Now come to find out it's not even a subject of discussion among the committee that she handpicked and appointed, Mr. President, to discuss the parking program in the community. She may decide to do this outside of that, I don't know. But what better time when they have in public hearings, public meetings, sending out surveys, spending countless hours working on this to discuss the program in its entirety. It makes zero sense to me, Mr. President. So I wait with bated breath in June when this report's supposed to come out. Not to belabor the subject, Mr. President, but I think it was two or three years ago, the city hired a consultant and spent close to $100,000 to look at resident permit parking in the city. And the consultant came out with a report, it's probably worth all the other reports, collecting dust. But this consultant came out with a report and stated that we'd like to do a pilot program because the city is so diverse in their parking needs, and we'd like to start off with Salt Method and the hillside. And they made recommendations on creating a Salt Method hillside permit parking program. And what did the city do with the $100,000 report? Circular file. And here we are back at the table again, Mr. President. Are we here just because it's election year, and we have to keep up with campaign promises, and we're going through the motions? Or do we really want to see change to this program that's needed? It hasn't been tweaked in more than seven years, this program. And it needs tweaking, Mr. President, a lot of tweaking. And I supported at the time, and I still stand by it. in-house, taking this in-house and having our own people control this program, Mr. President, and the revenue stays here. And I supported at the time, and I still do, having double head meters rather than kiosks. Kiosks are great for parking lots. They don't work on the streets, Mr. President, as we found out from the number of complaints throughout this community. So I want to thank my colleague for putting this on and for bringing up this issue. And I hope in June, This is something that we discussed, Mr. President. We have the fire report that was just issued that the mayor commissioned. We haven't gone through that yet. That comes out with a list of recommendations and so forth. So there's a lot of reporting going on, Mr. President, but very little action. A lot of reports, you can hire consultants, put together reports, but they're meaningless if there's nothing tied to them, if there's no action. Thank you, Mr. President. On the motion by Councilor Marks. Seconded by Councilor Scott Ville.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. If I could, I mean, in the past when a representative of the council is selected by the mayor to be on a committee, ad hoc committee, whatever you want to call it, they usually report back to the council. And we have yet to receive any report back from our representative on the board, and maybe there's nothing to report back now. I don't know, they've been meeting for several months, but I think it would be interesting, rather than pointing us to a website on the city website, is to give us an update, Mr. President, on what's happening, and things that we should be made aware of. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President night. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Council Falco. Vice President. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Yes. Vice President night. Council marks. Council Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Well, moving forward, I just want, if we can, just remind the residents that are watching that tomorrow's meeting for the Verizon 5G towers, it will be at six o'clock, I believe. Is that six o'clock via Zoom? Yes. I know that we've been getting phone calls and people begging us to please vote against it. Just a clarification. There is no vote that this council can take to stop anything that we have issues on, because I think all of us do have some concerns. But unfortunately, this does not fall on our privy. I'll be on the call tomorrow as a resident, making sure that I get the answers that I need for my family and my neighbors as well, dealing with safety and public health. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. President. Councilor Markswell. Just to follow up with Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I received on my desk tonight a letter from Mary Ann Aducci. She lives on North Street in Medford. Many of us know her very well, but she did send in a two page letter that she wants read into the record. I will submit it to the clerk and if my colleagues want it as well. It's regarding the March 31st Verizon hearing. And she wants to express her concern with 5G. And also, Mr. President, that she has no access to a computer and finds it very difficult, Mr. President, and hard for most people that would like to attend the meeting. But there is no way of attending it unless you have access to a computer or a call-in, Mr. President. And the call-in is extremely difficult. So she also asked within this letter that boards and commissions and any other committee in the city return to in-person hearings and meetings so everyone can participate equally. And I would support that as well, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I didn't have a chance to review them. I asked them to be tabled for one week, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Paris. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: I prefer to adjourn. We did receive a letter from Commissioner Moki regarding the donation bins on the Fells Plaza that they were removed. Yes. And as a resident in that area and a neighbor, I would like to personally thank you for your due diligence on that. I called immediately right to New Jersey. I know that, and the number of phone calls you made, and I'd like to personally thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Keohokalole? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello? Yes. The motion passes, meeting adjourned.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, for putting this on the agenda to get an update, starting with the police chief, the fire chief, and the commissioner of DPW, and moving on to other departments as well. I think it's always helpful to get information from our department heads especially the ones that we don't run into too often. Chief, this is the first thorough crime statistic report that I've seen in the last 20 years, and it's much appreciated. And, you know, I'm always looking as one member of the council, when I get emails and concerns from constituents regarding traffic controls, regarding speeding and regarding other issues of concern, such as crime and so forth in certain neighborhoods, this information would be most valuable to have to be able to report back to residents. So I appreciate that. And I think you did mention that it's on your website, is that correct, Chief?
[Michael Marks]: That would be great. Thank you, Chief. And I too want to thank the brave men and women of the police department for all they do on behalf of our community in these trying times. It's not easy. to be a public safety official. And they've been doing tremendous work on behalf of keeping our residents safe as well as their personal property. And it doesn't go unrecognized. Chief, I had just a couple of basic questions that I was wondering if you can answer, not regarding crime statistics, but a general follow up from the meeting that we had, this council met on site on Fulton Spring Road back some several months ago. And I know along with the Traffic Commission and yourself, there's been much improvement made to that area regarding signage, regarding pedestrian crosswalks. And one thing that I think we still need to follow up, Chief, and I've had this discussion with you, was regarding resident-only access on Fels Ave, Fulton Spring Road, Murray Hill Road, Fels Ave Terrace, Grover Road, and that particular vicinity. I understand that some of the state roads lead into that road, and it may be difficult to put signs, but I think that's one missing component of creating an area. I think we promised residents that we were going to try to eliminate the cut through traffic the best way we could. And I think the resident only access may not be a solve all, but it'll definitely help. So that is my first question, chief. And I know you said you're going to review and look into it. I was wondering if you had the opportunity to do so.
[Michael Marks]: That would be much appreciated. And let me tell you the response I got from residents so far Many residents are happy, and I'm sure Councilor Falco, who lives in the area can attest to it, are very happy with some of the progress that has been made to date. I just think we have to close the loop on some of the other major issues of traffic. That would be helpful. My other question, Chief, over the last year, I know there's probably been an uptick, at least from the calls I've received in the community, but because of COVID, the fact that people are home now 24-7, I think you see a lot of particular things escalating that may not have happened during other times, but because of COVID, I think it's escalating some of this within the community. And I get a fair amount of calls from residents that may have issues with a neighbor or someone a couple of doors down and don't know how to resolve an issue. And for whatever reason, they can't get together. And I think it's important, Chief, and I'm not sure if this is currently being done. I know I mentioned it to you before, having some type of community mediation. where the police can intervene on certain instances that may require them to get two parties together to somewhat come to a resolve, so it doesn't come to something other than a peaceful resolve. And that would be my intent. I was just wondering, Chief, is there any type of community mediation program that exists? If not, is that something you'd be interested in moving forward in this community?
[Michael Marks]: That's great. I think we're on the same page and I look forward to working with you to try to develop something in the community that we can use on a local level. And I appreciate the fact that, you know, there are certain items that we can't get involved in, but there are other items that I think we could successfully mediate, especially as the police department position of authority can help assist, maybe ease some of the tension that may exist in certain areas and among certain neighbors and so forth. So I think that would be a useful tool to implement. Chief, I have a lot of other questions I'm gonna reserve to our budget meetings, and it's regarding personnel and your maintenance and regarding your vehicles and so forth, and I will reserve that to when we meet for budget. I appreciate your time.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Scarpelli for co-sponsoring this as well as members of the council. You know, Councilor Scarpelli hit the nail on the head regarding the amount of work that is produced from your department, Commissioner Kerins. It's remarkable with the minimum manning that you have in all levels from parks, highways, cemetery, water and sewer that you're able to produce and keep producing is a tribute to not only the workers, but your leadership skills. So I just want to, on behalf of the residents of this community, thank you for all you do. You know, when you think of first responders, immediately police and fire are the thought, but guess what? DPW workers, in my opinion, are first responders as well. And they've done a remarkable job over the past year during COVID to be out there and making sure that this community keeps moving forward. And indeed that has happened. You know, this was extremely informative and that's why Myself and council Scarpelli thought it'd be helpful to have these meetings every so often. I never realized that DPW now does the maintenance of the police vehicles. And that's a large undertaking. It was always for the most part subcontracted out for much of the repairs. And now I guess we're taking it in-house and that in itself is a large task and something that I didn't realize. So that was very helpful. I would like to ask you, Commissioner, regarding equipment needs, and I know some of this will be touched upon in the budget, and I'm not gonna get into budget issues until we start talking about the budget, but is there anything in particular that you could say to the council and to the residents on what particular equipment needs you may have in the upcoming months?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for that thorough response. And I know this council, and I'll just speak for myself, has been very supportive over the years to see that DPW received the appropriate equipment, the appropriate staffing to fit the needs of not only a department, but to make sure they address the needs throughout the community. And I know that'll be something that this council is pushing for during the budget time. Just to touch upon what Councilor Scarpelli has brought up a dozen times, and I don't expect an answer now, but the creation of a sidewalk crew to do it in-house. I know Councilor Scarpelli has been on top of that for many years. And I think from a financial standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to have an in-house crew that we can depend on that sole purpose is to replace broken sidewalks throughout the community. So I just want to put a plug in for that. And the priority sidewalk for snow removal, it's something that we've talked about recently over the last couple of months. And I'm hoping that's something that we can look at by doing 40, 50, 60 miles of priority sidewalk throughout the community to connect bus stops and schools business districts for safe travel for residents. And I know that's something that you expressed interest on as well. And the last point is what Council Vice President Knight brought up, I believe it was last week or the week before, regarding road improvements. And I don't have to preach to you, Commissioner, but I think we all understand that our roads are in dire need of some attention. And it's great to throw some tire in a pothole, but I think many of the roads are past that and we have to look at resurfacing many of our major roads and thoroughfares throughout our community. And I hope not only within the capital plan, but also our budget that we put a higher emphasis on roads. So I want to thank you again for coming tonight and appreciate all your staff and what you do for us on a daily basis. Thank you councilor, my pleasure.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on. You couldn't meet a kinder, gentler person. In all the years I've been in city government, Marie really stands out for her way that she handles situations, her intense knowledge of what she does, and her really caring and sensitive approach, how she deals with children and family in our community. And I just want to congratulate her, Mr. President. I do think there's a typo. It says five decades in here. It can't be five decades. Murray's not that old. I don't think it's five decades. But she does a tremendous job, Mr. President. And on behalf of this council, I just want to thank her for all she does for our community. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: President. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on, and I want to thank Kelly Catalo for bringing up this very important issue. Mr. President, we did receive a response back from the email that was sent out by Kelly from the traffic engineer, stating more or less that these particular sites are selected with due diligence and careful consideration for where they're being placed. However, if you look at the placement of these signs, I think that all goes out the window because I don't see that due diligence and careful placement of these signs. I see them plopped in front of front doors of people's homes. The thing is, Mr. President, with these signs, these are solar power signs. So we're not dependent upon having them in a certain area because of electricity. So these signs can be moved anywhere along the stretch. Naturally, you want to put them in an area that is conducive to slowing traffic down, making sure that people have the visual aspect to see the sign. So there are other arrangements why signs are put in certain locations that the traffic engineer is best suited to answer. But some of these, Mr. President, we're all very familiar with this area. I'm not sure why I couldn't go another 15 or 20 feet one way or another and not directly be in front of someone's home. And that's the one on Forest Street. And the one on Highland, I would say, even though it's very thickly settled over there, there's gotta be a better way of locating that sign rather than just putting it on the front door of someone's home. So I would ask to, I agree with Councilor Scapelli, and I would second that motion that this be sent to the traffic engineer for a second review of these locations, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Council Marks. If I could, just because I know time is of the essence with these particular companies, that if we approve this contingent upon whether or not the council has the statutory authority to approve it. And if we do, then fine. If not, they'll have to revisit. City administration will have to revisit it. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just wanted to also, if the record can reflect if there's any liability waiver form signed as well.
[Michael Marks]: Motion of approval based on the contingency, Mr. President. that I raised earlier.
[Michael Marks]: So if we're the statutory authority of approval, if not, the administration.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I put this on the agenda tonight This has been close to a two-year process when we were first presented by Verizon applications to erect small cell towers within the community. I put this on first to raise public awareness. Secondly, to inform residents of the practice and the policy of the city of Medford regarding small cell placements and to address concerns that have been raised. I'm sure we all received them by residents of this community regarding the public health concerns from exposure to radio frequency, Mr. President. And I've read enough information on both sides that I've come to the conclusion I still can't figure out whether or not it is a health concern based on everything I read. But I think there's enough information there that would raise a red flag, Mr. President, and residents that may be in close proximity to these particular 44 sites that is the first round of applications by Verizon should be asking questions. So that's why I'm raising this tonight, Mr. President, not to take a stance one way or another. So the City of Method Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee will be having a hearing to consider Verizon's application for placement of a small cell telecommunication or 5G equipment on utility poles in the City of Method Wednesday, March 31st at 6 p.m. via Zoom. The ID number, if people are interested, is 933 7697-5064. So if you're able to get on Zoom, that is the ID that you plug in. And the passcode is 035999. There's also a call in number if you don't have the ability to get on the internet, you can dial in at 929-205-6099. And according to the memo that was sent out by the administration, if you're unable to attend the meeting and would like to express your thoughts about the application or the application process, please email 5Gcomments at medford-ma.gov. And they didn't put this, but I'm also gonna add, or if you don't have access, please call the mayor's office.
[Michael Marks]: It is the digit five, thank you for that. The digit 5G comments. And you can also call the mayor's office to express your opinion. It's also important to know this advisory committee that was created by the previous administration. This ad hoc committee consists of Alicia Hunt, the Director of Office of Community Development, Tim McGiven, the Director of Engineering, Paul Mulkey, the Building Commissioner, and Mary Ann O'Connor, Board of Health Director. So they are the four department heads that sit on this ad hoc advisory committee. The interim policy was created by the previous administration based on the fact that the city did not have an ordinance to govern this. And the Verizon applications were before us. According to the FCC, there are time restrictions that a community has to act. And I believe at the time, it was thought that an interim policy was the best approach until the city creates a full blown ordinance that would govern the application process and the selection criteria and so forth of these 5G applications. So if I could, Mr. President, I would just ask that you indulge me for a little bit. There were some, I went through the 44 applications that are on the city website. I have several questions. The meeting is a week from tomorrow. which is the 31st, so residents that are interested really need to do their homework prior to the meeting. But the application process, the applicant is responsible for obtaining the abutters list within 300 feet of each poll location within the application. If you recall in 2019, I think many of the councils were here, we put out five recommendations regarding the mayor's interim policy that was created. One of the recommendations was to expand the 300 feet notification to 500 feet. That was voted, I believe, unanimously by the council back in 2019, October 29th, 2019, but it never made it into the mayor's interim policy. So as way of an amendment, I would just like to ask that this administration add that to the interim policy that we notify about us up to 500 feet. I think the additional notification will help ease concern in the neighborhood and concern of residents. We also voted, Mr. President, this was unanimous by the council, that an amendment requesting that the policy of no public hearings take place before 6 p.m. If we all recall, The first original hearing was going to be held at two o'clock and there was outrage throughout the community for people working and so forth. This was a time when prior to COVID and many residents said that's outrageous that you'd have a public meeting at two o'clock during the day when a lot of residents couldn't make it. So we asked that no meeting take place after six, no, before six. This meeting, I think, has called for six o'clock. However, the policy still does not state that no meeting take place or hearing prior to 6 p.m. And I would ask that be the second resolution, once again, asking this administration to address that within the interim policy. We ask that copies of the plans be available on the city website for each petition, and I'm proud to say that is currently happening, and that was a request of this city council, and that is currently happening. And we also offer the request that the abutments be expanded to 500 feet, and that correspondence come from the city, and not the utility company. The original letter that went out was directly from the utility company. And if members recall, there was a lot of information missing on that. The exact location and other information, contact information was missing on that. And that Mr. President was never added to the policy as well. And I would ask that as a third amendment that this correspondence moving forward from the city of Medford, which I hope that's the policy, but I think it is important enough to add into the interim policy. And the last one was offered by Councilor Scarpelli. He offered an amendment requiring contact information for utility companies on all notices. And as we know, the first notice that went out, there was zero contact information just stating that they're going to have a a small cell tower at a particular location, and that was never added to the policy. So I would ask that that be added as an additional amendment that requires contact information for the utility on all notices that go out from the city. So Mr. President, upon completion of the hearing, which is going to take place on the 31st, The ad hoc small cell committee may grant the application. They can grant it with conditions or deny the application based on inadequate capacity of the pole or mounting structure, safety concerns, reliability concerns, failure to meet... As well as the construction and placement of structures. that affect the installation of the primary use of the pole, residential concerns, and aesthetic considerations. So those are all the reasons that the small cell committee has to take into consideration, and I'm happy to see residential concerns are on the list. The city of Medford is particularly sensitive to the visual impacts of small cell wireless infrastructures, therefore it shall implement and impose on an interim basis, reasonable aesthetic standards pertaining to the size of the antenna, the equipment box, and or related cabling, placement of equipment on support structures, establishing flush mounting requirements and spacing requirements, and aesthetic measures such as paint matching or design matching for small wireless facilities in specific areas. camouflage and other concealment methods, and for residential areas, guidelines on structures, heights and lengths, and minimum setbacks, rules for dwellings, parks, playgrounds, or similar recreational areas. So I'm asking tonight, Mr. President, what are the minimum setback rules? The policy does not talk about minimum setback rules for dwellings, parks, playgrounds, or similar recreational areas. And I call that out, Mr. President, because part of the reporting that Verizon has to do, part of the reporting package, and it's voluminous, there's a lot of requests, is that when they select a location, there has to be criteria why they selected that pole. There's thousands of poles in the city, why did you select that pole? And the one I pulled up from George Street, like I said, there were 44 applicants on that for all different locations. The one I pulled up was the poll located at 50 George Street. And Verizon came out with this as their selection criteria. It says it's superior to other locations, given that it is set in a heavily trafficked area for the purpose to increase the bandwidth and cellular quality of Verizon network devices in the vicinity. The location itself is set in the public right of way. This location was not only chosen for its compliance with Verizon Wireless and National Grid requirements, but respect to the municipality's desire for co-locations on existing structures, and it is not directly adjacent to a park, school, or playground. I might be mistaken, Mr. President, but our requirement says proximity to residential dwellings, school, parks, or playgrounds. So they omitted residential dwellings. Why? Because many of these 44 poles, these new towers, are all within 20, 30 yards of bedrooms, dining rooms, kitchens, front yards, play areas next to homes, porches. So I'm curious, Mr. President, I would offer this as an amendment Why in the location selection criteria from Verizon, and I assume this is the case on all 44 applicants, but in particular for 50 George Street, why did they omit this as a chosen location and not include the proximity to residential dwellings? So that's another amendment I'd like to add, Mr. President. And that is missing from our criteria, which is in our interim policy. And that's an important criteria, Mr. President, because as I'll state a little further down, there are reports out there, and I have several of them in front of me, Mr. President, that talk about the potential exposure and the risk for pregnant women, children, elderly, individuals that may have implants, or cardiac concerns, Mr. President, or neurological problems. There may be concerns, Mr. President, with exposure. And the fact, Mr. President, that 5G, much of the information over the last 20 years, a robust body of independent science has emerged showing significant biological impacts from exposure to radio frequency microwave radiation. including clear evidence of cancer, neurological and cognitive harm, heart abnormalities, reproductive effects, and microwave sickness, Mr. President. All affecting the individuals that I spoke about. And human exposure guidelines for radio frequency microwave radiation used by the FCC are more than 20 years old and addressed only thermal, not biological impacts of exposure. So that also, Mr. President, is another concern that's out there. And I raise this, Mr. President, on behalf of residents that may feel that their voice doesn't count, may feel that they don't have input on this and it's a done deal. And I wanna raise awareness, Mr. President, where many of these small cell towers will be located, like I said, within 20, 30, 40 yards of homes, bedrooms, porches, and where our families congregate, Mr. President. And that's very concerning for me. These polls, Mr. President, they talk about cooling fans in residential areas. The small wireless facility operator permittee shall use a passive cooling system. In the event that a fan is needed, the small cell wireless facility operator, permittee, shall use cooling fans with low noise profiles. So we all know what that means, low noise profile. So they're saying, don't worry about the noise. Whatever we do is going to be permittable by whatever standards that are out there, Mr. President. But I can guarantee you, If you lived within 20, 30 yards of this, and you had your window open in July and August and June, that these low noise profile cooling fans may not be as low as you think. So also, it's a concern of a public nuisance, Mr. President, or I should say a potential concern of public nuisance. As I allude to the description and the location of these polls say that the community perspective, including visual aspects and proximity to residential dwellings, schools and parks shall be taken into consideration. And I hope when our four members get together, the department heads, that that truly is taken into consideration. Another aspect of this, Mr. President is The petitioner is required to present a written plan indicating the protocol for turning off wireless facilities when utility workers are present on poles in order to limit their exposure to radio frequency emissions. The plan should also include a description of any warning signs that will be posted to alert utility workers to radio frequency exposure. So this safeguards any utility workers that are going to happen to stumble upon this poll to alert them, hey, we have high radio frequency exposure on this poll. My concern, Mr. President, I put this in the form of a motion, as you know, The city of Medford now owns many of the streetlights, if not all of them, throughout the community. There's thousands of them, and there's reasons for our electrical department to be up. I know we subcontract the service, but there are reasons for our electrical department to be up around the radio frequency and get exposure, Mr. President. And what safeguards do we have, Mr. President, for our city employees for exposure? So that is in the form of a motion, Mr. President, to see what safeguards the city has on this, and not just what Verizon is doing for utility workers, but for our city workers. And then there should be a written plan indicating the response protocol to be implemented in the event that the equipment is damaged by weather-related event or due to an accident. So I think it shows you the serious nature of this equipment and the reason why there's protocol set up around it, Mr. President, which is a good thing. Then it goes on the interim policy to talk about prohibitions. And it says no small cell wireless installation shall be installed on poles that do not meet sidewalk clearance requirements and standards. This includes horizontal and vertical clearances for pedestrian passage. Applicable requirements and standards may include but are not limited to ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act. So my other motion, Mr. President, is that has this been reviewed by the city? So prior to having a hearing, is the city going out to these sites and making sure that it follows the prohibitions that are set forth for clearance requirements according to the city standards. If not, Mr. President, why are we wasting time notifying residents if this is not falling under the clearance standards that are already set forth by the city? We're sending out notification, we're alarming residents, and then at the hearing, if they turn around and say, sorry, this doesn't meet the city clearance requirements for sidewalks, then we've wasted everyone's time. And I think we should do our due diligence prior to that, Mr. President. And last but not least, and I appreciate my colleagues indulging me on this, but it is an important issue. It's been around two years. Now it's coming to a head. Verizon put us on notice. They threatened legal action against the city of Medford. So now we're on notice, and that's why the city is moving forward now. But the call that went out to the community was a good call. It notified residents. I am appreciative the administration did that. I assume letters going out to property owners within the 300 feet, we asked 500, but within the 300 feet about us we'll get more direct information. But Mr. President, I as one member of the council was eager to find out where these locations were. and the applications. So I went on the city website, and what popped up under the city website was a Google Map. And you know how difficult the Google Maps are, you got to take your fingers, and you pinch your finger and your thumb and you start expanding them. And these blue teardrops appeared. And if you expand too far, I was in Connecticut, and then I started going a little bit smaller. And I ended up in, you know, Revere and It was very difficult, to say the least, getting where these streets were. So I reached out to the city engineer, and he gave me a list of the streets, Mr. President. That should be on the city website, an actual listing of the streets. I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President. The Google map is fine, but let's make it simple. Let's show residents what the streets are, where the polls are gonna be located, and it's easy access for someone to look up, Mr. President. It is important where this is eight days away. I would just like to read the streets off. It's not that long, Mr. President, but for those that may not have internet access and can't figure out or maybe 301 feet from the site and not receive the correspondence from the city notifying of this important topic, I think this is important. So the streets that, were pulled by the engineer and I thank him. 25 Dexter Street, the pole is located on Bow Street, where the installation's gonna go. 50 George Street, the pole is located on Wedgmere Road. 148 Washington Street, pole is located on Otis Street. 204 Winthrop Street, 13 Newburn Ave, 8 Alfred Street, 39 Albion Street, pole located on William Street. 287 Main Street, 25 Brooks Street, 72 Salem Street, all located on Oakland Street. 4 Central Ave, 499 Main Street, 20 Winchester Street, all located on Wareham Street. 200 Boston Ave, 21 Fairmount Street, 333 Main Street, all located on Bowdoin Street. 24 Wayham Street, 71 Central Ave, 4 Colby Street, 16 Mystic Ave, 42 Quincy Street, 600 Boston Ave, 13 Higgins Ave, 89 Princeton Street, 97 Greenleaf Ave, 13 Bradley Road, 62 Marion Street, 24 Tulsa Ave, 28 Killsett Road, 17 Court Street, 10 Winthrop Street, 87 Farmer Street, 236 Harvard Street, 90 North Street, 48 Granville Ave, 32 Brookings Street, 281 Boston Ave, 10 Cherry Street, 4 Brogan Road, 42 Martin Street, near 451 Boston Ave, 549 Main Street, 101 Chardon Ave, and 104 College Ave. I appreciate my colleagues for letting me announce that. Mr. President, from what I recall from a year and a half ago, Verizon had close to 90 applications at that time. They went forward and they submitted 44. I still believe Verizon, this is only about half of what they're going to offer. And if you look at the streets, you can almost tell it's about half the city. It doesn't include a lot of the other half of the city. So I think we can anticipate another 45 locations, Mr. President. And that's why it's so important that we get this process and this interim policy down pat to safeguard the residents of this community. So I want to thank my colleagues for indulging me. I know that was a long presentation, but I think it's important enough to make sure that this two year process, people don't feel left out. People feel like they have a say and people get involved on the march. 31st hearing, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Excellent job, just one correction. And I'm amazed with just one correction. did excellent job. The setback from dwellings in particular dwellings, because they did allude to parks, schools and playgrounds, but they did nothing about dwellings. So just if you couldn't, I appreciate you putting that together. That was very thorough.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Council President Caraviello, because indeed, this is important and very important for many of the seniors in this community. And I know over the past year, we've been all preaching social distancing, social distancing, and it's very important that our seniors be able to communicate and meet with their friends and meet with other seniors and so forth. And that aspect of their life, Mr. President, for the most part has been missing over the past year. And it's vital more than ever now that we start to bring some normality in a safe manner to our seniors, Mr. President. And one thing that I know has been that resource is our senior center in the square. They offer a number of worthy trips for our seniors. Any given time, you used to see the buses leave behind here at City Hall. They'd be jam-packed with seniors throughout the community. You'd have the meat bingo that they'd have every year. They'd have a host of functions. They really did a lot for the seniors at that center. And I know a lot of seniors are sorely missing that. So I wanna thank Councilor Caraviello for recognizing that and whatever we can do as a community, if it's still a little too early, then so be it. But I think that has to be in the back of our mind that the interaction for seniors is very important. And in this time, I think it's important that we recognize that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I too want to thank Councilor Bears for offering this I think this council has been pretty vocal about having zero tolerance for any type of bigotry or hate crimes, Mr. President, not only in our community, but across the country. And I'm proud of our record speaking up, Mr. President, against this. And we know that this is a welcoming community, the city of Medford, and we will not tolerate any type of hate crimes or bigotry, Mr. President, we will stamp it out as a community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Council President Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. You know, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, he was put at the front door for a reason. And I remember being up there. He was a very intimidating person. And you never gave him any back talk. You never looked at him out of the corner of your eye because you knew you were in for something if you could, if you did. But he was a great teacher and he really cared about the kids. And I think that showed and my condolences go out to the family as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank President Caraviello. Every year, he raises awareness for World Down Syndrome Day. And he does a magnificent job not just explaining what it is to have a family member with Down syndrome, but he also does a lot in the community, Mr. President, as someone that raises funds and raises awareness as well. And I appreciate the fact that you've been on top of this that we've been able to do. I think we've been consistent over the years. Thank you, and I really appreciate that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Before we call the motion, I just want to personally thank Kelly Catalo for coming up tonight and taking part in this very important process of city government. And I want to thank Kelly Catalo, a local realtor, and a tremendous advocate in this community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor and Vice President Knight for bringing this forward. I want to applaud Mr. Cote and Ms. Lister for all the work that they've done to make sure this is in the forefront of our state, making sure that motorcycle safety is something that's not falling from the wayside. God, I can remember Betsy riding her bike through Medford for a long time now, and she was the first person that would hop off her bike and make sure that if people didn't follow the rules, make sure they got a lesson. And that's a scary lesson to learn, let me tell you. So I appreciate what you do do in keeping this going. I think that it can't be forgotten because like Councilor Morell said, I'm sorry, something personal happened to her life. I think that when you think about it, we've all had someone affected. negatively because of negligent driving with motorcycles and not taking their safety as a priority. So I thank Councilor Knight again for bringing this forward and I appreciate your effort, all your work. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Palacios.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank again, Vice President Knight for putting this on. You know, every year we try to raise motorcycle awareness in this community through a number of initiatives. This is probably one of the most popular initiatives where we have the rally on Mystic Ave. Hopefully we can get back to that, Mr. President, when this COVID bypasses us However, Mr. President, I think it's important that we make this aware because many people think the streets are owned by cars. And there are other vehicles, including motorcycles, bicycles, that are on the roadway as well. And I think drivers have to be mindful that they don't own the streets. They share them with other vehicles. And it's important, Mr. President, that we spread that around. It's also important as a community that we create safe spaces for motorcycles as well, Mr. President. Many communities have motorcycle parking spots, which I'm not aware of any in this community. And these are the initiatives I think that will bring public awareness out there so people understand that there are other means of modes of transportation other than cars that are out there that are safe. And, you know, in my opinion, You know, I think motorcycle drivers get a bad rap. You know, when I see motorcycle drivers, they're always paying attention to the road. They're always using their singles. They're always driving accordingly to the rules and regulations. And I think it's only important, Mr. President, that we bring this awareness forward. You know, riding a motorcycle, you know, two gallons of gas, three gallons of gas, you can go 50, 70, 80 miles. And, you know, in this time of trying to conserve and so forth, I think it's a mode of transportation that we really need to get out there, Mr. President, and support. So, I want to thank my colleague for putting this on.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if you'll indulge me, I'm a firm believer that the city clerk should be seen at these meetings, but not heard. But I want to thank Vice President Knight for putting this resolution on and putting this proclamation on. Almost 41 years ago, not too far from here, I lost my own father in a motorcycle accident. And it's something I think about every day. It's something that's seared in my brain. And there is no such thing as enough safety awareness around motorcycles. And so from the bottom of my heart, thank you for putting this on tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Mr. President. Councilor Marks. I just want to personally thank Director O'Connor for the update and I appreciate her appearing before the city council to not only notify this council, but also the viewing audience. And I find it very helpful. Just want to thank her.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much. Mr. President. Council Members. While we're under suspension, last week myself and Councilor Scarpelli brought up paper 21-094, which was a resolve requesting the police, fire and DPW department heads appear before the city council on March 16th to provide us department updates. I was just wondering if anyone of the chiefs or the DPW commissioner was on the call today.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, were the three duly notified by the city clerk?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, just for my own edification, what's the typical turnaround time then for once the council approves the resolution, voted on by the council on a Tuesday night, when will that paper be received by the city administration? They typically go Friday morning or Monday morning, depending on when I finish the records. Friday or Monday. So for a particular request like this, where it's time sensitive, is there any way we can get a quicker response? I mean, I know Jen in our office did talk to Daria and the mayor's office to let her know that that specific request was coming. Okay. So are we being told that they're coming next week? Is that what it is? I don't know.
[Michael Marks]: I'm talking about the budget before the city council.
[Michael Marks]: No, no, no, no. This was something different.
[Michael Marks]: This was something I saw Councilor Scarpelli put on just for an update from the three department heads. This has nothing to do with budget. So we have, I believe the chief of staff on now. He is on now. Are they coming up next week? Because the paper was, I guess, received yesterday and that doesn't give ample time, which I understand. But are they coming next week?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, I just would like you to know that I will be extremely displeased if they're not able to attend next week's meeting.
[Michael Marks]: So I want to make sure- I understand that. I understand that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, point of information. Point of information, Councilor Marks. The request last week was to have three department heads appear before the council. The council has every right to ask whether those that we invited are here, Mr. President, to discuss what we asked them to the previous week. This is nothing new, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Right, because that's the way we voted on it.
[Michael Marks]: This was a date certain that we asked the parliaments to come up. We're not asking every week, every other week, you know, this is a date certain.
[Michael Marks]: They would know if they were tuning in last week, which the request was last week, that they appear this week.
[Michael Marks]: Again, thank you. I, too, I'm glad to hear that there's a legitimate reason why department heads on here. And I think that what's important is, again, it's not really the pre-budget discussions. It's making sure that this council hears from our major department heads moving into the budget season, which is, it's, I hope the council president and city administration iron that out and get a schedule on what we have. I personally thought we were pretty clear on what we were asking for in the budget. I think that, so I'm a little confused with that, but I think that it's important that we meet with these department heads and our department heads to make sure that as they step up to that, the pre-budget meetings and the budget meetings that we have all the information we need as a council to make educated decisions on fiscal affairs of this community. Because I think if you look at it, that's truly our number one priority, if I'm not correct. So this is truly the most important thing we do now as our rule. So I think it's important that we get the assistance and the cooperation from everybody involved so we can make this happen. So we can make educated decisions when it comes to our budget. I know that just maybe the chief of staff can dispel some rumors, but the rumor out there is I got a phone call today saying, we're getting $39 million, we're getting $50 million. What people don't really understand is what the true number is and how it's divided or where that can be spent. So, they're already talking, just put it to a new fire station, put it to a new building, it's in the schools. So we just gotta make sure the community knows when these numbers come out. that if we can get, Mr. Clerk, if we can get just a report just so maybe from the city administration, just so that people can understand what these monies that the state is releasing right now, that it isn't free cash that we can plug in anytime we want for the next six months, because I think that's the rumor that needs to be dispelled. So thank you. Councilor Morell.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, thank you, ma'am. We're just reviewing this. This is the actual, there's really, it looks like just a change of ownership, is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: And the hours of operations, can you expound on that?
[Michael Marks]: Yep. Okay, so it sounds like it stays the same. I see everything in order, Mr. President. I move forward for approval on this paper. I know, unless my council colleagues have some questions.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Lococo. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes, affirmative motion passes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Exactly. What are you asking us to ask Parkman?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Councilor Morell.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: And with that being said, Mr. President, I'm hoping that this council will join me in extending a warm and sincere happy birthday to her on this momentous occasion.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Caput. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Helen Alpers was a terrific woman, a lifelong Method resident. Her and her husband, Henry, loved spending time with each other. Helen, a little known fact, was a big Red Sox and Patriot fan for many decades, even during the drought of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Helen was a devoted fan. She was devoted to her family, loving mother, wife, grandmother, sister. aunt, and one of her big things that she liked to do was spend time. And her husband, Henry, had a beautiful garden. I've never seen it, but I was told it was like an oasis. And she loved spending time in the garden that Henry put in the yard. So I would like to just say on behalf of this council, Mr. President, we wish the family well in their sorrow on the loss of Helen.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Scarpelli. President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Just if I could, Mr. President, I think it would be interesting to find out, but it's my understanding that this is an agreement between whatever the ghost kitchen is, like Guy Fieri, and the establishment, and everything's prepared on site at that establishment. So they're preparing it on behalf of, actually, Guy Fieri can't be at 500 ghost kitchens throughout the country. So that's my understanding. I assume everything would apply, but I think it would be interesting to find out.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a question and a request that they may provide us with an explanation on the reason for the change. And also, Mr. President, I'm under the opinion that the ordinance requires that the term of each of the three members that currently sit on the Board of Appeals expire every one year. meaning none of the members will be up all at once. And currently, I believe we have a situation where all the members are currently expired. So I'm kind of concerned how that happened. And secondly, Mr. President, it's important that We have continuity on that board. It's a very important board. It's a very technical board. And it's a very important board in this community. And it's extremely important that we have always a consistent experience knowledge base on that board. And that's the reason for the staggered terms. So I'm just wondering if the mayor can answer the reason for the change and why are all three appointments currently expired from my understanding.
[Michael Marks]: So if I could, Mr. President, just to follow up, and I appreciate the chief of staff's response. So Dave, based on the terms that are supposed to expire every year, is it the fact that there's been at least two of these positions that have been expired for the past two years? And if so, were they eligible to vote during the past two years?
[Michael Marks]: And did your office get any input from the public or local attorneys that currently use the board on this change?
[Michael Marks]: And the holdover that you refer to, are you saying that's part of a current ordinance?
[Michael Marks]: All right, so under that particular section, then there would never be a need to ever appoint anyone ever again.
[Michael Marks]: It seems that's what's been working out. Yeah, we are trying to understand that, but in theory, yeah. That's something we have to review, Mr. President, as well. And I appreciate the response, and I would ask that that be put in the form of an amendment so we can get a response in writing.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Just recently, we got a response back from Brian Kerins, the BPW Commissioner, at the request of the subcommittee to look at priority sidewalks throughout the city and create connectivity with the schools, with public transportation, with bus shelters and access on sidewalks that would create roughly probably 30 to 40 to 50 miles of connectivity throughout the community. And I was really surprised, and I think some of my colleagues were surprised as well, to hear the amount of money that this would cost. And it was very, very reasonable, Mr. President, to do this connectivity during any storm that's greater than three inches. And I look forward to making a recommendation out of this subcommittee eventually that will work hand in hand with the new ordinance, as well as the connectivity that would open up access to walkways and crosswalks and really create a safe environment for pedestrians. So I think this is pretty exciting and I look forward to the next several meetings where we can make recommendations to this council because eventually it's going to come to funding, but I don't think you can put a dollar amount on public safety. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Michael Marks]: President Caraviello?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Franco.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Knight, Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: President Garavaglia.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Markswell. Thank you, Mr. President. I know it's mentioned that the paper was signed off by the building commissioner. Does that actually mean that these signs have already been installed and are up and functioning?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just maybe moving forward when we go over these reviews, whether it's 30, 60, or 90, we should always put language in that states from the day of opening or the day of sign installation. So that way we have an understanding that we're viewing this process that the whole intent of this is to make sure that these signs weren't glaring in residents' eyes at station landing and so forth. You know, we just wanna make sure that we're doing the right thing.
[Michael Marks]: Have they been open for 90 days?
[Michael Marks]: Yes, Mr. President, Mr. President. If you recall, there were a number of residents that came up to speak not in opposition, but concerned about the additional traffic and lights and so forth. I have not heard from anyone in the neighborhood, so I would say it's safe to say that they are abiding by the request of this council.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. President Keohokalole.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, Council Member Bucks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Marianne for being on the call tonight. That was extremely informative, and I appreciate the update. Marianne, last week we received as a council a correspondence from the mayor stating that the city was in the process of submitting an application to the state to become a vaccination site. I was just wondering if you can update us with that.
[Michael Marks]: And I'm sure you'll keep us posted if and when we do hear. Oh, yes. Can you give us an update on where we stand with the Method Public School faculty and teachers being vaccinated?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so the Department of Education just came out with a mandate that elementary school students will be going back beginning of April. And I'm just wondering where we stand with the vaccination for staff and teachers. And it sounds to me that it's up to the teachers to go off and try to get their own vaccinations. And yeah, I'm not sure why they're not listed as a priority, not just with the city, but on the state and the federal level, especially where the requirement is that in-school learning will take place at the beginning of April. So that kind of troubles me. One other point, Mary Ann, and I'm not sure if you can answer it or not, We have roughly, according to my figures, about 4,500 seniors that are 75 years or older that currently reside in the city of Medford. Do we have any indication what percent of those seniors have received either their first or second vaccination?
[Michael Marks]: So how difficult Marianne would it be for us, and I realize the state's not providing these numbers. How difficult would it be for us as a community to look at our most vulnerable, which are our seniors, especially seniors over 75. to reach out directly to them, if there's some 4,500, I'm sure that can be done, to see where they are in the process and to see who may need the additional help to gather an appointment, get on the internet. And how difficult would that be? Is that something that we can accomplish?
[Michael Marks]: I don't think anyone behind this real doubts the work that's been done by the West Medford Community Center or the Council on Aging or your office. I would just hope maybe a little more emphasis goes on outreach rather than the community reaching out to you guys, you know, especially for our most vulnerable population. And, you know, we took a vote, Marianne, I just want to set the record straight a few weeks back. And I'm under the impression that maybe part of our vote wasn't accurately reflected in what this council voted on. But we did vote unanimously to ask that you provide us with a weekly five minute update. And there may be weeks that you don't have an update and you just come on and say, I don't have an update. But I think would be very helpful, not just for this council, but the edification of the people that are watching that get a lot of their information from tuning in over the many years, especially many seniors, that that would be very helpful. So I would just respectfully ask if you could set aside five minutes at the beginning of our meeting every week, just to give us an update, especially during this vaccination rollout. And I wanna thank you and Council President Caraviello for establishing this chamber to be an open, once again, an open forum to allow residents to come up and speak in a safe fashion. And I think you both really put together a great working plan that involves CDC regulations, Board of Health regulations. And I as one member, and I'm sure my colleagues can speak for themselves, are very appreciative to that fact. And I wanna thank you both for your leadership on that.
[Michael Marks]: Well, can I personally invite you the next?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, at this time, I would ask, because the council made a statement as well, I would ask that that statement be read as well, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I thought this was very fitting to bring up, Mr. President. The mayor, in her capacity, has the ability to put out proclamations. The council has the ability to put out commendations. And Mr. President, this is truly a thank you to all those in the community that have participated over the past year in ensuring that we fight this horrible COVID-19 as one, Mr. President. And I think what you saw over the past year is a community unite over a common cause. And it involves many people in this community, as which we just heard the Board of Health and the many volunteers over the past year have worked tirelessly to make sure that our most vulnerable population served in a time of need, Mr. President. And that does not go unnoticed. So on behalf of the council, I'm sure my council colleagues will speak I'd like to personally thank Mary Ann and the Board of Health, as well as the volunteers. I also would like to take a moment, Mr. President, for someone that is in stop and shop at least two days a week and have seen the, what I call, frontline workers that have been there since day one, Mr. President, making sure that we have food, Mr. President, making sure that our stores remain open These two also are the unsung heroes that we don't hear about, Mr. President. Meal carriers. They haven't missed a beat, Mr. President, in the past year. Healthcare workers who have been dealing with the sick and infirm, Mr. President, during these tough, difficult times. First responders, police, fire, and EMS within our community have done yeoman's work, Mr. President, in answering the calls over the past year and have not received much praise, Mr. President, but I think this council accommodation is thanking them after a year of their due diligence, Mr. President. School employees, teachers that have been on the front lines, Mr. President, as well. I mentioned grocery workers, bankers, Mr. President, retail employees, truckers, delivery people that have been delivering in our neighborhoods into the most needy, into shut-ins in the community. Military personnel, Mr. President, that have been there to protect us during this awful virus. Sanitary workers, restaurant workers. We have a gentleman here tonight, Mr. President, that owns a restaurant. And many of these restaurant workers during this tough time were there to make sure that they stayed open, even though business was tough and, you know, you weren't allowed to have people in your restaurant. They stayed open for takeout and assisted residents, Mr. President, during this tough fiscal time and tough times. You know, that doesn't go unnoticed, Mr. President. We have nonprofit workers that have been out in the streets assisting families, homeless families, people that are being discarded, Mr. President, tenants and so forth. That has been a huge issue, Mr. President. The building and trades, they haven't gone down, Mr. President. They're up and functioning. Civil service employees, Mr. President, And every other Method resident that reached out to their neighbor or a loved one and asked them if they needed help, if they needed assistance, do they need someone to shovel? Do they need someone to go to the store and pick up their laundry? Or do they need someone to help get some food? And these are the unsung heroes, Mr. President, in our community. And on behalf of the council, I'm sure my council colleagues are gonna speak on this. We wanna thank them. on behalf of the mayor's proclamation, and also the council's accommodation, thanking everyone in our community for pitching in during this very difficult time.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, while we're on suspension. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, while we're under suspension, I would ask that we take public participation. We have a distinguished gentleman in the audience that served almost four decades in the public service here in the community that would like to speak.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, Councilor Baxton. I wanna thank my former council colleague. I know he's very passionate on this and this is not the first time Councilor Penta spoke on this issue and he does raise some valid concerns. I offered the resolution back some several weeks ago and read thoroughly the response we got from Aleesha Nunley, our finance director. And I also received the correspondence via email from the Water and Sewer Commission to the chair, Dominic Camara, who in my opinion, along with the rest of the board, is doing a great job in a very difficult, as you can imagine, board to operate, Mr. President. And, you know, the response that we received from the administration, we did ask this council ask directly, if we're able to see the base rate, what that actually pays for within the water and sewer enterprise account. And they were unable to break out that particular portion compared to just the regular rates and say, well, with the base rate, we paid for X, Y, and Z. And that's how they do their accounting. And personally, I don't see a problem with that. What Councilor Penter is asking for is more of an itemized type listing of where the expenditures are going based on what revenues coming in, and I'm not sure if they have the capability or capacity to report it out that way. But that, as Councilor Knight mentioned, that's not really end of our purview anyways. When this originally came out on the council, there was some concern because members of the council, including myself, thought this was a connectivity fee. And it raised a lot of eyebrows because at the time we said, wait a minute, we usually have a surplus in the water and sewer accounts, of several million dollars, why would we need now all of a sudden start charging residents a connectivity fee? We're already connected to the water and sewer system. But come to find out it wasn't really a connectivity fee, it was a base rate fee. And there is a difference, a substantial difference. And as Councilor Penta alluded to, the base fee is a stabilizer. So the way it was told to me and the way I understand it is that every period, the billing period, we're not sure what we're going to receive for revenue. We know how much the MWRE is going to charge us because we have everything needed, right? City Hall gets constant updates through the little antenna on your water meter telling how much the water usage is. So City Hall at any given minute could say how much the water consumption is. We have giant meters throughout the community that show the inflow and outflow of sewage. And we can tell you how much sewage is leaving this community. So they have a good handle on what the fixed charges are in this community. The handle we don't have is how much revenue are we gonna bring in? Because there may be, especially during these fiscal difficult times during COVID, that someone may not be able to pay their water and sewer bill. And it happens not just during COVID, other times. And so having, the way I understand it, a base rate set up It sets up a revenue stabilizer. So we know there's a million dollars guarantee that's coming from the rate payers that's gonna pay off what we owe. So it's not an extra charge. It is definitely not an extra charge in the bill. It goes towards paying off your rate, the water and sewer rate for the entire community. And it's somewhat provides a stabilizer. One would ask, why don't we raise it? because the million dollars is not much of a stabilizer. Why don't we raise that base fee? And then we can have guaranteed money in there and know where the money's coming from and serve the same purpose. So I think I understand where you're coming from councilor. I'm not quite sure the city has the capability of providing that level of detail. that you're looking for regarding what projects were done in the city, what infrastructure did this money go towards? Leak detection. You've been talking about leak detection for 20 years. We have a high percentage of water that's leaking out throughout the system, and it's costing the rate payers millions of dollars. The council has probably heard me a million times about inflow and infiltration. The sewer system. We accept groundwater that's going into the sewer system, and that groundwater is going out to Deer Island and being treated as raw sewage. costing us millions of dollars a year. And we're aware of it, but guess what? We have an aging infrastructure. You know, so this is a much larger issue. I wanna thank the council for keeping it in front of us. You know, our water meters, like the new schools that we talk about that were put in 17 years ago, our water meters are now, the new water meters are 15 to 17 years old, and the life expectancy was roughly 13 to 15 years. And it's just a matter of time that we experienced when I first got on the council, that half of our meters were being estimated. That's when the city steps in and says, you know, Mr. Panto, we don't know how much you're using for water, but we're gonna estimate your bill. How would you like your bill to be estimated and not actual? So they could be charging you double what you're actually using. And that's why we put the emphasis on these new meters. And now we're coming up to a period of time where You know, we have to look at these meters and it's a multi-million dollar project, but it's very important that people get charged exactly what they're using, Mr. President, very important. And I'll always support that, Mr. President. And the days of estimating are over in my opinion. So I appreciate the council bringing it up. I always look forward to hearing Councilor Penter and he does his homework and research and I thank you for bringing it up again.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of information, Mr. President. Just a point of information, this council, and I believe you were part of it back some years ago, we've voted year after year after year to use retained earnings to offset the rates. And the rates over the last couple of years were going to go up double digits. And if it wasn't for this council and previous council stepping up and offsetting it with the, which is rate payers money, but offsetting with that money that you're talking about in retained earnings, the rates would have gone up even higher. So I just want to set the record straight on that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And I would ask my colleagues to wait to tell Brian how much work this is until we take our vote. But no, you know, anyone in the community that's been around the community knows the amount of time Brian puts in at the West Medford Community Center. how he volunteers endlessly across the city. His organizational skills are impeccable. Look at the offerings and how far the West Medford Community Center has come over the years. And, you know, Brian won't toot his own horn and I know there's a lot of good people there, but Brian is largely due in part to what he's done for that West Medford Community Center over the years. As you can see, he's a level-headed person, which is needed on boards and commissions. He's a man of reason and a person of understanding, and I think he would be a great fit, Mr. President. We don't have many appointments as a council. You can count them on one hand, how many appointments we have. So this is important to us as a council, and it's important we pick the right person. And without a doubt, Brian is going to do some remarkable things down there. We have a beautiful stadium, Mr. President, we can all be proud of. And I know Brian will continue to make that a showplace for our community.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the outgoing Commissioner Lenny Gliona, who has done a tremendous job representing not only the Hormel Commission, but this Medford City Council who appointed him back some several years ago that have made great strides at Hormel, largely in part of Lenny's input and his diligence to this community. So I wanted to personally thank him.
[Michael Marks]: I want to thank Vice President Knight for bringing this up. I think behind this rail, we've all spoken about sidewalks and roads ad nauseum. And I think this is a great proposal. However, Mr. President, with that being said, we as a council have not had the opportunity to sit down as a council and go over the capital plan. And I would respectfully ask my colleague to hold off on this until we have the ability as a council to sit down and go through what we believe are some of the issues that we would like to see addressed within the capital plan and not do it piecemeal. And I would just respectfully ask my council colleague to either withdraw this or set up a meeting where we can sit down and have a meaningful dialogue. It's $107 million proposal. And I also had the opportunity to watch it, Mr. President. And there are a lot of unanswered questions from the school appropriation to when the fire department will eventually see their buildings be refurbished and why are we waiting so long to refurbish? the fire headquarters, as well as the other existing buildings. I think there's a lot that needs to go over. And I don't want to send a message that if we do support this, that this is what the council is looking for. And that's it, Mr. President, because that's furthest from I as one member of the council. So I hope my council colleague can appreciate that. And maybe we can use this as a catalyst to take a look at the capital plan and see what the needs are as a council and as a community.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. As I stated, I don't think anyone's been a bigger advocate of roads over my term on the council in discussing the needs and the fact that we don't put any money in the budget for roads. From what I've been told by the mayor, and the mayor can correct me if I'm wrong, she told me this was a draft capital plan.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Three weeks ago, this council voted unanimously to request that the Board of Health Director give us and the residents of this community a weekly update on the vaccine rollout, as well as any potential method sites for vaccination sites. And we received, all of us received an email from the mayor stating that the Board of Health Director will appear before the Medford City Council on March 9th and that she will give the council as well as residents an update on the rollout at that point, Mr. President. So I just wanna update people that are concerned in the community on how to get assistance and when and if there'll be a vaccination site locally that they can attend. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: If I can, I- Just point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Marks. I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli's intent, You yourself, Mr. President, just stated to us that you tried on several attempts to have a meeting with the administration to discuss the budget, and they refused to get back to you. I'm not quite sure what I'm gonna be able to do on a subcommittee trying to pose the same question. So I appreciate the intent, but I'm not sure how effective that'll be.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on. Uh, Mr. Walls really cared about the students he taught. Uh, he was strict, but, uh, he cared and that showed Mr. President and the way he carried himself. and his community involvement. He was involved in a lot of different activities, as you heard from my council colleagues, and he was never looking for a thank you or anything other than he just wanted to give back, and indeed he did so. He was a true family man, and he will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'm sorry, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to make it be known, Mr. President, that a lion's share of the Peg Access money does not go directly to Peg Access. It actually goes into the city coffers. So 3% of the money that would be generated by this automatically goes into city coffers and 2% goes into peg access. And that's something I think we have to look at as a council regarding a home rule petition that was filed some 30 years ago by this Medford City Council, Mr. President, and put the money where rightfully belongs, which is community access, which is government, public and educational channels, Mr. President, in this community. Thank you, council member. It's on the motion by Councilor Morell and Councilor Leik.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could. Councilor Marks. Councilor Lai brings up a great point. If it hasn't been signed to a committee, Where is the clerk going to forward this to? One part of the resolution does say to the House Speaker and the Senate President, but if it's not assigned to a committee, where does it go?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So we send it to our state delegation?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanna thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this up. This is a very timely resolution. We're gonna be faced with probably one of the most difficult budgets over the last many years. And I think it's important, Mr. President, that we allow people in this community to voice their concerns, whatever form they decide. And coming in public is one, Mr. President, way of doing such. And I don't want to limit someone's ability. If they feel safe, Mr. President, and if the protocols are followed, that they have the ability to come up and speak. as well, Mr. President. I find it very difficult that you can open restaurants now and you could be seated six feet from someone and be eating a meal, but you can't speak without a mask on. It's very difficult to eat without a mask on. So I'm not quite sure the mixed messages that are being sent. All I can tell you is that since we've been on this council, and open this council up for business that we've run this meeting, Mr. President, adhering to all the CDC guidelines and the Method Board of Health guidelines. And I think we've done such in a safe manner and I am very proud of what we've done. So we do have the ability to accommodate and that is not going away. So I guess as long as we have that ability, Mr. President, we can open up and start doing business as usual in a safe manner. And I wanna thank my colleague for bringing this up.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Castagnetti, I think you had your hand up.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I move to take papers 19660, paper 20295 and paper 20519. Slow down here. What's the first one? Yep. Yep. And if you could also add on to it,
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, do we have anyone that would like to speak on this where it is a third reading?
[Michael Marks]: Do we have anyone Mr. President from the public?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this up. And indeed, Vice President Knight is correct. My first paper in my folder, Mr. President, this dates back first presentation to the mayor, November 13, 2014. This is when this project was presented by Eversource to the city of Medford. So some six years ago, Mr. President, almost seven years we're working on now with this project. I also have a copy of the MOU, a memorandum of understanding from Mark Rumley dated March 9th, 2017, which lays out many of the mitigating items, Mr. President, as part of the agreement between Eversource and the City of Medford. And I also have, Mr. President, a number of Committee of the Whole meetings from 2017. I believe you may have been president at the time that we held regarding Eversource, regarding neighborhood concerns. I think it was Council Scarpelli that requested that they have direct neighborhood meetings in that particular area. And a lot was done by this Medford City Council to ensure that this project, when it did take place, that first of all, the city of Medford received some benefits because this line that they're installing, this high tension line, has zero benefits for the city of Medford other than total disruption of our streets, Mr. President, and noise in our neighborhoods as well, Mr. President. I believe we put a number of initiatives in place to address that. The calls that we got and emails from area residents, I know the Karen family that lives on Winthrop Street, very involved in the community over a number of years, they had a concern, rightfully so, of putting back the street, pave to pave, and also the sidewalk. And I did find a press release from April 17th, 2019 from then Mayor Burke, and it states, and this is a quote from the mayor, that Eversource Project to connect their Woburn and Everett substations with an underground conduit will improve New England's power grid, which benefits the entire region by meeting its electricity needs in a more reliable manner. Method residents will benefit directly from just over three miles of street restorations and improvements along the route. Improvements to sidewalks with ADA compliance and curbing near Lorraine and Smith Roads. Installation of freeways crosswalks on Winthrop Street at Method High School, Winthrop Street crosswalk by Memorial Park and South and Main Street. And other smaller improvements along the route. And that was said by former Mayor Burke. So there is plenty of record, Mr. President. I know some residents are concerned, and rightfully so, it's been such a long process that if you don't have a file to look back, you forget the commitments that were made, and we wanna make sure that these commitments aren't forgotten. So as far as I'm concerned, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, the curbing of the sidewalk on both sides, Lorraine, Smith, and all the way down Winthrop Street, Mr. President, was a commitment that was made originally back some years ago. And that will be honored, Mr. President. Regarding the construction itself, they seem to be making a lot of progress. I haven't received a lot of complaints regarding neighbors not being able to access their driveways, regarding excessive noise. I think Vice President Knight mentioned about the storage of equipment during work time. I haven't seen any equipment stored in the area. So I think we really stood our due diligence on our homework when this project was coming through three miles of our roads and our neighborhoods. And that has nothing even to do with traffic and the impact of traffic, Mr. President. And I just want to thank my colleagues and we have to make sure we stay on top of this. So I will support the motion offered by my colleagues for an update from Eversource.
[Michael Marks]: Do we have Chief Gilberti on the... Yes, I'm here. Chief, could you just give us an update on this paper?
[Michael Marks]: Why don't you, while we have you, why don't you give us an update on the trucks?
[Michael Marks]: And what about the other lot of truck, Chief?
[Michael Marks]: So we're looking at one, possibly the middle of April and the other one, we're not sure yet.
[Michael Marks]: So they come fully equipped or will there be a process to equip the trucks when they get here?
[Michael Marks]: And what stations will these be at?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and do we have Aleesha Nunley on?
[Michael Marks]: Alicia, can you give us an update on this paper?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so at the end, so after 10 years, what are we paying in interest on these?
[Michael Marks]: So the 2.6 million covers equipping the trucks as well.
[Michael Marks]: And chief, if you can just give us a brief rundown of What's going to be done with the existing ladder trucks? Are they going to go into reserve? How is that going to work?
[Michael Marks]: And where are the plans to keep the trucks that are in reserve?
[Michael Marks]: We have room to keep them indoors?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Yep. Any other questions for my colleagues? Any questions from the public?
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two recusals. The motion passes. Thank you, Councilors. Thank you, Councilor. Chief, you look excellent, Chief, by the way. Say again? You look excellent.
[Michael Marks]: Would I get a promotion? Yes. That's great. What does it pay? That's great. Mr. President, two weeks ago, this council voted unanimously to ask that we receive a weekly update from the Board of Health Director regarding phase one. and phase two rollouts of the state and city vaccination. That is correct. Mr. President, I would ask that every week prior to the motions, orders, and resolutions that we receive the update from the Director of the Board of Health. And I was wondering if she's on the call tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, do we have anyone from the city administration on?
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, it was, I believe it was several months back, the council requested a monthly update. And now with the vaccination rollout and the importance of getting our seniors and first responders vaccinated, that we requested that we receive weekly updates, Mr. President. I don't think that's a lot to ask. As we all know, this is an evolving subject. Every day it changes. New information comes out every day. We heard today that potentially schools will be back sometime in April for the elementary schools. on a full-time basis. So this is something very important, Mr. President, that we receive updates as well as the general public be informed, Mr. President. And this is one avenue to do so. I'm not saying that this is the only avenue. It's one avenue. I am extremely disappointed that there is no one on from the Board of Health to give this council and give the residents of the community update. Mr. President, I still am receiving calls from seniors that are looking to get into the system. are waiting for the city of Medford to open their site, which we heard now is probably not going to happen because they're going to more of a group effort with Melrose and Malden, Mr. President. But there are many seniors, I believe we got statistics, there are over 4,500 seniors that are over 75 that would be eligible for the injection, Mr. President, that live in the city of Medford. And it's important that we know, Mr. President, the outreach that's happening in this community. Are seniors being contacted? Are there a list? Is there a current list that the city of Medford is working off of? What type of outreach? Are they reaching out to seniors? We can identify, we don't have to get into medical issues, Mr. President, but we can identify the population that's eligible. Now it's open for residents 65 to 74 that may have some other associated health risk also, Mr. President, and how many thousands more Method residents are eligible. I keep on getting phone calls from residents saying they can't make it to these other large state sites. They just don't have the bandwidth to get out to these sites. And we're asking our most vulnerable population to go out to these mega sites. They don't have the ability to get there. They don't have the ability to stand in maybe hour long lines, which I had witnessed myself, Mr. President, over at Fenway Park. Our long line, Mr. President, I think that's asking a lot of our seniors. And all we're asking for is a weekly update. So I would hope, Mr. President, if they're not on the call tonight, if they don't jump on tonight, that next Tuesday that we take up this again. before motions, orders, and resolutions are called, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I want someone, Mr. President. We voted to have an update. I will make sure that someone is here next week. Someone physically here to speak to us. I don't think we're asking a lot of one of our department heads during a pandemic to give us an update, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Just briefly, Mr. President. I'm sorry, Councilor Marksley. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli and the comments of my colleagues. I fully agree with teachers should be listed as essential workers. They are essential workers when they're dealing in teaching our kids and by no stretch of the imagination, so they could be considered otherwise. It was stated by the governor just recently that the inability for them to have the visibility of how many injections they're gonna get in from the state on a weekly basis is the inhibitor right now with rolling this out to teachers and to other people that may be in need of the injection. And the governor was requesting that the federal government give at least a three or four week window on what we're gonna get for vaccinations, the number of vaccinations. And that'll enable us at our sites, our mass vaccination sites, to roll this out more effectively and efficiently and be able to have people book one, two, three, four weeks out at a time, which is currently not happening right now. So some of its logistics, Mr. President, and I would ask as part of this that we also send a correspondence to our federal delegation asking that they at least give some more visibility and insight on the number of injections we're gonna get as a state So when we roll out our plan, that we're able to plan for it and book residents and teachers in advance, Mr. President. I would also ask that the school committee show leadership. And once again, Mr. President, meet in a public setting. You know, we're going to be asking teachers, we're going to be asking students to get back into the classroom, Mr. President. And I think it's only appropriate that the school committee lead by example, Mr. President, and have their meetings held in a public setting. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: The number of vaccinations in advance.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Box. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my two colleagues, Councilor Falco and Councilor President Gaviello for putting this on. As I've stated in the past, we put very little to almost no money to resurface our roads and the budget. So we rely heavily on chapter 90 money, which is about 980,000 a year we receive from the state. And when you have over 700, 800 streets in a community, you can imagine a 980,000 doesn't go too far in having a plan to resurface our roads. Councilor Knight offered something back, I think it was two years ago, maybe two years now. regarding having our streets inspected through this machine that would go and almost do like an x-ray of the roads, up and down the roads, and be able to give you a printout on what streets are in dire need to be repaired and so forth. And it sounded like a magnificent idea to at least understand 700 or 800 roads, what the condition is, how they're evaluated, and what priority they're put in. Because right now, I think it's just a matter of, you know, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. And I can tell you firsthand, I've lived on the street almost 30 years that hasn't been touched in 30 years. So I think looking at some of these innovative and creative ways of potentially, as you mentioned, Mr. President, having our dollar spread a little further and doing more roads per year. And as Councilor Knight mentioned a while back by evaluating our streets to see where the priority roads are. I think that goes a long way in having an approach, a systematic approach to addressing what our needs are in the community, Mr. President. And so I support this paper wholeheartedly. I'd like to see even if we can roll it out to sidewalks as well. I know this substance could probably be used on sidewalks as well. And if that's the case, it may be a cost effective way handling some of the trip and falls that end up being lawsuits in a quicker and much more reasonable fashion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'll have the motion by Councilor Scarpelli. So Councilor Marks, do you want to say something? I do, Mr. President. Several weeks back, we had the Board of Health Director before us, and I believe it was Councilor Scarpelli asked the Board of Health Director when we could start having the general public into the meeting. And the Board of Health Director stated that as long as there's social distancing and all the CDC rules and regulations or adhere to, we're fine to have members of the general public come up to our meeting. Since then, we've had at least two that I can recall, maybe three people come before the council in person to publicly state their opinions on issues. And Mr. President, I am dumbfounded why the building is still on lockdown while we have our meeting at seven o'clock here at City Hall. So I would ask Mr. President respectfully that these doors remain open during this council meeting, whereas we were given the green light by the Board of Health Director. Of course, unless things have changed and we weren't notified, but then again, we wouldn't know that because the Board of Health Director hasn't appeared before this council at our request. So I would ask Mr. President that these doors remain open for public input during the council meeting, Mr. President. And as I mentioned, as long as social distancing and all the CDC requirements are adhered to.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on tonight. Indeed, there are a number of these drop boxes throughout the community. The Fells Plaza over the last many years has been an issue of concern to many area residents and as well as this council. Many calls have been made to the property owner of Fells Plaza to no avail, to be quite frank. Recently, Mr. President, There are a number of drop boxes that were located, if you're familiar with it, at the entrance of where Aldi's is, that goes into the Fells Plaza. And the drop boxes are right next to the entrance. So when you're pulling in, you can't see the cars that are inside the lot that are coming towards you. It's a very, very dangerous situation. And even though we have an ordinance now that hasn't been signed, but will be signed shortly, you can't legislate common sense. And common sense would dictate that you don't put these giant mountains of steel next to an entrance and an exit, because it's very difficult to see cars coming and going into the lot. And it creates a safety concern, Mr. President. And even for pedestrians walking by that area, there are a lot of people that walk the Fells Way. It's a very dangerous area to walk because of these boxes obstruct vehicles view of oncoming pedestrians or oncoming traffic, which is extremely dangerous. And I hope that we can get some results immediately by having these boxes. I agree with vice president should be removed. Mr. President, there's a giant area in the back of the Fells Plaza that you can drive, and maybe that should be where there's signage put for any drop-off blocks for the Fells Plaza, that they'd be located behind the Fells Plaza, which is a safe area and somewhere people can drop donations. That area has also become an area where you leave off discarded old TVs, old computers, you know, old clothing, you name it, it's been left out there. And I don't blame the area residents. I know we have an area resident, Mr. Poley, up here tonight that would like to speak on the issue, Mr. President, that lives across the street and has to deal with the unsightliness of these boxes and the public health concern with these boxes on a daily basis. So I want to thank my colleague again for putting this on. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: That's it. Mr. President. Councilor Marks. While we have Mr. Poli here too, he's been a big advocate of placing a pedestrian crosswalk on the Fellsway. And at the intersection of Bradbury and the Fellsway in particular, there is a current crosswalk there now, but you take your life in your hand crossing because there's no pedestrian controls there. And what happens is you're in a crosswalk, you think you're safe, and the minute the light turns green at Wellington Circle, that becomes a raceway. It's a good half a mile stretch that it becomes a raceway. And if you're caught midway and that fails, let me tell you, trying to cross, you are in trouble. And I see it happen constantly. And I know Mr. Poli has been a big advocate I know this council has voted on several occasions asking our state delegation to look at putting an active pedestrian crossing right there, which is needed. Tonight we'll be voting on a paper 21-068 from the administration asking that they put a transportation engineer from the money we're getting from Wynn Resorts, Mr. President. And much of that money is targeted for transportation and safety improvements in the Wellington area. And I can tell you firsthand, there hasn't been much improvement in the Wellington area. With all this new development going on, that area has received very little upkeep and very little in regards to safety initiatives for pedestrians and vehicular traffic and so forth. So I would ask Mr. President as part of this resolution that we send another message to our state delegation asking about an update for a crosswalk at the corner of Bradbury and the Fellsway, a pedestrian crossing in the interest of public safety. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Any further questions? Mr. President. Councilor Marks. I would also ask like we do with most boards and commissions in this community that they hold meetings where we can receive the most community participation and to have a four o'clock meeting in my opinion is not advantageous to attracting a wide amount of people into this meeting. So I would ask that they look, I know they scheduled one for February 18th at 4 p.m., but in their next meetings, if they can respectfully look at making this meeting at a later time, Mr. President, for the, to allow for the most input from Method residents. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you. Any further questions?
[Michael Marks]: President Marks. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: I believe he is. City Engineer, are you on the line?
[Michael Marks]: On the approval by Councilor Falco, second by Councilor Scarpelli. I do have just a question to the administration. and I will call upon you next Councilor Morell. Are we anticipating that this will be a yearly appropriation that is received from Wynn Resorts and that the funding will be from Wynn Resorts going forward? Or will this eventually be part of the city budget?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for that. My other question is to the city engineer. I know you mentioned that this has an impact on the entire community. However, I believe in living in the Wellington area that Wellington Circle along with the Fellsway, Mystic Valley Parkway and Middlesex Ave will be a brunt of the traffic that is for this casino. And these are state roads. And I was wondering maybe if you could talk a little about what we're gonna do in conjunction with the city and the state because if these are roads that we have no jurisdiction over, however, they are roads that will be highly used, what are we doing in cooperation with the state to improve vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety in that area?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And my, the reason why I bring it up, I just want to make sure that the fact that there are so many state roads in the area are not an impediment for us to move forward on issues of safety in the area. because of the fact that we may have to reach out to the state and that adds a whole other layer of red tape. I understand that, but I would hope that doesn't add to the layer of complexity when we need to get stuff done in the Wellington area. Councilor Morell.
[Michael Marks]: Are there any other questions from the council?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Beals.
[Michael Marks]: We'll second by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two recused. The motion passes.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to add my two cents. I thought it was a very productive meeting that we held regarding the housing task force. Originally, we were looking at the creation of an ordinance to set up this task force, and upon deliberation and more discussion, we currently have a working group, as Councilor Bears mentioned, and we felt best to work with the existing working group and not pursue the ordinance avenue. And I think in that direction, it gives us much more flexibility and much more community input. And I look forward to working with this new task force when it's created.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, at some point, we do have a number of items under reports due slash deadlines. And I'm not saying we have to take them up now, but at some point we really should go through the reports due and deadlines. And let's just tidy up some council business. Okay. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Also, if I could, we did get two correspondence back from the city administration regarding two council papers that were offered by myself. One being 21-036 regarding the condition of engine four and engine six, the leaking roofs. And we did get a correspondence back from the city administration saying they're working with procurement and the chief to begin to get quotes and move forward on these very important projects, Mr. President. So that was one correspondence we received from that paper. And then the other council resolution was regarding the water and sewer base charge. I won't read it all, Mr. President, but more or less it mentioned that a million dollars, roughly a million dollars a year goes towards the water and sewer bills in order to keep a flow of money into the account And there was a paper I think was offered by Councilor Scarpelli or Vice President Knight regarding the donations that are received through the tax bill for library, police and fire. And if I could Mr. President over the last three fiscal years, fiscal 19, 20 and 21 residents donated $4,719.21. to the fire station donation, and that was over three year period through their tax bill. The police donation was $2,687.92, and the library donation was $4,892 over the last three fiscal years. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Martins. Anything else? Okay. Reckons, we're passed to
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I didn't have a chance to look through the records. I would ask that they be tabled till next week.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, in the interest of time, I would ask that we waive the remainder of the reading for this ordinance. I believe we have three ordinances on tonight. And if we can give just a brief synopsis on what each ordinance is about, Mr. President. All right. The purpose section is pretty good.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Also, if I could, in line with Vice President Knight, I want to thank my council colleagues for their due diligence on this. I also want to thank the acting city solicitor and the Board of Health Director for their input regarding this. You know, Mr. President, in this day and age, in particular with a pandemic for the past year, health and behavioral health and wellness is now more vital than ever with mental illness and other issues of behavioral health, Mr. President, during this pandemic. And I think it's very important to have a board of such that is comprised of police, fire, health officials, the Director of Veteran Services, It runs the gambit, Mr. President, local institutions such as Tufts University, LMH, that can get together and we can get the input from many different organizations that see mental health and the wellness and health in many different lights. in this community, and I think it's important to bring all that knowledge together. And that's what this is going to accomplish, so we can have one, as it states, depository of information that gathers information from every aspect, whether it's a veteran in the community, someone that may be homeless, someone that's experiencing housing instability, whatever the case may be, mental illness. have a central depository where we can work on issues vital to residents of this community. And I want to thank my colleagues for their due diligence on this.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Just to address Diane's point, we worked long and hard to try to keep the number to a manageable number. And I agree that lived experience is truly important. And under the representation, the mayor also has three appointments, which could be someone with lived experience. And also don't discount the fact that people that may be sitting on the board currently other capacities may also have lived experience as well. So I think we can't judge based on someone's position or their status, they too may have lived experience as well.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to, strike out the rest of the reading of this ordinance, and for you to give just a brief synopsis in the interest of time, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'll just be brief because I think Councilor Knight hit the nail on the head regarding this. For many years, these collection bins have existed in the community without any proper permitting. And I think this will go a long way to ensure residents of this community that may live next to an area that has a bin or may come in contact with a bin, that these bins are regulated by the community, by the city, and indeed adhere to all the rules and regulations which currently now we do have as a community. And I just want to thank my colleagues for their attention to this important matter.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I move to cancel the rest of the reading and give a brief synopsis. Second.
[Michael Marks]: The motion by- President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll be brief on this one, but this is a long time coming. Pest control in the city, pest control management has been an issue for, I'd like to say, 10, 15, 20 years, Mr. President. It really has been a concern over the years. It comes and goes, depends on the time of season, depends on what's happening in the community. But it exists and it's there, and it's a quality of life issue. And I think this ordinance goes a long way to rectify some of the concerns that residents have regarding pest control in the community. I want to thank my colleagues because it wasn't part of this ordinance, but we did vote on a B paper. which is an administrative policy, this council requested as an administrative policy that the city administration set up a policy that would allow us to sign a waiver to deal with private homeowners. For instance, Mr. President, you may have an area of your yard that has a rat nest unbeknownst to yourself. However, the city has located this because it's on private property. It is the owner's responsibility. I think the city council saw fit to say, you know what, we have an obligation as a community to try to address needs that we have. And whether it's financial or not, if we can assist in a common goal the eradication of these pests, I think that's something we should move forward with. And having a waiver that would hold the city free from liability and also accomplishing the same goals of pest control, I think help create a better policy and a better ordinance, Mr. President. And I want to thank my colleagues for passing that. I also want to thank the Director of Border Health and the Assistant City Solicitor for their input on this ordinance as well. Thank you, Councilor Locks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Box. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on this evening. You know, Victor's Deli, although it was in Somerville, I considered it a Medford restaurant. Many Medford people attended Victor's Deli. You know, the home-cooked meals made you feel like you were at home, as my colleagues mentioned. And when you went in there and got a sandwich, it tasted like you were at home. It tasted like you were eating with your family. And the atmosphere was the same way. And that's how they always ran the business. And Mrs. Mosher was truly, as my colleagues mentioned, a family person. Family meant everything to her. And you can see that in her kids. You can see it in the way they carried themselves. And she will be solely missed, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Miles. Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And um, I stated this a couple of weeks ago and it is still true that Massachusetts is considered a national healthcare leader with many of the top healthcare providers residing in Massachusetts. Eight weeks after the first COVID vaccines were authorized, in Massachusetts, we rank in the bottom half of U.S. states in getting the injection to our residents and to our most vulnerable. Massachusetts trails every other New England state, including as well as New York, in the number of vaccine doses administered per capita, and that's according to federal figures. This has been a concern, Mr. President, not of mine, but of many residents in this community, as well as my colleagues. for some time. There's been some confusion recently with reverse 911 calls alerting residents to contact City Hall, the Council on Aging, the West Medford Community Center regarding the vaccination and I guess how to get assistance on where to go for a vaccination if you're 75 or older. I'm not concerned about pointing blame or looking back at why Massachusetts is in the predicament it's in right now, but I would like to look forward, Mr. President, and get some answers from our Board of Health regarding what is the next phase in rollout in this community. And I think it's important to find out what the plan is, because there's so much misinformation going around. And we heard last week from the Board of Health Director that maybe the call that was made wasn't intended to create a list of potential residents that are 75 and older. to wait for a vaccination or for a call back. However, that was the case for many residents that called me. They thought they were on a list waiting for someone to get back to them to state when they'll get this shot locally. Now, I realize the state set up a 2-1-1 system, which I guess has been somewhat effective in Massachusetts in getting the message out. and also simplifying the process of applying for this vaccination. There are many residents right now that don't have access to a computer. And under the old system with the state, you had to go online. to fill out an application, a multi-page application, in which some residents weren't able to access, Mr. President. So I'm eager to hear from the Board of Health Director regarding what the plans are for the rollout in Method for our seniors 75 and older. I got a call this afternoon from a senior that said she received a call from the Method Council on aging. and they asked if she was still interested in getting the vaccination and that it would be available at some point. at the Andrews Middle School. That was the vaccination site for our first responders. And apparently that will be the vaccination site for seniors that are 75 and older. Again, in this community, there may be a number of sites that are available to residents. There was also talk, Mr. President, and I forget where I saw it or read it, that the governor is putting the phase two on hold now for residents 65 to 74. And that is quite alarming as well, because this is not something that you say, well, I may or may not get it. I may decide to get it when I have some time. This is life or death that we're talking about. This is people that may have co-morbidities that, you know, need to get the shot. This is people that are seniors that, you know, can't leave their home because they're infirm, Mr. President. And a mask only goes so far in hand-washing and social distancing. And the thought of having a vaccination that could at least assist residents, I think goes a long way to assure people that they'll be safe during these tough and difficult times. So I would ask Mr. President, I don't know if the Board of Health Director is on the call, but if she's not-. If she's not, Mr. President, I would ask that we receive an immediate update to the Medford City Council regarding what the plans are for the rollout, where the sites will be in Medford, how will residents be notified, how will we assist residents, Mr. President? There are many vulnerable residents out there that don't have the access, they don't have the whereabouts to do this on their own, and they need assistance. And they need someone to step in, and in this case, city government, to step in and assist these residents that are in need, Mr. President. And that should be our number one concern right now. When you bump into a senior and you think they're of age or 75 or above, the first question should be, have you received your shot? The second question should be, if not, how can I assist you? And that should be everyone asking, your neighbor, your cousin, your family member, someone you may bump into in the street. And that really should be. the outcry to get this process underway and moving forward, Mr. President. Many of these state centers, from my own experience in trying to help my own family member, to go maybe to Fenway Park or Gillette Stadium, may be out of reach for a lot of people. I've called the Melrose Wakefield Hospital. It's very difficult to get through. The appointments are not there, and I realize this is still in the early stages. But I think more has to come from this community, because we'd like to service our seniors, Mr. President, in Medford. We'd like to service them in Medford. I had the opportunity to go to Fenway Park just yesterday. And I saw and witnessed firsthand many seniors, Mr. President, waiting long, winding roads in gate B and gate A that circled and circled. And these are people that, honestly, Mr. President, I don't think should be waiting in a line for 45 minutes to an hour waiting to get their vaccination. And I think how a society treats their seniors says a lot about society. And in my opinion, if the vaccination's not available, and I hear what the mayor's saying that it's not available, we have to do our very best to make sure that we're assisting our seniors get this vaccination, Mr. President. It's the utmost of importance for us as a community. And I look eager and forward to when we get a response back from the Board of Health Director. We probably should be hearing from the Board of Health Director every Tuesday, Mr. President. I'm not sure why we don't have just a regular every Tuesday that we get a five-minute conversation. What's going on? How's the rollout? What are the next steps? I don't think we need to ask this, Mr. President. This should be a given. A lot of seniors tune in on this meeting, and they get their information from this meeting. They're not getting it from local papers. They're certainly not getting it from the Internet. So they're getting it, Mr. President, from maybe watching this meeting. And they're certainly not getting it from gatherings because we can't gather anymore. So I think it's very important that that take place as well, Mr. President. And I would ask that moving forward, if our health director, I know she's busy. I'm not downplaying her role, very busy. But if she can give us five minutes on a Tuesday night to give us an update, I think it would go a long way to alerting this council that feels a lot of phone calls. But as well as the many, many seniors and other residents that can alert their loved ones on what's happening and information that will be vital to their health, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so on the motion, Mr. President, just if I could, Mr. President, and when this pandemic first started, the city administration implemented the R U OK program. And in my opinion, that was a tremendous success, reaching out to thousands of seniors in this community by phone, Mr. President, or by email, and asking if they are OK and if they had any particular needs. And I just think this would be a great program to extend regarding the vaccinations. And I know you were involved, Mr. President, in making the phone calls when this first started. And you made hundreds of phone calls out to seniors. And you would know firsthand that the many thousands of seniors in this community whether they're in the process of getting an injection on their own or so forth, it would be so nice to get a call from city government to say, are you okay now? Do you need assistance with the vaccine? And if the answer is no, then you go on to the next person. And I think that would go a long way. So I would respectfully ask as part of an amendment that the mayor use the our UOK program, which was very successful, and extend that to, do you need a vaccination program? And reach out to all the seniors in the community. Right now, we're looking at phase one. But if you're 65 and older, in my opinion, you should be on the list. They're saying 75 and older now for phase one, and that's fine, and other people with medical conditions and comorbidities and so forth. But I think they should be looking at, the city should be reaching out to people 65 and older, Mr. President, and making those thousands of calls, and let residents know we're there. Let them know we're there. We get the reverse 911 call, that's great. We can see it on local access, that's great. But the personal phone call really goes a long way to let people know, hey, I matter, I care, and someone's looking out for my best interest. And I think we're obligated to do that, Mr. President. So I'd ask that as an amendment as well.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. I want to thank Councilor Falco for putting this on the agenda. This has been a priority of this council for a number of years to get its own representation. It's no different than the Medford School Committee that has their own legal council of which this council on a number of issues I think would benefit from having legal advice that's towards the city council. And with that statement being made, Mr. President, I do want to say the current acting city solicitor has been acting city solicitor for over a year now. One year, Mr. President. And it's about time the city administration makes a move. And in my opinion, they should make the current acting city solicitor the city solicitor and move forward. There's no reason why that position should be held over anyone's head for any length of time, Mr. President. As was stated by my colleagues, the person in that role was the assistant city solicitor under former solicitor Mark Rumley, where I'm sure she learned a lot from solicitor Rumley that was there for over three decades. And I am very confident in her capabilities, Mr. President, as the lead legal counsel in this community, and would respectfully ask that this city administration, they tend to slow down when it comes to appointments and a number of other items, Mr. President, that they appoint this city, acting city solicitor, as city solicitor. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Locks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Falco for offering this. Last week, the Office of Community Development held a housing planning meeting, of which yourself and I attended, as well as many stakeholders in the community. And we got together for an hour and a half and put together a list of priorities for housing stability and other housing needs in the community, and of which notification ordinance was one of them. So I want to thank my council colleague for taking one of the items potentially off the laundry list of housing needs in our community. And I think that'll go a long way to notifying tenants of their rights in this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. If we can also get an update from our state delegation, where this particular request, home rule petition stands as well, so we can hear directly from our state delegation as well. Thank you. Interesting. So moved.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I can ask, because when was the original date, if any, that the council asked for applications for this position?
[Michael Marks]: But the mayor hasn't passed anything on to us saying- I haven't got anything that I haven't seen.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so I think it's fair to say that the administration didn't receive any applications based on the one appointment we have to the Hormel Commission. I would just respectfully ask that we extend this date. publicly state tonight as a council that we will extend it to X date, whatever we agree upon, for applications. That way there's no ambiguity, there's no concern.
[Michael Marks]: And the application should be submitted to the council president or vice president. Right? Yes. So that's what we've done in the past. Yes. Um, and, uh, expressing interest in the Hormel, uh, position.
[Michael Marks]: Just if we could, I just want to make sure maybe if we could put this on community access to get the message out. We don't have many, other than this meeting, we don't have a lot of ways of getting our message out. Or maybe the city administration on behalf of the council can send it out through their channels that we're interested in someone to serve on this board and commission in the capacity of a commissioner of Hormel. Just trying to think of a couple of ways to get it out there.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to understand what I'm voting on because I think it was mentioned that this would not apply to city-owned property. And if that's the case, Mr. President, how do we tell the hundreds of residents in the community that may live next to city-owned property that gets mowed very frequently that their leaf blowers that are being used by the city are not causing pollutants, including carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide, or their leaf blowers don't operate at high decibel levels next to their homes, or their leaf blowers don't launch particulates, potentially hazardous to materials. So are we going to discount hundreds of residents and say this only applies on private lots. I don't know what we're going after, Mr. President, on this. Because if we're going to look into something, I think we should look into it as a whole, Mr. President. And if we're going to look into issues of particulates and air pollutants, I can tell you that my lawnmower probably sends out as much particulates and pollution as a gas blower does. And I can tell you that my snow blower does the same thing, Mr. President. So I just don't know where we're going with the issue. Is this just because other communities have implemented it? We also have noise ordinances within this community that regulate noise levels and decimal levels. We just had an issue with Spring Staff about playing loud music at 11, 12 o'clock at night. that we're trying to resolve, Mr. President. So there are means in this community to address these issues. If the issue is that we want to address these during certain hours of the day or the frequency, then fine. And I think we should be more specific on what the intent is, Mr. President. I really do. And if we're really interested in these issues, how do you discount people that live next door to a park? I'd like someone to address that.
[Michael Marks]: But you just also alluded to the fact that you meant to put in there, this was only private lots. Right? Did you just say that to me?
[Michael Marks]: You just flip-flopped on the issue twice already on this. You said it was private lots and now you're saying you're happy to have the conversation. That's all we're saying as a council. Let's look at this and try to address the needs. Now we can't go back and forth flip-flopping.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Mark says the floor. We'll talk one at a time so we can make an educated and informed decision, Mr. President. So I just want to make sure, because the resolution's asking for one thing. If there's an amendment, I want to make sure that amendment is acceptable to all my colleagues, Mr. President. And I want to make sure that we're talking about apples and not comparing apples to oranges. Because we've heard a lot of things go back and forth regarding lots, private lots, city-owned lots being exempt. And I want to make sure we're on the same page.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I am still waiting for additional information on this subject and would ask that it be tabled.
[Michael Marks]: Just if we could, what are the next steps regarding this?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if they fail to appear in the past, one would think they're probably not gonna appear again. So what are the next steps by the city council? I support this, but I wanna support something that has some tea to it and something that we can act upon. And I'm not quite sure that we're there with this. I know the intent, and I support the intent, but I'd like to see some other steps. Waiting for them to come to a meeting, which may never happen, to me is not a next step. But like I said, I am supportive.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So, Mr. President, are we aware of any particular pieces of legislation that we can look at? That would be helpful.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for putting this on the agenda tonight. You couldn't meet a kinder, gentler man. You know, when I first got elected so many years ago, he was one of the first people that I met at City Hall. And in his capacity as the registrar of voters, you know, he was a very fair man, Tom, if you knew him. You know, he took his job very seriously, although he was one that you could talk to. He was old fashioned in that way, that he'd be willing to lend an ear, lend advice, and he always kept conversations to himself. and just a true family man and someone that will be sorely missed at City Hall, Mr. President. And I, too, want to send out my deepest condolence to his family and friends, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: And I want to thank my colleague, Vice President Knight, for bringing this up. During the deliberation, we were very careful when we selected the 90-day process to allow the Cannabis Advisory Committee to have enough time to do their due diligence and establish the scoring system and the process that they were going to follow. There was originally discussion, if members recall, of a 30-day process, and we didn't think that was adequate enough where you have department heads that have another workload and so forth. So we were very mindful when we set up the 90 days. So I think that timeframe should be adhered to, Mr. President. And this process, after a lengthy process over the last couple of years, this should be adhered to, Mr. President, and move forward.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, I appreciate Councilor Knight bringing this up tonight, uh, where he stated this is a very specific ask. He is a thousand percent correct. And the issue I would have, Mr. President, is that, uh, I would ask that this be properly vetted before it's sent to the traffic commission. uh, sent to the public, uh, safety, um, subcommittee. Um, this has a lot of language in it, Mr. President, that if implemented could have some serious ramifications, uh, to residents in this community. And I understand this is a specific ask for certain things, but as was stated within the last part of this, that the traffic commission consider safeguards as well. And to limit the number of consecutive days, a public hearing take place, restricting vehicle size. how far they can park from a resident, from the address that was given. So I think there's a lot involved with this, and I would hate to send such an important potential change without it properly being vetted. And I would ask that we have our due diligence, take a look at it. There may be some language in there that the traffic commission runs with, that the council may say, you know what, that wasn't our intent. But it's here in the writing, it's here in the resolution that we supported. And I would ask that we send it to the public safety subcommittee. And also, as was stated, we also have a committee that was put together, commissioned by the mayor that's doing their homework and due diligence. I believe I just read they had over 900 responses so far to the survey that was sent out and that's citywide and I think taking into consideration all these particular questions and concerns and issues that are out there is probably a holistic way of looking at it rather than piecemeal and I would prefer that method but I would respectfully ask my colleague, Vice President Knight, if we can send this to the subcommittee on public safety to have it properly vetted before we send out such a request.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. I appreciate that, and I understand that it is under the authority of the Traffic Commission. However, this is making specific recommendations, and there's at least five recommendations, then other requests of the Traffic Commission that are involved in this process. And all I'm saying is, if I give it my stamp of approval, this was written by, I don't know who, maybe Councilor Naira, came from some other community or so forth. I haven't had the opportunity to properly vet it and properly get input. And I think a subcommittee would be the appropriate balance to that. I understand that's not us that's going to implement this and enact this. But to get this on the agenda and for the first time, send it. If you want to send a basic statement that they look at commercial vehicle overnight parking, I'll support that tonight. But based on what's in here, there are a lot of recommendations in here, and I don't feel comfortable sending them.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank whoever got us that information. That was very helpful. The question actually that I asked was the jurisdiction. And it's my belief that the jurisdiction of Thomas Brooks PAC falls under the PAC's commission. And I was wondering if this has been presented for a formal vote to the PAC's commission. Not the PAC's department or public works, but the PAC commission.
[Michael Marks]: So I would respectfully ask, Mr. President, that if we do take a vote tonight, I'm prepared to take a vote, but the vote will be contingent upon, and this is for the dig itself, the approval by the Parks Commission. This subject should be before the Parks Commission for approval, Mr. President, and let them decide whether or not they approve it or not, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I would ask that, you know, if we wanted to vote on tonight, I have no problem with that, but I'll vote be contingent upon approval by the park commission. Yes. Thank you. I know we have supporting documentation. from Brian Cairns and from Mike Nesta. However, as far as I know, this falls under the jurisdiction of the Park Commission and the issue rightfully should be presented to them. Thank you. Vice President Knight.
[Michael Marks]: And I thank Ryan for his comment. And I don't think anyone's opposed to this. we just wanna make sure we're following the proper protocol. And I had a conversation just recently within the past maybe hour, an hour and a half with one of the park commission members. And they said they had a number of questions. Actually, they were asking me the questions I couldn't answer. And they were surprised that it wasn't before the park commission for a formal vote. So I really think that we need to revisit this. Again, I have no problem voting contingent upon their approval. But as long as I've been on the council, anything done on park property has always come under the jurisdiction of the park commission. And I don't see this as any different, Mr. President. And I think we have to follow the proper protocols. Really, that should have been the first step. before, you know, coming to the council, but I have no problem moving forward with it if we make it contingent upon approval by the Park Commission. Thank you. Danielle?
[Michael Marks]: When you say that type of work, when you're talking about digging in a park, I mean, I can't see any more of a reason why you'd go to a park commission, Mr. President, and ask for their blessing, you know? And I mean, I realize the Thomas Brooks Park is kind of off the beaten track and not fully utilized, but this could be any park that they request. It could be the middle of place that park. And I would assume you'd want to follow the same proper protocols and procedures. And I just don't understand. If that's the case, maybe I'll go pick up a shovel and start digging in our box. I mean, it doesn't make any sense to me, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Marks. When we're comparing apples to oranges, you're talking about a capital plan, which clearly the Park Commission wouldn't have the authority to do any type of capital plan because they don't control the purse strings. What we're talking about is the jurisdiction to have someone go onto park property and start excavating on park property, Mr. President. I would say that needs approval by the Park Commission. And even if it didn't, Mr. President, at the very least, before money's approved, that should have been vetted out by the Park Commission, whose sole responsibility is the oversight of the park, Mr. President, and the safety of our parks. Because we don't know what's going to happen when they start excavating, Mr. President. We don't know if it's going to be cordoned off accordingly. We don't know any of this. And the park commission, the commissioner that I spoke to tonight, had a lot of questions on what type of vehicles would be used in there and so forth. And I think at the very least, Mr. President, where they're the commission, Now, if this was a CPC thing and someone said you didn't have to go to CPC for it, I would fight for the fact that CPC should be involved if it was something that's under their jurisdiction. This is no different, Mr. President. And I don't think we should circumvent an established commission in the... I don't know why we'd do it, Mr. President. I think all the members are probably on board, but they really have questions from a member I spoke to. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just think it's important for the edification of the people watching that we met in committee of the whole to discuss all these particular requests and had ample dialogue and discussion and properly vetted this out. So, you know, if someone's tuning in tonight, I don't want them to believe that there's no discussion on the allocations that are presented to us.
[Michael Marks]: All right, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, I wanted to speak on the Brian Branson. I wanted to thank all my colleagues, because that was a unanimous vote by the Medford City Council. And I want to thank the athletic director, Robert Maloney, for his quick action and due diligence, and Hank Moss for his participation in moving this forward, Mr. President. Thank you. Good people doing good things, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll. Yes, Councilor Marks. Tomorrow night's Committee of the Whole, is that gonna be held at City Hall, or are we gonna do it? It'll be at City Hall.
[Michael Marks]: City Hall, okay.
[Michael Marks]: That's correct, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, please read your speech.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the stone wall itself, will the $200,000 cover the entire length of the wall, Doug?
[Michael Marks]: So we don't anticipate coming back for any additional money for the wall itself?
[Michael Marks]: My second question is Thomas Brooks Park. Is that fall under the jurisdiction of the Method Parks Commission? I believe so, but I'm not 100% sure. Roberta, do you know?
[Michael Marks]: So did we get authorization to do a dig on parkland?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so that's why, Mr. President, I asked the question. So the question is, if this is under the jurisdiction of the Medford Park Commission, then they really should give the authority to do digging, Mr. President. And I'm not saying that's not going to be a given, but before we release any money, that should be something that, Mr. President, should be done before the request for money to start digging takes place.
[Michael Marks]: Well, they have to find out if it's under their jurisdiction. If not their jurisdiction, then they would have to contact the administration or the building commissioner or whoever else. would be responsible for city-owned property, maybe the city solicitor, and find out what avenues that have to address in order to do digging, Mr. President. So I would highly recommend that that take place, Mr. President, in order to move this forward. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Vice President Knight and Councilor Scarpelli for co-sponsoring this important resolution. I want to thank Councilor and Vice President Knight in particular for keeping this on our agenda to make sure that along this entire process that our residents have been made aware of updates and what's going on on that particular site. Mr. President, I have just a few things to mention that I spoke about a couple weeks back when we talked about new signage that has been popping up in the Forest Street, Governor's Ave area, which was a combined effort between the city of Medford and the hospital to work on some safety concerns in the general vicinity, of which many of the improvements that have been made I think have really improved public safety and speeding in the area. The one thing I would like to mention, Mr. President, is I have been receiving a number of complaints, and I'm sure my fellow colleagues have also, regarding the speed hump at the top of Governor's Ave. I recently reached out to the traffic engineer, Todd Blake, had a discussion about some of the signage, and some of the residents that live directly near this speed hump are concerned that it's not having the impact that you would think a speed hump would have, slowing down traffic in the area. And they're not sure if it's the elevation that cars are just going over it without tapping their brake or slowing down, or the fact that it blends in with the street. There are a number of concerns, Mr. President. And I would ask, and I'm hoping to hear tonight from LMH, what possibly can be done, and maybe even our traffic engineer, to take a look at this speed hump. Because we want to make sure if we're putting traffic calming initiatives that they serve a purpose and not just to say we did something. And from what I'm hearing from area residents, that hump right now they don't believe is serving a purpose because of its location and proximity. to Saltwater Road and the proximity to the elevation of Governor's Ave, it's not really serving a purpose at all. So I would ask that that be looked at, Mr. President. The second complaint, Mr. President, and I think the hospital is going to speak upon it and expand tonight regarding exterior lighting. I know the owners of 179 Governor's Ave have reached out to members of this council. concerned about some new lighting that I guess at night is shining in some of the residents across Governor's Ave into their windows. I would ask that that exterior lighting be looked at, the lumens, the direction of the light, and see if we could put low lighting lights in their exterior lights. that won't cause the same impact to butters across the street on Governor Zav, in particular 179. So I would ask that LMH do a study on their lights and see what's happening with the lights outside, Mr. President. And the last point I want to make, and I spoke about it last week briefly, was the fact that we all received an email from community advisory group members, of which two of them sent a letter stating that they're resigning for a number of reasons from the community advisory group after giving a couple years of commitment on behalf of area residents to be the eyes and ears of area residents during this whole process. And I would just hope that the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, who came up with the idea with creating this community advisory group, which I thought was a magnificent idea, continue their efforts to work with this group. to make sure that they feel part of the process and be given updates along the entire process, Mr. President. Now that this is up and functioning, it's even more important now than when we were going through construction and everything else, because now we're going to hear from residents about a working facility. And the concern with parking, and traffic, and speeding, and signage, and noise, and everything associated with having a full-fledged ambulatory care facility in this location. And it's of the utmost importance that Lawrence Memorial keep with their commitment. to making sure that they involve the community advisory group as well as the entire city and anything that takes place there. So I would just ask that that be part of their discussions, Mr. President, as well. And I look forward to hear what has to be stated tonight. Thank you. Councilor Scott Beally.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. So Mr. President, I was told by Todd Blake that this was a combined work effort between LMH in the city. So if this aspect was the city's doing, then I would ask that my motion be sent to Todd Blake, the traffic engineer directly and ask if he can take a look at the speed hump at the top of Governor's Ave and to see if it's appropriately functioning in its capacity as a speed hump due to its location to Governor's Ave and the fact that it's going up in elevation, which you very seldom see speed humps on inclines, Mr. President. So I would ask that that be reviewed by our traffic engineer.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank councilor Falco for co-sponsoring this resolution with me. Uh, this council has made great strides over the last several months. I think, you know, we should all be proud of ourself for the initiative, Mr. President, that we took to meet with the area residents, uh, on Fulton spring road to listen to their concerns, Mr. President, when many of them thought that, uh, the city didn't care about, cut through traffic and speeding in the area. And indeed, a number of changes have been made up in that area. We haven't, you know, we're not done with it. A number of changes have been made to take corrective action on some of the concerns of area residents. And this is just another one, Mr. President, that will help provide for pedestrian safety in that area. I want to just reiterate, Mr. President, I know you just sent out your committee, the whole, um, outstanding meetings that, uh, we have a committee, the whole that this council voted on, I believe at least twice, uh, to maintain a presence in that area regarding, uh, safety and cut through traffic. And I would ask once again, Mr. President, when we start going through these meetings that we have a committee of the whole to discuss what I believe is the most important issue in that area, resident only access on certain roads, Molly Hill Road, Fulton Spring Road, Terrace Road, Grover Road, in the interest of public safety. I think we could put all the signage up and all the humps and hurdles and everything else, but unless we defer traffic somewhere else, I think the residents didn't experience and be inundated with this cut through traffic. So at the very least, I think we should try the resident only access or no right turn, no left turn between certain hours. I talked to the city traffic engineer. He said sometimes the resident only is not that effective. He said, however, a no right or no left turn can resolve the same issues, and I'm not opposed to any signage that would solve the issue. So I look forward to meeting with this council and committee to hold to keep this very important issue up, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I don't believe we have to go on site again at this particular point. I think we've all been there. It's just a matter of keeping this issue in the forefront. And two weeks ago, I believe I offered a motion that was unanimously supported by this council, asking the traffic engineer and the traffic commission to once again look at resident only signs. I don't know, Mr. Clerk, if we got a response back. I don't remember seeing anything on that.
[Michael Marks]: That's fine. I don't recall seeing anything. So that's one of the reasons, Mr. President, I ask that we stay on top of these very important issues. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Several months back, the city administration put together several task force, of which one is the Fire Department Facilities Task Force. They've been meeting, I guess, for several months with all the interested parties in the community. And it's my understanding that we have several concerns, immediate concerns, regarding engine four and engine six. for leaking roofs. And these are the buildings that our brave firefighters spend seven days a week, 24 hours a day in when they're not on calls, Mr. President. And it's only important that we stay on top of these aging buildings. I did receive a call this afternoon from the mayor. The mayor stated that they're in the process of hiring a project manager, so once the task force makes their recommendation, they will hire a project manager, and that project manager will be responsible for putting together all the items that the task force discussed on our facilities. As you recall, Mr. President, I think everyone behind this rail was part of the site visits at the fire station, at all our fire stations. And we compiled several lists over the last several years, unfortunately. And many of which have not come to fruition on some of the major concerns that our firefighters face within these aging facilities. And I'm hoping that this task force will reap some results in moving forward on at least addressing some of the health and safety concerns that our firefighters face, not only in fires, but unfortunately at the fire stations as well. And that's, you know. a concern that's been around this community for a number of years, Mr. President. So I would ask that we receive an update from the city administration regarding Engine 4 and Engine 6 roof leaks. And if we can get an update, because it's been a while, on the task force, where it stands, when the recommendations will be out, and when they anticipate a project manager will be hired to move forward on these important issues.
[Michael Marks]: We get an update. Right, an update about engine four and engine six, the roof leaks, and when the task force will be, if we can get an update on the task force, where it stands, and when a project manager will be brought on board. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I don't have any particular questions. I do agree with Councilor Knight that this definitely should be signed off by the school committee. I would ask and maybe, The petitioner would know better than I that if we were to hold off, we don't meet until February 2nd. Is that enough lead time if we were to hold off on this? I don't mind making our paper contingent upon approval from the school committee, which I think may be a better idea. The fee that's being charged, this is a fundraiser if people want to go and partake. They'll pay the additional money, they'll go back to the schools, it's for one day. I really don't think that's an imposition to brick and mortar businesses for the one day, the fact that it's a fundraiser. So I would support this tonight, contingent upon approval by the school committee, Mr. President. So that would be my motion tonight.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, based on my recommendation then, if we approve it tonight, then it'll be up to the organizer to go before the school committee. I don't know when they meet next. They may have to have an emergency meeting or whatever to discuss this or approve it or whatever their protocols are. But at least we're not standing in the way and at this point I feel comfortable. moving it forward, Mr. President, based on what I'm hearing tonight. So I would offer that as a motion that we approve it conditionally based on approval by the school committee for one day, February 10th from four to seven. And the setup begins at 3 p.m. on the Andrews School upon condition and approval by the school committee.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President? Councilor Marks. I agree wholeheartedly with Councilor Knight. And right now we don't have any information to rely on. So if this fundraiser turns out to be successful based on whatever the agreement was, Then next time they come before us, we'll make that determination. If it turns out to be not a big money maker, then we'll make that determination as well. This is not a great fundraiser on behalf of our schools. So I think we need to see what happens and trial by fire, more or less.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I think this was an item that Councilor Knight mentioned a few weeks back during some of our discussion. This is an issue, Mr. President, that deals with this pandemic, in my opinion. This hits to the very heart of trying to assist people that are in tough times right now. And back, I believe it was almost a year ago that the state legislature voted to allow cities and towns to waive interest and penalties on late property tax payments due to the pandemic. And that relief expired actually in June of last year. And I am asking that we take a vote as a council to ask our state delegation to once again implement this program that allows people that may be a little late on their property tax. to not garner the 15% interest on their property tax payment, Mr. President, and penalties. So I would respectfully ask that we send this to our state delegation, asking that they renew the legislation that allowed cities and towns to waive the interest and penalties on late property tax payments, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Locks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? Thank you, Mr. President. What an honor and distinction, Mr. President. These two offices have served this community, the residents of this community, for a combined 66 years. Officer Butts, William Butts, as we know him as Buttsy, we refer to him as. 34 years, Mr. President, served this community. You never met a nicer, kinder gentleman, always willing to help his fellow citizens, and he will be sorely missed, Mr. President. And then Officer Robert Kelly, the same thing, served with distinction for a number of years, was always the first to step up in line when something was needed in the community. And he too will be sorely missed, Mr. President. I hope someday we allow our police officers to come back and do details like they do in other communities. And allow them to be part of the community, Mr. President, and bring back the experience they have for a combined 66 years in this community. So someday, I hope to see that come to fruition. And just one other point, Mr. President, I'd like to make while honoring these two officers, is just recently we all received a call, a reverse 911 call, very serious matter about a woman that was lost within our community on a very cold night, Mr. President. A very dangerous situation, and the way it was handled by Medford Police, the number of cars, the number of officers that were on foot, the number of residents that had gone out in the community. I know Councilor Scarpelli is aware of some firsthand. Honestly, our whole department needs to be congratulated on their fine work, Mr. President, in bringing this woman back to safety. And I just want to personally thank, on behalf of this council, the entire police department, how they handled that situation. Thank you. Councilor Scott Beally.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if we could send two council accommodations to these very fine offices. Yes. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This issue was brought up last week by former councilor Bob Penter, who appeared before the council. He asked that we put it on the agenda, so I sponsored it, Mr. President. This is a little different than my first resolution. which would give people the ability to waive interest and penalties if they're late on their property tax. This would actually allow people to get a discount if they pay their property tax ahead of time. I would respectfully ask, Mr. President, that this be laid on the table until our February 2nd meeting, because I am waiting on additional information regarding how this program could potentially work, and some additional information. So I would ask respectfully that it be laid on the table for two weeks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and like Councilor Falco mentioned, I remember those days where we used to get the budget 24 hours before we were asked to vote on it. And as you know, it's a couple hundred page document that's very involved, and there's no way you can do your due diligence on behalf of the taxpayers of the community without having these pre-budgeted meetings. It was last year that Councilor Falco I think for the first time in a long time, asked that we meet in, I think it was February or March. And then we had COVID hit in March, and naturally that put a kind of a damper on the pre-budget meetings and pushed them down the line a little bit. But that is a magnificent idea, getting ahead of time. This way we can discuss, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, about using other tools in our tool belt. So if we do have a new system that we got an email today regarding C-Click Fix that the administration's been working on, use C-Click Fix to find out what the needs are in the community and base your budget on facts that are coming from C-Click Fix. So these are the things that we can use during the budget process, which have never, to be quite frank, have never been used in the past to make an informed decision. And by starting early, it'll give us the ability to sit down, not under a time clock that's ticking, ticking, ticking, but be able to sit down and methodically go through the budget and ask the questions on behalf of the communities. the community so we can provide the services that they've come accustomed to, Mr. President, and enhance our services at the same time. So I want to thank Councilor Falco for his leadership on this. We've made several changes to the budget. I think, again, one of them was Councilor Falco's request to add the year over year and the projection and so forth. And that way you're not just looking at a budget line item. We can compare it to previous years and what's budgeted, and that's been a very helpful tool as one member of the council. And I want to thank Councilor Falco for his input on this.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Just if I can add, the pre-budget meetings are great. I would also add that we have our council priority list again. I know we did one last year, in the previous year, but times have changed, things have changed, administrations have changed. And I think it's important, Mr. President, that prior to going to a pre-budget meeting, that the council get together and deliberate on what we feel are council priorities, Mr. President. And I would ask that you include that. prior to the pre-budget meeting so we can have those discussions. And maybe members can start jotting their issues of priorities right now so we can get together. And I think it's healthy to have the discussion, healthy to have the maybe disagreements, and move forward what we feel is a council priority on behalf of the community, Mr. President. So I would ask that that be part of the pre-budget deliberations as well.
[Michael Marks]: And I amended Mr. President for the Council priority.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I am thankful for Councilor Falco putting this on. But I also want to be mindful, Mr. President, that the intent of C-Click Fix was to supposedly have one-stop shopping, where you would go online and fill out a form and immediately someone would get back to you addressing your concern. And that has failed over the last two years. And I can personally account for that because the number of calls I receive on basic city services has gone up dramatically because of the fact that people don't have any confidence in see, click, fix. I would just state also, Mr. President, and I look forward to being trained on whatever system I have to be trained. But until I find out that this system is properly working, I'm not going to use it as a form or a method of communication with the department heads or the city administration. When someone reaches out to me, Mr. President, I can't tell them, I got to wait four weeks to get an answer, or the answer is I passed it off to another department head and then it was closed out. So in order for me to use the system, Mr. President, I have to make sure it gets results. And I'm going to wait until it's results based before I start using it, Mr. President. But I am thankful that the city administration saw fit to I'd like to know what updates were changed. That system is pretty basic to me. I've been on it. I'm not sure how you can change it other than behind the scenes to make sure the people that should be getting back to people get back in a timely fashion and close out items and follow through on items. So for that aspect, I hope that is being done. in addition to just updating the system itself, Mr. President. The system doesn't do the work. It's the actual people behind the system that do the work and make sure residents get results. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: President, I'm not opposed to people attending meetings, but I think what the council is asking for is a financial update. And I'm not sure how this established working group is going to be able to add any insight into a financial update from another entity. And they have enough meetings, as Councilor Morell would probably attest to, already and enough on their plate. I'm not sure what good it would be to have them at the meeting. Again, I'm not opposed to people coming to the meeting. They're two completely different entities.
[Michael Marks]: I just would like to say, Mr. President, in my view of this, I think it's a disgrace, Mr. President, that Massachusetts is at the bottom of the list when it comes to vaccine distribution. We have the top hospitals in the world in Massachusetts, the top medical facilities, and we lag behind many other states Mr. President, and the distribution of vaccines. The second point, Mr. President, I made this several weeks ago, is that we're vaccinating members of Congress that are in their 30s and 40s, Mr. President, with no comorbidities, but we can't vaccinate someone in their 70s and 80s. They have to wait two months, Mr. President. It's a disgrace what's going on in this state, Mr. President, and people should be well aware of who's handling this and why it's in the way we are, Mr. President, the shape we're in. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if that's the case, if that's the case, we go on record for everything else. We should go on record sending a message, Mr. President, to our federal delegation stating how disappointed we are with the vaccination sites and the lack of vaccinations that have been distributed in this state. So we go on record on behalf of the seniors and most vulnerable people in our community. Mr. President, that's what we should be doing. I would second that as an amendment.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on, um, you know, a true family man, Mr. McGillicuddy. And, uh, another fact about Mr. McGillicuddy for many years in this community, we would have not had local cable community access. if it wasn't for Mr. McGillicuddy. He's the one that was down there running the programs, making sure we had local programming, and was very instrumental in putting out community access for a number of years, among the many other things as Councilor Knight mentioned about his dedication and commitment to this community. I'll miss seeing them both walking down the square hand in hand, Mr. President, but I wish his family and his wife well in this grieving time, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And if you can set the record straight, I apologize. This was offered by myself and Councilor Scarpelli. And that was my error, Mr. President. Mystic Valley Elder Services represents 11 communities, including Method, and offers one-stop support for older adults, adults living with disabilities, and their caregivers. The service includes transportation, nutrition, at-home care, health benefits counseling, health aging programs, protective services, services supports thousands of Method residents with programs such as Meals on Wheels and the Trip Metro North program, which provides free transportation to medical appointments, shopping, banking, visiting friends, and other activities for our seniors, Mr. President. Karen Rose was recently elected Vice President and has served on the board since 2011 in a number of capacities, such as the chair of the Board of Oversight, and Planning Committee, and a member of the Board's Executive Finance Committee. Karen served with distinction, Mr. President, for 15 years as the Director of Medford's Public Health Department during difficult times, stepped up and held dual roles as Director of Responsibilities for five years as both Public Health Director and Elder Affairs Director. I've been doing this for a number of years, Mr. President, And I never like to rate people, but Karen was top notch. She truly is, Mr. President. Whatever she did, she did to her fullest. She continues to do to her fullest. She gave this city everything as the head of public health and elder affairs, two very difficult positions, as you can imagine. And she ran them, let me tell you, with the utmost confidence, Mr. President, and not one of those programs ever slacked for a minute while Karen Rose was in charge, Mr. President. You know, you knew when Karen walked in the room, She was very assertive in what she said, but she was also, Mr. President, someone that had a lot of feelings and someone that really cared about people and really cared about what she did in this community. And all too often, I think that gets lost in a lot of translation nowadays. People get more involved with the job and less about the people it impacts. And truly, Karen would be out there during every vaccination for the flu shot, would be out there. The director didn't have to be out there, Mr. President, but she cared about what was going on in this community. She cared about the seniors. You couldn't have a day without seeing Karen at the senior center when they had their many programs over there, Mr. President, and the bingos and everything else. I don't know how she does. She must have had a twin because she divided herself equally Mr. President, with two very taxing responsibilities in this community. And I just want to congratulate her on her election to the Vice President of a very important organization that continues to assist thousands of Method residents in this community, Mr. President. And I would like to send a citation to Karen congratulating her on behalf of her recent election. And also, Mr. President, for her 15 years commitment to the residents of this community, in particular to the seniors of this community, Mr. President. And I wish her well, Mr. President, in her future endeavors. Thank you. Councilor Scott Belli.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Marksley and Councilor Scott Kellogg for putting this on.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Um, and I want to thank my colleagues, vice president, um, night and Councilor Scarpelli, uh, for putting this on the agenda.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Right. Cause I think their letter refers to item 21-016. Okay. Not this paper, but I was curious, Mr. President, because as council vice president, um, Knight adequately stated that there has been a lot of change at Lawrence Memorial. The parking lot, the structure itself, signage. However, Mr. President, when they do come up before the council, I would hope they can answer a few questions. I received two calls from community advisory group members, which is the CAG group. And that was established to get direct abutters and area residents to give input to the hospital during this entire process. And it's my understanding from talking to a few of the CAG members that it started out pretty good and the input was there from area residents. in this CAG committee and then slowly but surely it started to dissipate and some of the members feel that they're not involved or at least advised on what's happening in the latest and greatest updates and they have some concern Mr. President. Also this council voted unanimously on a couple of conditions uh, just recently. And one of them was the icebox that's, um, on the top of the building. And, um, it was stated at the time that, uh, due to, I guess, uh, the fire department's request that that icebox couldn't be contained with an outer wall and so forth. And I'm not disputing that. Um, that is a fire safety concern. And, uh, that was raised. However, The CAG was under the impression that the box itself would be uh, a different, uh, aesthetically pleasing exterior would be put on the surrounding of this box. And I do agree when you go out, I, it does stick out. I know they try to do some painting and so forth, but the box definitely sticks out and it's not aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. So, uh, I would ask once again, Mr. President, when they come up that, uh, that issue of the icebox be revisited. on behalf of not just this council, but the members of the CAG who have asked repeatedly that something be done with that, Mr. President. There was also some concern about construction materials that are left in the parking lot, including heavy equipment that's been in the parking lot. And if that equipment is no longer being utilized, and if the materials are no longer being utilized, residents would ask that construction equipment and materials be moved in the interest of public safety. So I would just ask Mr. President when they do come before us that they open the lines of communication with the CAG group who is the eyes and ears of the community and this council. And if they feel slighted, Mr. President, that doesn't speak well for what's taking place and the oversight that the neighborhood and director butters should have regarding this entire process. So I just want to put that out there, Mr. President. Uh, the facility does, in my opinion, uh, I'm very pleased with how it generally looks. Um, The configuration of the lot I think will be workable. Some of the signage that has been put out there I think will assist with safety concerns. The other issue that was not addressed, Mr. President, is the issue that was brought up by many members of this council was the ADA access. And I know we requested that our ADA monitor in the city review ADA access within that facility and that a study be done. And I would ask that part of this paper, if my colleagues would indulge me, that we send this back to the city administration because that was a condition that was laid on the approval of the ambulatory care center. So I would ask that that, um, ADA access, an update on that report, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I think that's what Councilor Knight has requested, so I would agree with that. But I want to make sure, Mr. President, that they have a week to discuss the issues of the lack of communication, the icebox, and the equipment that's on the lot, as well as the ADA issues that were brought up during the conditions approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Paper 20-625 was offered by myself several weeks back. It was regarding having an on-site committee of the whole meeting at Fulton Spring Road, which we did on Saturday, November 21st at 11 AM. Every member of the council was present along with the mayor, DPW commissioner, and traffic engineer, and the city engineer, as well as a number of residents, Mr. President. And there were a number of issues discussed. The council offered a number of recommendations. be sent to the Traffic Commission and the City Administration, of which some were done pretty quickly. There was striping done at some of the intersections. Just recently at the top of Vista Rav, where there was concern about a rotary at the top of Vista Rav, that was highlighted by some markings and signage. So there was some positive moves made from this meeting that we had. However, Mr. President, there was also a recommendation made by myself that we reconvene two weeks after the November 21st meeting. And we have yet to meet. I understand it was Christmas and New Year's and it was a very difficult time to get together. However, I wanted to make sure that we did not drop the ball on this, and that's why I'm offering tonight that we find out where we stand on a number of the recommendations that were made, Mr. President. One in particular, which residents keep calling me on, is the fact that one of the recommendations that was made was put forth by myself and offered by myself and a resident, Mr. Bailey. We asked, and it was approved by this council, that we erect limit access signs at Fell's Ave, Marley Hill Road, Fulton Spring Road, Terrace Road, and Grover Road in the morning and afternoon peak hours in both directions. And that was a key point, Mr. President. It was great that we were able to put some signage up and we were able to paint some markings. some crosswalks. However, the issue that I'm hearing still from residents is the speeding cut through traffic. If you were to rate it on a scale of one to 10, to me, that issue is the 10. That is the most important issue that I'm hearing from residents in the area, that the speeding cut through traffic is of utmost concern. So I ask once again, Mr. President, and this was voted unanimously by the Medford City Council at that Committee of the Whole on the 21st, that once again, we direct this back to the city and to, um, the traffic commission requesting that resident only limit access signs be placed at Falzav, Murray Hill Road, Fulton Spring Road, Terrace Road, and Grover Road in the interest of public safety during peak morning and afternoon hours in both directions. And this is not a first, this has been done in many sections of the community. Enforcement is very important as well. You can put up all the signage, but it's important that we also ask that increased enforcement coupled with these signs take place in that area to help ease concerns. I just want to read off a few, Mr. President. I went through the committee report, and it's been a month and a half now. But I think it's important to remember what's being done currently with some of the striping and signage, and what the request was of residents. Because all too often, we bring things up. And they get forgotten about. And I want to make sure that this council, and I know we will stay on top of this. So speeding and consistent police presence with cut through traffic. was a concern that was raised over and over again according to the committee report. That we suppress certain streets from the Waze app. And I believe it was mentioned by the traffic engineer, Todd Blake, that they only do it regarding construction purposes. And I'd like to get more involved and see what we can do, because this is clearly not a construction purpose. This is a public safety purpose. And I think that would trump construction work with ways. So I'm not quite sure why. public safety would take a backseat. So I think we need that looked at again. Difficulty getting out of the driveways. I think if we are able to stop this cut through traffic, I think that'll solve some of the concerns with residents getting out of their driveway. I don't have to tell Councilor Falco about that. He deals with it on a daily basis. The radar feedback signs installed in the neighborhood. Residents were looking for additional radar feedback signs. As I mentioned, more police presence. Concerns on parking on the sidewalks. And that still takes place up in many sections of the city, in particular in the heights, because of some of the narrow streets and so forth. There's a lot of sidewalk parking, which poses a concern for residents that may have to go into the street. And that's a public safety concern, Mr. President. Stop signs at Rockland Road and Fels Ave. I know there were a number of residents there that were pushing that, Mr. President. And the confusion about the rotary at the top of Vista Ave. from what I hear has now been somewhat resolved with additional markings and a sign that was put at that rotary to better define the area. And I want to thank the DPW and Todd Blake for moving forward in that. So I would hope Mr. President that this council stays on top of this issue and that we receive through my motion tonight requesting that the traffic commission and the city administration look at the limited access signs on the roads that I mentioned already that we stay on top of this very important issue.
[Michael Marks]: Are you asking for an onsite meeting or just?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, while we have this, uh, meeting that I appreciate council Falco calling for, um, also, and I brought this up in the past to 40 Salem street, uh, the building apartment building that was put up there. uh, there were several promises made, uh, to area residents that live on, uh, Everett and, uh, Connors, Everett and Salem, uh, regarding curbing, uh, on the street, sidewalk, uh, and so forth. And I think it's important, Mr. President, that these promises when they met with the neighborhood, when the development met back some year and a half ago and promised X, Y, and Z that we follow through, Mr. President. So I would ask that 240, Salem Street be added to the conversations when we discuss these other issues as well.
[Michael Marks]: I want to thank my council colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, for co-offering this resolution. We both received, and I'm sure members of the council also received, a number of phone calls over the last week and a half with a number of new signs that have been popping up on Lawrence Road, Governor's Ave, and Forest Street. Many residents saw some spray painting on the sidewalks. to indicate maybe some utility work or possible signage going up. But they were never notified or didn't know what was going to happen in front of their homes. Just recently, Mr. President, the city, in conjunction with Lawrence Memorial Hospital, entered into an agreement based on a traffic study that was done by Lawrence Memorial Hospital and also a traffic study that was done by the city of Medford. regarding traffic calming initiatives with the new ambulatory care center that's going at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. So some additional signage was recommended, which I support 1,000%. I just want to let that be known. Some of the signs that went up, in particular, these radar traffic signs that went up didn't make any sense, the placement of the signs. The one on Lawrence Road, which was coming around the bend from Forest Street, was about maybe 200 feet into Lawrence Road, right before a speed hump. It just made zero sense, Mr. President. And after a few phone calls, I know Councilor Scarpelli and I'm sure other members of the council made some phone calls. to the traffic engineer, Todd Blake, and had a discussion with the mayor. They looked into the four signs that were put up at the recommendation of this traffic study, but the launch board hired a vendor that put these signs up. Come to find out all four signs were put in the wrong space, in the wrong area, some not even remotely close to where they should have been placed. Needless to say, right away, I have to say, the city got on top of it, and they reached out to Lawrence, and Lawrence reached out to their vendor, and these signs were moved within a matter of a day or two. And I want to thank them for that, Mr. President. In addition to the additional signage, residents were concerned about the number of signs, the excessive number of signs on the roads in their particular neighborhood, turning some areas, some stretches, into what would look like Route 1. That many signs. So I went down to Lawrence Road, the stretch from Forest Street to Governor's Ave, and I counted a total on both sides, a total of, and that small stretch, it's probably five to 600 feet from Forest to Governor's Ave on Lawrence Road. I counted 14 signs. Some signs are needed, they're necessary, but there were some signs that were excessive. I think to have two signs notifying residents on each side, or drivers on each side of the street, that there's a speed hump, I think is excessive. And there's not there's not one on Winthrop Street for the speed hump to signs notifying It just seems excessive. Mr. President. There's some outdated signage that still exists regarding a school that we used to have at the top of the Fulton school and not the Fulton school on the top of governor's Forest Park at the top of Governor's Ave. There's still signage on Lawrence Road for crossing students and you could tell these signs are from the 60s and 70s and there's no crosswalk there anymore there's just signs and We received the correspondence from the city that DPW just recently removed some of this excessive signage that's around, Mr. President. And I ask that they keep on removing some of the excessive signage around the community that's not needed. Sometimes when you have a plethora of signs, you might as well not put up any at all. Because one after another, after another, is gonna do nothing to reduce speed, to make people aware of what's gonna happen, to make crossing safer. It's gonna do absolutely nothing, Mr. President. It's just gonna be a blur of signage. And I think that's what we're seeing in certain stretches. So again, I wanna thank Councilor Scarpelli, I know he has a lot to say on this too, for putting this on. And I wanna thank the city administration and Lawrence Memorial Hospital for their quick action on this.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Uh, just if I could, before you call the roll, uh, cause Councilor Scarpelli just jogged my, my memory on that. The, uh, the raised speed bump, he's thousand percent correct. It blends in with the street. It's actually hot top.
[Michael Marks]: And it's such a slight raise, and I'm sure it's done according to whatever the engineering specs are, but it's very difficult. I know there's signage indicating there's a speed hump, but it's very difficult to know that it's there. And the intent is not to sneak up on people and say, ha ha, we got you on a speed hump. It's to let people know that it's there so they can slow down. And after standing out there for a good 15 to 20 minutes, when I was walking with one of the residents, we didn't see many tail lights, you know, brake lights. Everyone was just going right over it, like it didn't exist, to be honest with you. And I think it would be helpful, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, to maybe have a directional white arrow or something that delineates the edges like we do up on Winthrop Street, that shows that there's a raised hump, a speed hump, whatever you want to call it, that exists there. And I think that will go a long way for residents to slow down when they see something, an impediment in the road, rather than just, it looks like there's nothing there. And really, I've done it myself actually, going over it, and you don't realize it until you're on the top of it and say, geez, I just hit this thing again. And that's not the intent. The intent is to slow down ahead of time. Mr. President. So I would ask if we can make a part of the committee report that, um, that we send this, uh, to the, uh, Todd Blake and ask them that they paint or put some design on it or something to make it more noticeable.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this is really, Follow up, back in 2017, as my resolution alluded to, this method city council at the recommendation of the city administration at the time and the water sewer commissioners asked for the council to vote on a proposed baseline charge for water and sewer services. And the explanation that we received at the time was to assist with stabilizing the water and sewer budget. One could debate that until the cows come home because we, for many years, have looked at a $5 to $6 million surplus in the water and sewer enterprise accounts, which would indicate to me that we are overcharging water and sewer rate payers in order to have a slush fund available. So that the issue of stabilizing the budget could be debated. However, Mr. President, the base rate at the time, which was implemented was based on your meter size. And most residential homeowners have the same meter size. It's the size water pipe that's coming into your home that indicates the $8.61 base rate that you pay. Commercial would have a larger water pipe coming in, and they would pay a higher rate. So the vast majority of residents, We're paying the $8.61. The charge was a bimonthly charge. So if you do the math, the 861 times 6 would bring you to an annual $51.66 that this base rate was charging residents. I still have not yet to receive any answer other than stabilizing a budget. What residents get for this? additional tax, I would call it a tax. And I think it's important, Mr. President, that we receive an update. This has been three years now. Indeed, has this been successful in stabilizing the budget? If so, I'd like that explained to me by the city administration, by the finance director, the water and sewer commissioners, and also the questions that were asked, Mr. President. about a breakdown of where the funds go. I believe it's very vital if the funds are co-mingled with the Water and Sewer Enterprise account money, we should know that. If not, if they're held in a separate account, is that account used to offset projects that are happening in the community, leak detection, INI, and a breakdown by commercial versus residential fees that are collected. I think that about covers it, Mr. President. Tonight we have a very distinguished Method resident that would like to speak on this. A former colleague of ours who served on this council with distinction for three decades, over three decades, is here tonight to speak on this, Mr. President. So I had asked that my former colleague, Councilor Penta, be able to speak on this, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague Councilor Penta for his presentation tonight. Um, you know, uh, the resolution was regarding the base fee charge. Uh, but I think Councilor Penta brings up some very interesting points, Mr. President, regarding these additional charges. And it's not just one item, it's a number of items that exist within our community. And at some point, I think as a council, when we're talking about people not being able to afford their rent or their mortgage, and people living from paycheck to paycheck, and a pandemic, I think we have to look at everything that may be available to help relieve uh, the taxpayers of this community. And, uh, he brings up some very valid points. Um, since I've been on the council, I've offered at least three resolutions, uh, to do away with the acts of 1982. I don't know if my colleagues, uh, haven't done a number of years now cause it kind of fell on deaf ears for a period of time. But the acts of 1982, the city council voted by home rule petition to allow the city to get up to 5% of a franchise fee on the cable bills. That's the highest you can get. And I'm not opposed to using franchise fees to run the operation of community access, the educational channel, the government channel. However, out of the 5%, only 2% of the money goes to operate those three channels. 3% because of this act of 1982 goes back into the city coffers. And it's nothing more than another hidden tax in this community, Mr. President. And that 3% is about $360,000 a year that goes back into the city coffers. Some would say, that's great, the money's going back into the city coffers. Other would say, you know what, that's not what this money was intended. The purpose was to run local access, local cable, community access, governmental channel, and not to fund the city budget, Mr. President. So Council Penta brings up, that's just one issue, a number of issues that I think we as a council need to take a look at and address in these tough times. And they're not going to get better quickly. And any way we can save the rate payers some additional funds, I think we need to look at it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: All in a motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I am curious about the deadline discount program that Councilor Penter mentioned. I would not be opposed to putting it on the agenda for next week. where we can't vote on anything tonight, where this was just presented. And asking next week that the finance director do some due diligence and let us know how this program would work, if indeed it would work in this community. And if we'd be able to provide the same services, if a certain number of people took advantage of this discount program. And I think any information regarding it would be helpful, Mr. President. Thank you. I know, I know in the past, um, many years ago, we looked at tax amnesty. We looked at a number of ways, creative ways of generating additional revenue. Uh, and, uh, this may be a creative way if it works for our community. If it doesn't work, then we don't entertain it, but it's worth looking into.
[Michael Marks]: Council Marks, if you put that on the agenda, I will make sure that, uh, I would ask that where it's brought up by a resident that it appear on next week's agenda. If you're going to present it, I will be the sponsor. Okay. I would ask that we put on the agenda.
[Michael Marks]: If you could, yes. That it be discussed, a very general resolution, that it be discussed.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to adjourn. Mr. President, before you call the motion, I just received notice of a condolence. If you would indulge me, that's the passing. Faye Gertrude Snow, Mr. President. Faye was a longtime Method resident. She was the first lady of Method back some many years ago. She was married to the Honorable James Kirker, who served as Method's mayor, and they raised their family in Method. And from what they tell me, Faye was a very charitable a natured woman and very compassionate and very involved in the community for a number of years, Mr. President. And we just lost Faye Gertrude Snow. And I would like to have this meeting named in her name, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Clerk? Yes, Councilor Marks. I'd like to put the name forth for Council President Richard Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Richard Caraviello. Richard Caraviello. No.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Clerk?
[Michael Marks]: I'd like to put in nomination the name of Adam Knight for vice president.
[Michael Marks]: I do.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to close.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Present.
[Michael Marks]: Adam Night.
[Michael Marks]: Nice seeing you, Sylvia. Bye, Sylvia.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to concur with my colleague, Vice President Knight, that Stevens Towing has been a long recognized good business in this community. They're always willing to step forward in the time of need when the city calls upon them. And this seems to me just a way of streamlining their business. And I also have no problem with this, so I would move approval as well.
[Michael Marks]: No, I'm good, thank you. You're good, you're good.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm kind of taken back. I'm just hearing this now, and I'm very sorry for the loss of Mr. Brady. He was a long time member of this community, very active, good family man, father, grandfather, and just an all around good guy, and he'll be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I did not find them in order, and I'd ask that they be laid on the table for one more week.
[Michael Marks]: He's muted.
[Michael Marks]: It looks like everyone's frozen.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Just a clarification. On the legal notice that was sent, it says that new joint poll P2818, And then if you look at the schematic, it says P3818. So on the legal notice on the first page, it says poll 2818, and then the schematic says 3818.
[Michael Marks]: So it appears that there'll be a pole 3817, looks like it's on the property line of 97 and 93 Mitchell. Yep. and then pole 3818 looks like it's on the property line of zero Mitchell, which is probably a lot of vacant lot.
[Michael Marks]: Is that common to have telephone poles that close?
[Michael Marks]: Will this pole have a street light on it?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Okay, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? I'm sure the abutters were notified as well, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Motion for approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Marianne and her staff. It has been a trying time. And I want to thank, Mr. President, the residents of this community who have been dealing with this for 10 months and have, I think, done a tremendous job, Mr. President, in social distancing and watching out for their neighbors, watching out for people with comorbidities, and trying to do the best they can for their families and themselves in this trying time. So I think they deserve a round of applause as well. Marianne, any idea how many vaccines we're going to get in this community? Yeah, not specificity yet.
[Michael Marks]: Phase 1B.
[Michael Marks]: So, Marianne, when you say phase one, is the city of Medford involved with the distribution of vaccinations in phase one for police, fire, and first line responders?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So every first responder in the city of Medford will be guaranteed that the city of Medford will have their vaccine? Or when you say regional, I kind of get lost because I'm not sure who's the direct responsibility when it comes to regional.
[Michael Marks]: So Mary Ann, what is the total number of our police and fire personnel?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so now we're talking two different things. Willing to take and the number of first line responders that we have. Because we have over 200 in my last count during budgeting of police and fire.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So why wouldn't we go to whoever is distributing this and say, we need 200 vaccines for our police and fire?
[Michael Marks]: And if that number changes, if I said, no, I don't want to do it, then I decide to do it, is it a quick turnaround to get the vaccine?
[Michael Marks]: OK, that makes zero sense to me. If we have the 200 requirement, that we wouldn't just get 200 vaccines.
[Michael Marks]: Right, I understand that. But then when you start looking at first line responders, there's EMS. You have, in my opinion, phase 2 with seniors. Any idea when phase 2 is going to happen? February. In February? That's what we're being told. Do we know mid-February, late February?
[Michael Marks]: February to March. So it's another two months before.
[Michael Marks]: Sure. So, seniors that currently get the flu vaccination by the city, is it going to be the same process and setup? I hope so.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And how do we know the numbers? Naturally, you're not going to be able to check with every senior that may want the vaccine. So how will you order the vaccines for our phase two senior population?
[Michael Marks]: And as far as you know, and I appreciate you answering all these questions, I realize this is a moving target. So as far as you know, in order to obtain a vaccination, you have to go on the state website, expression right now.
[Michael Marks]: I'm just trying to figure it out. Cause I'm getting, I'm fielding a lot of questions from seniors asking when the city will get everybody wants to know.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I guess if you're in Congress, you overstep all these phases, and you can get your shot right away, because we know how essential people in Congress are. And they can get their shot immediately.
[Michael Marks]: What health people are not in phase one? They're not in phase one. Okay, well, maybe you have to run for Congress to get your shot. So, and I realize, you know, you don't have all the answers now, but I really am curious how this is going to roll out in the community. And we're partnering with the state, and right there, I don't have a lot of confidence in how the state operates, to be quite frank. So that worries me a little bit, the fact that the only option may be at this particular point. to have someone go on the internet and pull out an application, and knowing that there's a fair number of people that don't have internet access, a fair number of people that may not have the whereabouts to do that, and I'm wondering what process we're going to set up, and this may be too early for you now, but I'm sure these discussions should be had right now. Yeah, we're in those discussions, and we will.
[Michael Marks]: I understand that. I just want to make sure that when the time comes that we're not sitting here saying, well, I wish we had enough vaccinations because we didn't realize that this many people wanted the vaccination. And I just want to make sure that's well thought out before we enter that phase. And I want to make sure we hit all segments of our population. So not just the elite, that are up in Congress or have the, where the means to get their vaccination before anyone else, before anyone else, you know, get their fair share as well.
[Michael Marks]: And I don't doubt that process. And my last question is, what percent of the testing that currently happens in Method consists of Tufts testing?
[Michael Marks]: Were Tufts. So I don't want to speak out of turn, but it's clear to say if the Tufts testing dwindles, that Medford's going to find itself in the red pretty quickly.
[Michael Marks]: You said you think so?
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, I believe so. Right. I would think so, too. And we all know, yeah. Right. And I don't think that should alarm anyone, but I think it's important to know because as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, you know, we went from being the yellow to the red back to the yellow. Now we've been in the yellow for quite some time or the green or whatever color we've been in. We haven't reached that red point and it's merely because of the testing, as Councilor Morell mentioned too, for Tufts. And that's going to be very interesting to see what those numbers will be like once that, once that testing goes down, but I appreciate your time. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I'd be remiss if I didn't say anything about Patrick. Patrick's been on board several years now, Mr. President, and let me tell you, the change in this community regarding PEG access, which is the public educational and government channel, has been tremendous over the last several years since Patrick came on board. I remember a day when we used to go in the side room, Mr. President, and have some meetings, committee hall meetings and subcommittee meetings. And guess what? That side room now, it's all televised. It's all open for the public, it's all transparent, and that is largely due to the efforts of Patrick Gordon and the expertise that he brought, Mr. President. And I agree with my colleagues over the last 10 months, Patrick was the first to step up. and make sure that this council had a forum, make sure that we had access to Zoom, make sure that it was compatible to our equipment here, and he's done yeoman's work, Mr. President. There's a movement in Congress to do away with PEG access. And I think it would be one of the worst things to do, Mr. President, in order to stifle open dialogue, stifle participation. And I hope it goes nowhere. But I know there's a movement afoot because of the cost. But the cost to me, the transparency And public input far outweighs any cost, Mr. President. And that's what good government's all about. And we truly have a winner in Patrick. And I think Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, it's a staff of one person, one person. When Patrick has to say, hey, can you do this? He has to look in the mirror, because he's telling himself to do it. There's no one else in his office. It's amazing what this gentleman puts out for a one-person office. Go to Somerville, go to Malden, go to Arlington. They have a full-fledged department with multiple people. And here he is pulling it off with one person. I want to thank him. It's well-warranted, Mr. President, and Patrick, keep up the good work.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my council colleague, Councilor Knight, for putting this on. My question to the Chief of Staff is, what would it take to put together a monthly warrant articles for this council?
[Michael Marks]: So this is a doable request then? For sure, yep. So do we, and I appreciate what Councilor Knight is offering, but do we have to go through the process of creating an ordinance in order to get this reporting? Or is this something we can receive a commitment that this will be a monthly report going forward that we will receive from the administration?
[Michael Marks]: I'm not opposed to putting together an ordinance. I think that would be a last resort in my opinion. I think there should be that mutual respect among the legislative and the executive branch when we request information. I appreciate my colleagues, frustration with not receiving things in a timely fashion, especially when it comes to financial reports. I know other communities, they meet constantly. They have working groups that meet and go over warrant articles and so forth and see where the spending is and make recommendations. And as far as I know, that's really never happened with this council and I can appreciate this fact. that this is something that we should be receiving going forward. So, you know, I'll support this tonight. I hope there's no need to draft an ordinance and so forth, but if that's the druthers of this council, I will support that as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think my colleague, Councilor Knight, made a great explanation of what this is trying to accomplish. And many of the crucial pieces of legislation that we put forth require three readings. And I think what Councilor Knight is getting at, a public hearing is really no difference than any other important document we work on. And what happens in a city ordinance, the first reading is what appears on the agenda. So a public hearing appears on the agenda for the first time. The difference between the public hearing and the three readings is the three readings then require you to put notice in the newspaper, then require you to come back for a third reading for final approval. None of that takes place during a public hearing. So my colleagues write. What typically happens is we'll listen, we'll hear both sides, and then typically act. So I agree with 90% of this language. I'm not sure. The six-day calendar day, I think we can debate about that. But there has to be a grace period, which allows for public comments. And I agree with that. Public comments can also be put forth ahead of time However, if you're not aware of what the petition is going after until that meeting happens, then how do you make a comment on something you're not aware of? And there may not be enough information that's presented on the council agenda or so forth to make an informed decision. So I have no problem with that. And I think the section five, which gives us the option, sometimes we may have a public hearing that we want that vote that night, because it's an issue of utmost importance, public safety, whatever it might be, and we want to act quickly. And this gives us an option to act quickly by a majority vote of the council if we deem necessary. So I like 90% of this language. I would ask that it be sent to, I concur with. rules with Council Vice President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and Councilor Bears is correct. This paper was referred to, paper 20-302, was referred to the subcommittee on the elderly and housing affairs on April 7th. The paper read, it was offered by Councilor Bears, be it resolved that the mayor and Board of Health implement an emergency order to require that no landlord and or owner shall enforce an eviction upon a resident of Medford, residential or commercial, during the public health crisis. We did have a public hearing. I was shown April 22nd. I might be off on the days. I know Councilor Beall said the 25th. But sometime at the end of April, we did have a public meeting on this. There were a number of people who attended. I know myself and Vice President Caraviello, I believe, is on the subcommittee. We actually voted on sending out to the city solicitor to draft an ordinance, Mr. President, and to provide us some assistance regarding The Housing Stability Task Force, that was passed 3-0 by this council. I have yet to see any response regarding that ordinance as part of paper 20-300, which I believe was offered by Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: That was to give guidance and other assistance for Method residents. So I've yet to see any action on that paper as well. But as far as I know, paper 20-302 was left in subcommittee. And part of it was because the state was working on their eviction moratorium and their program. But that doesn't mean this can't be resurrected, and I think that would be the appropriate direction to go rather than just create multiple papers. This is very similar subject matter. I would recommend that the chair set up an elderly and housing affairs subcommittee and discuss the paper that's currently before us, which is in line with, I believe, is being offered this evening. And move in that direction, Mr. President. So that's what I would recommend tonight. I agree with your ruling as well, Mr. President. These are very similar in nature. And we're already dealing with the paper currently before subcommittee, and that could be called at any particular time. Also, Mr. President. Just so people are aware, there are a number of great programs. I work for the Department of Housing and the rapid rehousing programs with raft, home base, there's an influx of money, transitional assistance. The city council voted. to use community preservation money for the rental assistance program. And we just got a report on that several weeks back, how Medford residents are taking advantage. I realize this is not a solve-all, but there are a number of programs out there to assist, Mr. President, and help residents that are the most needy in our community stay within their housing right now, Mr. President. So if people aren't aware of that, and that's why I thought the housing stability hotline I thought that was a magnificent idea. But it's been eight months and for the past eight months people could have been using that hotline in order to make these phone calls and find out what may be available out there. So I think we did miss a little bit of an opportunity to try to implement this. I realize if this council passes that forward, it still has to be implemented by the city administration. So I'm not saying that we have the ability to single handedly do this, but I think there was some low lying fruit with the housing stability task force and the hotline that the subcommittee could have worked on in the past eight months. And I'm hoping the chair calls for a meeting very shortly.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Moreau.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Yes, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. During our last Wednesday's meeting regarding this particular, the Committee of the Whole, these particular items, there were, I believe, one or two recommendations made. So I would ask that the recommendations made by the Committee of the Whole follow the approval of this paper, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with a lot of the speakers that this is an emergency issue. And this particular resolution is asking for the administration to act. So I think people should be picking up the phone, sending emails, contacting the mayor's office, because this seems like a roundabout way to get something done that's an emergency. So I would urge people, like I'll do tomorrow, pick up the phone and call the administration, Mr. President, and have them implement it, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Marks. So a very similar paper has been in subcommittee for eight months, Mr. President. You are correct. Eight months. The moratorium ended, I believe, on October 18th in Massachusetts. I may be off on that, but I thought I read on October 18th. So it's been two months, Mr. President, that the subcommittee could have met. Correct. Two months.
[Michael Marks]: We met when the paper was sent to subcommittee on April 7th, and we met on subcommittee two weeks later. That's how quickly it happened, Mr. President. We met on April 22nd. So if this was an emergency, Mr. President, on October 18th, we should have had a meeting the following week. I would agree. To go over the paper that was in subcommittee. I'm not saying it's not an emergency, Mr. President, but I just think this is a real roundabout way of getting something done. And if people truly want to get something done, then let's act, Mr. President. As I mentioned earlier, we got the housing stability hotline that we mentioned eight months ago. Eight months ago, that would be a real use in this community. We mentioned about the Housing Stability Task Force, another real use. And we heard from one of the speakers that hasn't met since May, Mr. President. So we're missing a lot of opportunity to move forward on items, Mr. President. And I think some people are spinning their wheels in the wrong direction. So I'm more than happy, Mr. President, to move issues forward. But we have to do it in a way that makes sense, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Eight months. So if we want to look to see where maybe something didn't get followed through, it's with that paper and those issues that were before the subcommittee, Mr. President. Because even if the moratorium was on place, you could still work at some point, it's going to end. And you could still work to that end point, Mr. President. And that didn't happen. There was no planning, no follow-up meetings, Mr. President. And maybe that's where the ball was dropped.
[Michael Marks]: Well, you should have been yelling from the highest mountain if that hasn't happened in eight months, because this is an emergency. Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, I work with homeless families on a daily basis. I know you do. On a daily basis, trying to get homeless families and homeless individuals into permanent housing. So I know what the need is. I know what the demand is, Mr. President. So I see it on a daily basis. If this is an emergency, we should have acted over the last eight months, Mr. President, and it is an emergency.
[Michael Marks]: just a birthday announcement. Absolutely. A longtime friend, Patty Silva, is celebrating her 91st birthday. 91 years old young, Mr. President. And she's a tremendous woman. She gets on the bus almost daily and goes to Davis Square, gets out there, has her lunch, comes back on the bus. She's a tremendous woman, a tremendous mother, wife. And I wish her well, and I wish her many more birthdays to follow.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could, and I understand what Councilor Knight's intent is, there are areas in the city that strictly have just asphalt sidewalks. And I just want to make sure that we're not just discontinuing the use of asphalt in general, because there are areas in the city that require the replacement of asphalt. So I just want to make that known. I think Councilor Layton is pushing for where it's replacing existing cement sidewalk, but I just want to make sure we're not discontinuing the use of asphalt in general.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and it's an honor and pleasure to speak tonight on behalf of Brian Branson, Mr. President. Anyone that has come in contact with Brian or personally knows Brian can attest to his character, Mr. President. Brian is a courageous man. While fighting and battling a current illness, he still gives himself to others, Mr. President. and still finds time in his own trying time to find time to be kind to others and to donate his time, Mr. President, which to me speaks volumes about a person and who they are. He's a true gentleman. He's a kind heart and a good friend. And I know there are a number of people, Mr. President, that have contacted me that would like to speak on Brian's behalf. However, where Zoom is not operating tonight, I would ask that you give residents the liberty next week if they choose to speak on this, Mr. President. So I would respectfully ask that that happen. Brian is a Mustang and has Mustang pride embedded in his DNA. He has, as we refer to, blue and white. Anyone that has played sports for Medford High School or volunteered for the sport program, in my opinion, have blue and white that runs through their veins. And Brian is no different. He bleeds blue and white. And as a member of the Hall of Fame, which I can't say I've ever been inducted, Mr. President. It's a big privilege to be a member of the Hall of Fame. And Brian truly is that person that deserves the honor, Mr. President. He volunteered every Saturday for 20 years to help student athletes at Medford High School. 20 years of a commitment. never once looked for any recognition, never once waved a banner and said, look what I'm doing. Everything was behind the scenes, and he did it to help student athletes out. And again, that speaks volumes about a person. He's a current and active baseball umpire. And he loves the sport. He likes to be around it. He likes the camaraderie. He likes dealing with the athletes. And he's a fair man as I think anyone would speak when they mention his name. He was involved for many years and still is with Medford High baseball and the football programs as the equipment manager. And that's a tough job. Don't think for a second that's not a tough job. And the stats manager, which is equally a tough job, Mr. President. Brian is involved with the coaches versus cancer yearly charity fundraiser. Mr. President. It's an event that's part of the American Cancer Society, and it spotlights cancer awareness through the playing of our national pastime to raise money, in which it raised tens of thousands of dollars for cancer, Mr. President. And Brian has been part of that over the years. Brian also played senior Babe Ruth baseball for the Medford Rotary Colts, And he helped coach Method's Mega Club, which is a long established club in this community. And I think it's only fitting, Mr. President, to find someone that has such a commitment to this community and dedication, unselfishness, and reward them, Mr. President. So I would respectfully ask my colleagues, That we send, we don't want to vote on it tonight, we can vote on it next week because this was offered under suspension. But where it's a congratulatory thing, Mr. President, I think it would be acceptable voting on it tonight. I would respectfully ask that we vote to send this paper to the athletic director at Medford High School and also the Hormel Commission. and have them come up in unison with some naming dedication, Mr. President, that would rightfully fit Brian Branson and all the years, the decades of volunteerism and service to Medford High School athletes and the entire community in general. So I would respectfully offer that tonight, Mr. President, and I just want to personally thank Brian. We're both 1984 graduates of Medford High School, and I just personally would like to thank him, Mr. President, for his many years of volunteerism in this community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank my two colleagues for putting this on. As Councilor Caraviello mentioned, that Brian was synonymous with, John was synonymous with the square. And indeed, I got my haircut back. I think everyone, like you said, got their haircut at some point. And you know what, Mr. President, I stopped going there because John gave one haircut. So when you went in there and said, I like this or this, John gave you the haircut he wanted to give you. Everyone had that haircut, Mr. President. He was a good guy. You go in there, you talk about sports. I still don't know how, I know he's been there a long time. If you look at him, he doesn't look like he's ready to retire. He's in good shape. He's good. I mean, everything about him looks good. I wish him well, Mr. President. He will be missed. Those faces that you come to know and love in an area, and then they're not there any longer. You do miss it, Mr. President, but this retirement is well, And I wish him well, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Marks. Councilor Scarapelli.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I don't think anyone behind this reel thinks this is a bad idea. I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues is that in the past when we approved food trucks, we always got date and location. And I would feel more comfortable that we revisit this when there's an actual date and location of an actual truck that would like to come into the community. And we'll take them as we've done in the past, Mr. President, each one on its own merit and move forward. But as this prepares tonight, just an open-ended, you know, list of potential, you know, food trucks, I couldn't support this tonight either, Mr. President. So I would ask that the administration come back when they do have a full-fledged request.
[Michael Marks]: Motion received and placed on file, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Got it.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Layton.
[Michael Marks]: This council last week tabled this request in order to notify residents of the Wellington and Haines Square area. And in particular, I want to thank the city administration. They sent out a great robocall, in my opinion, alerting residents of this particular meeting how to participate, Mr. President. And also, if they had any questions or concerns regarding this TIF And this new establishment, a Middlesex Ave. So I want to thank the administration and thank this council for including residents in their input. It's very important during this process. Mr. President, I think it was about four years ago this council voted for the only TIF that I can recall with Bianco Sausage. And at the time, Mr. President, their commitment to this city was to add 20 new full-time jobs. And now we're looking at a commitment of 250 jobs. So I see this as a real job growth and economic recovery. revitalizer, which I think will be good for the area. And I agree with my colleagues regarding living wages and so forth. And I'm sure we could probably work towards that, Mr. President. The questions that I raised last week, I still have this week, Mr. President, and I'm going to propose them again. And I'm not sure if we've had any time to work on some of this, but I really would like to try to pin down the potential trucking routes to this establishment, Mr. President. I know we're talking about increasing business there from what currently exists. And I think it's important for those of us that actually surround this, there are neighborhoods around this facility. I realize this is a commercial area. But it's embedded in a residential neighborhood, both the Haines Square and the Wellington neighborhood with many residents. So I would like to find out from maybe Mr. Moniker if he's had the ability to respond to the question that I asked last week of what potential truck routes they will be looking at, knowing that two of the major roads that exist around this area don't allow major trucking. So in my opinion, that would disperse trucks on some of the secondary roads, and I have a concern. So that would be my first question, Mr. President, regarding the truck routes. And if Mr. Monica has had the opportunity to look into it, if not, I think it's something that still requires a response, Mr. President, to this council.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, I appreciate you looking into that and I thank you for your response. The other question I had was, you mentioned originally that Monogram was going to open as two shifts with the potential of a third shift. I know at this point you probably can't commit, but I have a concern about a potential third shift. And I was wondering if a third shift would require the extended hours for any business, and would that be a vote of the council? This, I don't think, is a question for Mr. Modica, but I don't know who else we have on the call. Do we have Commissioner Moki or anyone else on the call?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I want to thank Councilor Knight for bringing that up. That was helpful. So Mr. President, knowing that this would require a special permit of the council, I think eases some of the concern I have regarding a third shift. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a third shift. I realize that the previous business, I believe, did have a third shift, an active third shift there. But that eases some of my concerns of residents that I spoke to regarding potential trucking at 1, 2, 3 in the morning. And we all know when 18 wheelers go by your house and hit the many potholes we have on our roads and the many divots we have, that it shakes homes and so forth, Mr. President. So that's comforting to know. My third point, Mr. President, and I brought this up last week, and it's a major concern, Mr. President. Middlesex Ave, and I don't have to tell anyone behind this reel, is a disgrace. The sidewalk, the road, the lighting, everything on that road is a complete and utter disgrace. There hasn't been any attention, I've been in the area for almost 30 years now, and there hasn't been any attention to that road since I've been here. And that's no lie. And I realize it's a state road, and I'm hoping with this partnership through an act of state legislation, which is the TIF agreement, that we could get a commitment similar to what we received just recently from the Department of Transportation regarding the corner of Main Street and South Street, Mr. President, that the city administration, Todd Blake, the city engineer, sit and meet with the State Department of Transportation, Mr. President, and put together a full-fledged plan. We're talking about $40 million in renovation, and equipment, and a new establishment, and yet we're talking $0 about infrastructure. I mean, I think it speaks volume about what we need to address. And it is that road, Mr. President. And I would just like to put that out there. I believe the mayor said that we had the traffic engineer, Todd Blake, on tonight. I went through this about a month and a half ago with the BJ's gas station. One of the major concerns was the exiting from BJ's location. And again, it was stated, I believe Todd Blake was on the calls, that they would look at the exiting of that particular parking lot. This is no different, this is a door down. This is no different, Mr. President. And I think if we're going to talk about $40 million in this commitment, It should go hand in hand with improvements to that road. So I'd like to hear from the traffic engineer and the city engineer regarding what the next steps are and potentially how the state. I'm sorry, is it DeStefano, the woman from the state? Yes. May be able to get involved on an infrastructure type if indeed they do get involved in moving this forward where she is from the state, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe if we can hear from the city.
[Michael Marks]: So, Todd, while we have you, I know you were involved with the BJ's gas station as part of the conversation. Can you shed some light on what improvements, if any, are going to take place due to the recent approval of the BJ's gas station?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So Todd, just to fill me in. So is that commitment based on a commitment between BJ's and the Department of Transportation? How does that work?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so any commitment that's on Middlesex Ave would be a commitment of DOT, correct?
[Michael Marks]: So what you're telling me is then eventually Monogram is going to have to go through the approval process. And during that process, a similar agreement that was made with BJ's regarding the licensing and so forth will most likely take place with Monogram in the city regarding any safety concerns on Middlesex Ave.
[Michael Marks]: So I guess what I'm trying to do, and I don't feel warm and fuzzy from your response, I'm trying to figure out whose responsibility is it to make sure that Middlesex Ave gets the needed improvements during this approval of a $40 million project. As we heard from Vice President Caraviello, it's probably one of the larger endeavors that this city has seen, and I don't hear any infrastructure mentions. And I find that hard to believe that we're not discussing infrastructure improvements during such a large project.
[Michael Marks]: Anyone from the administration that would like to handle that? I just would like to hear some more concrete information on what potentially negotiations will exist, what meetings are going to be called, what's going to happen to that roadway. Has anyone walked down that roadway? Am I the only one that's ever walked down Middlesex Ave? It's a complete nightmare. It really is. It's a complete nightmare.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, you had the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I know my colleagues have other questions, too, so I'll be brief. I just want to make sure, Mr. President, and it sounds like the city has given this some consideration on looking at some of the infrastructure that exists, in particular, Middlesex Ave. So I do feel comfortable, Mr. President. As a community, we can no longer sit back and state that, oh, I'm sorry, this is a state road. We can't do anything. Because it's difficult to tell a taxpayer when they're paying $8,000 in taxes that, sorry, we can't touch your tree, we can't trim your tree, we can't do your sidewalk, and we have nothing to do with your road. That's very difficult, Mr. President, and I think these conversations have to be had when we have the opportunity. And a $40 million renovation, in my opinion, is the time to do it. And I hope the city keeps us informed regarding what the next steps are on state road improvements, in particular Middlesex Ave. Regarding the TIF agreement itself, Mr. President, and this may be a question for Chief of Staff Rodriguez, is there language in there that would state that there's a 90 day notice of any corporate decision to change the nature or the character of their business operations to notify the city? Is there any language that speaks to that?
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, I had the opportunity to look at a few recent TIF agreements, and they had language that stated just that. So I thought it would be helpful that when and if and when we put this agreement together, and I would just state this as a motion, that the administration add a 90-day notice of any corporate decision to change the nature and or character of their business operations that they notified the city of Medford. And naturally, if the attorney has to put that, that's just language that I jotted down quickly. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President. Also that if there's not already currently that exist, and again, this would be a question for Mr. Rodriguez, that annual reports on job creation, retention of Method residents be provided to us. as the city of Medford, and I'm not sure if that language currently exists or something similar. It doesn't have to be the exact. Yeah, it's in section 70 of the agreement. Okay, so we can eliminate that, Mr. President. And then I think as Councilor Morell mentioned, there should be language in there within the TIF agreement. Failure to comply will result in decertification. Somewhere that should be listed within the TIF agreement itself. Mr. President, and I'm not sure if that's currently in there now, but I would recommend if it's not, that that be a motion as well, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's off. So it would be just- Thank you, Mr. Chief of Staff. So it would be just that one motion, Mr. President, that the 90 day notice, if there's any change in their business nature or character of their business, that they notify the city, Mr. President. And that's it for now. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Board of Information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate that comment. However, we did notify thousands of Method residents of this meeting, and we have yet to hear. I know we started off with the council, so I look eager to hear from residents and maybe some of the concerns that may exist out there, Mr. President, as well.
[Michael Marks]: Any corporate decision. Any corporate decision. Yeah, not corporate, any corporate decision. Corporate decision. To change, yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate the comments by Mr. Navar that regarding the residential factor. And some of what he mentioned, if not all, is completely on track. that we heard tonight from the city assessor that Method is a desirable community because we have such a low residential tax rate. And therefore, people want to come into the community and buy property because we have such a great low tax rate. And on the flip side, Mr. President, commercial business may not see fit to come to our community because of the extremely aggressive and high tax rate. And when we do the split rate, which we've been doing for years, we've always shifted, and I voted for it, we've always shifted the burden from the residents to commercial, saying, well, they're a commercial business and they should pay more in the community. And I agree with that, Mr. President, but I think you get it to a point where The burden on the commercial, Mr. President, is having an impact on the community. And when you see the percent of property in our community by value by class, almost 90% of the percent of levy that we derive from our income is for residential property, 90%. And then the commercial industrial make up 8.72%. So you can see over the years, the shift, we're losing a lot of the commercial base, which we rely on now because they pay a much higher tax rate and we're gaining more residential, which pays a lower. And at some point, we as a community are going to make a tough decision and say we don't have enough of this commercial that we've been shifting the burden to, to support our budget. And I think that's going to be the question, Mr. President, that we're going to have to answer to eventually. And I think it's creeping around sooner than we expect, Mr. President. The numbers, if you look at the single tax rate, which we haven't supported since I've been on the council. If you look at the single tax rate, so that would be one tax rate for both commercial and residential, an average single family would pay $6,326. And the average commercial business would pay $14,707. So that's with one tax rate for both sides. Then you look at it, Mr. President, and if you were going to do a split rate, which we currently do, at 115%, the average single family would pay $6,215 and the average commercial would pay $6,915. Then if you fast forward that into what we currently do is a split rate with 175% shift. The average single family pays 5,768, so you can see it's decreased. And the average commercial pays 25,737. So they went with the single tax rate from 14,000 for commercial up to 25,000. And then if you split the rate at 115%, they went from 16,000 to 25,000. Those are huge jumps, Mr. President. And if you look at, if we were to reverse this a little bit and look at shifting the burden to residential, the average single family at 175, at the single family rate, The single rate would pay $6,000, and at the split rate would pay $6,215. The difference, really, if we sat down and started going through this, because you're shifting it over so many different properties, it's not as big as the commercial side. And I know it's not a popular thing to say, but if we're really serious about keeping commercial in this city, Mr. President, and expanding the commercial tax base, I think we have to take a look at it at some point. And sometimes, you know, officials have to stand up and take tough votes, Mr. President. But I think it's something we have to look at. And, you know, it's probably not going to be this time, but I think next year I would request, Mr. President, that we have meetings a month or two prior to the budget meeting. I'm sorry, the tax vote meeting. So we could start looking at the residential factor. So we could start looking at the residential exemption that has been discussed about by area residents, Mr. President. And give us enough lead time to make some informed decisions rather than tonight, which most of us, to be quite honest with you, I hate to say it, our hands are tied, because this is based on the budget that we put forward and it is what it is. So I would ask Mr. President, under the leadership of yourself or whoever, as the Council of Vice President, Kaviel's the next president, that we have meetings well in advance. to when we set the tax rate so we can discuss some of the issues, Mr. President. As we heard tonight, I always thought that the tax rate was due at the end of January. We heard that you could vote on it to have it done at the end of June, which gives you another six months of additional growth that you could use in a time of recession like we're seeing now. That's six months that could add some new growth onto it and give us some additional revenue. And that's the lead time I think we need as a council to start discussing this. I'm prepared to vote on this tonight, Mr. President, but I think, you know, we have to take a long, hard look at how we average out the property in our community and see if it makes sense to continue to shift the way we're shifting if we're really serious about keeping a commercial base in this community. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to clarify that last year when we discussed the residential exemption, and I know Mr. Castagnetti has been a stalwart regarding this. He says 10 years, I think he's been talking about this for 20 years, or at least it seems 20 years. So long, Mr. President. Last year when we discussed it, I think Councilor Knight brought up the fact that the numbers that we received that were the break even point for assessments over, I think it was 640,000 Councilor Knight mentioned, was a little over 2,000 households that were owner occupied, that lived in their home. If we voted for residential exemption, because their property was assessed at over a certain amount of money, which was the break even point, they would still have to pay a higher tax rate. And we were told there were about 2,000 properties in the community, that was last year. And that's a number I've been monitoring over the years, because I think we as a council, I won't speak for anyone else, said if the numbers were falling, meaning that there were less and less people that fell in this range. that were the exception to the rule that we may see favorable to vote on this and provide a property tax, a residential exemption. We heard tonight, Mr. President, from the city assessor that they're saying now there's over 4,000 properties that are above the break even point, Mr. President. And in addition, out of the 4,000, 1,300 properties of people that are over the age of 60, which are seniors in our community. So these numbers are very staggering, Mr. President, and there may have been a discrepancy over the years. As we heard from the city's assessor, and I won't put words in her mouth, that they may have not been counting every type of property. So they may have been just looking at single families and not condos or two families or multi-families. So this number, in my opinion, is a little alarming that there's so many people that would fall out of the range of residential exemption. And I'm looking forward to discussions possibly in March regarding actually taking a closer look at this and seeing if these are the true numbers. I think the city assessor made a commitment that she would revisit these numbers to see if they're true and accurate. But I just want Mr. Castagnetti and others to know that we do monitor this, we do keep an eye on this, and the numbers have fluctuated. And in this case, they fluctuated in a way that I couldn't support at this particular point. There's just too many people, Mr. President, that would be impacted by this. And I think the good outweighs the bad in this, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Mr. LaRusso for expressing interest in coming to our community. I just had a couple of really quick questions. What would his staff consist of?
[Michael Marks]: And would your establishment consist of strictly tattooing or would it be body piercing as well?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And I'm sure you're familiar. You said you work for a current tattoo establishment. Yes. So I'm sure you're aware of all the proper protocols and procedures for the placement of syringes and needles and anything else associated with your business, blood and any other bodily fluids that are associated with your particular business.
[Michael Marks]: And what would you anticipate your hours of operation to be in general?
[Michael Marks]: Are we looking at how many days a week?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And if you were to know there was another establishment that existed within a hundred yards from your establishment that does the same type of tattooing, would that discourage you from going to this location?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And I appreciate that. And the reason why I bring it up is because Council Vice President Caraviello brought up a very valid point. We, this council, approved a tattoo parlor, probably 100 yards, 200 yards from the establishment that you're looking at. And, you know, I think it's unfair that that hasn't taken place yet, and most people have probably forgotten about it. And here you are, a new establishment coming in. So I think it's important to know what may eventually, or already has been approved, but may eventually pop up next door to you. Because people make business decisions based on that. A number of factors, and that could be one, proximity of other like establishments and so forth. And maybe that's something we have to look at as a council when we issue a special permit that I believe, as Councilor Knight mentioned, and he'd probably know better than I, that it's good for up to a year, which sounds kind of excessive, to be quite honest with you. And I think that opens up a lot of different doors when you have things hanging out there and you're not sure what may or may not go in there after approval. So that's something we may want to look at as a council. And my last thing is I have to admit, I am a little jealous of Reverend Wendy's tattoo. And if she's willing, maybe she could show us some more of her tattoos because that was pretty impressive. But I wish you well. And I wish you all but good luck.
[Michael Marks]: And I believe. So, Mr. President. Cut the marks. So last we left off, Mr. President, is that legal counsel from National Grid was going to speak to our acting city's solicitor regarding some mitigation. And I'm very eager to hear what the results have been, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'm a little disappointed that we've waited this long to get that answer, because that answer does not address what this Medford City Council has requested in regards to mitigation, Mr. President. And if we have to rehash this, I'm willing to go over it again tonight. But this council requested that some mitigation be put forth by either the MWRA or National Grid regarding the curbing on that stretch of Riverside F. And we were told that originally they weren't willing to do the whole project. I think this council stood up and said, we're not looking for you to do the whole project. We're looking for you to set aside some money that we as a community can put into bringing the curbs up higher than the street, where much of the curbing is level with the road and very dangerous for pedestrian safety in that particular area, Mr. President. And now we're hearing that as part of this project, it could be a lag of up to eight to 20 months. So they may start the spring of 2021 and not finish for 20 months out, Mr. President. And what they'll do is put down a binary code, coding, whatever it is, so that we can ride on it for 20 months while it looks like you know, a pile of you know what. It doesn't make any sense, Mr. President. This makes zero sense. Why would we want, as a community, want to sit on a construction site for 20 months? And the residents that have to live there, Mr. President, when they open their door and face that, Mr. President. It just makes no sense to me at all. I'm very disappointed that National Grid's not willing to step up, Mr. President, on a project of this size and help out the community in regards to mitigation. They pay mitigation, Mr. President. There's no bones about it. Legal or not legal, they pay mitigation, Mr. President. So if that's the case tonight, they don't have my vote, Mr. President. They're not going to move forward with my vote. Other members of the council may see fit. But we got zero out of this project. Nothing but inconvenience for the residents, Mr. President. And don't forget, this started out with doing construction during the holiday season. And then they pushed it a little further back. And now we're hearing there could be a 20-month lag in between. How does that benefit us? Benefits their schedule, the MWRA and National Grid. How does that benefit the city of Medford on a major thoroughfare in our community? It doesn't, Mr. President. And if they're not willing to sit down and talk mitigation, they don't have this council's support. And I hope my other council colleagues stand up too, Mr. President, on what's right on behalf of this community and its residents.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. My definition of mitigation may be a little different. Restoring back to how it was is a given. That's what happens on every utility project in this community. Every utility project, they're required to return it back to the way it was. Mitigation is going over and above, Mr. President. We're asking over and above. We're not asking to restore the way it was. That's how every project is done. So I'm not, I think our definition is a little different, Mr. President. And, you know, it doesn't matter to me that National Grid's stepping in on behalf of, because they have to move their utility so the MWRA could do what they, it doesn't matter to me. They're both utilities, Mr. President, and they both should step up to the plate and assist this community. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the two chairs, Laurel and Jim, for their dedication to this community. They've been involved with a lot of different projects. And this project is a big undertaking. I sat on the original parking enforcement committee back some, I don't know, probably 10 years ago now. And at that time, it was a large undertaking. And they're taking on, in addition, the Green Line extension and some other issues that city-wide permit parking and some other issues. My question to the two chairs is, if someone's interested in a particular subject, as you know, there's a lot involved with from enforcement to districts to meters or kiosk and how we're going to enforce things. If someone is just interested in one aspect, How do they know when that will be brought up? Are they allowed to get onto the Wednesday meetings and just bring up any subject, or is there an agenda that you follow and talk about just certain items? How does that work?
[Michael Marks]: So how, as a commission, are you publicizing your meetings and are they well attended over the last, you know, several weeks since you've been meeting?
[Michael Marks]: So is the expectation at some point that you're going to have, you know, like a full-blown public hearing where residents will be invited to hear recommendations and give input? Is that the ultimate?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And just if I can give a word of caution, I think that's one thing that could get in the way of this whole process, is that if the public input is held, and I'm not saying this is the case, but if it's held to the end, you may get a lot of animosity and people thinking they've been left out of the process. And so somehow, and it's a difficult, I agree with you, there's a lot going on in the community. Somehow I think it's important that public hearings be set up along this whole process and not just wait till the end. And I'll leave that up to the committee, but I would highly recommend that in the interest of transparency and so forth.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, just one question regarding the scope. Does it include recommendations regarding taking the parking service in-house as well as removal of the kiosk? Will that be things that the commission works on?
[Michael Marks]: So your ultimate recommendations will include looking at whether or not to take in-house or to look at an alternative from the kiosk.
[Michael Marks]: How's that? That sounds like a good idea. Mr. President, if I could. So I just want to understand, so this commission will be making recommendations from what I'm hearing sometime in March. That's when the mayor asked for recommendations. And then the actual implementation, has there been any discussion about once recommendations are with the mayor, has there been any discussion about implementation, which is I would assume the next phase of this?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilman Harkes. If Council and I wouldn't mind amending it, I got a complaint recently about the top of Governor's Ave along South Border Road. Same thing, brown water. The fire department's been out there opening up the hydrants and releasing some of the water. And then within a couple of weeks, the water's brown again. They put two cups side by side. And you can clearly see that there's something going on, Mr. President. And so if Councilor Knight wouldn't mind adding the top of Governor's Ave along Saltwater Road, if that could be reviewed at the same time, that'd be great. Excellent.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it was about 13 or 14 months ago. This council did a committee, the whole review of the lot of land in between Budweiser and the residents on Sydney Street. It was all overgrown, Mr. President. The trees, we took a walk through that whole area and it was gnarly back there and very dangerous actually. And due to this council and the city administration with their help, Budweiser actually, because they own the property, went back there and did actually, I have to say, a great job of cleaning up. They left a lot of the mature trees along the fences of neighbors on Sydney, of which they did go out recently and cut some of them. 84 Sydney just contacted me and said there's a big overhanging branch of a very mature tree that's on the Anheuser Budweiser. and they ask in the interest of public safety, because they're concerned with the recent windstorms, that the branches be cut back in the interest of public safety. So I ask that this be sent to DPW and the city engineer's office. I believe they're the ones that intervened last time on our behalf.
[Michael Marks]: Is this for take-out only or is it for dine-in take-out? Good question. I'm not quite sure what this applies to.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to understand. I think Councilor Bears said this would be for guidance. However, it's asking the Board of Health and the Office of Energy and Environment to establish a policy. Most policies will have some type of enforcement with the policy. So do you anticipate an enforcement onto this policy, or is it guidance? Because they're two completely different things.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I'm not sure, Mr. President, if we currently don't have enough resources, why would we add on another administrative responsibility if we don't have enough resources right now to control what we have? I just don't know what this is getting at, Mr. President. If I'm at work and I order a cup of soup and it arrives and there's no spoon, that's a concern, Mr. President. And I guess we take for granted that a restaurant, if I'm doing takeout, is going to put the necessary things in the bag so I can consume my food. And part of that may be a straw, a napkin, whatever it might be. And so I'm not quite sure what this is getting at. Is this COVID related or is this outside of COVID? I don't know what this is getting at.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Just if I could, I'm a little confused. If it's something we can't enforce, then why are we asking to a border health and the energy environment office to establish a policy? If it's something we can't enforce and then only to only provide plastic utensils upon request. So you're asking businesses, not to provide this unless someone asks you. So I don't understand how they're saying in one point it's, you know, it's only, you know, it's, it's, it's just guidance, but they want a policy that surrounds it. and I assume a policy, you know, to me, the better approach would be if this is a cause and something you're interested in, why not approach the Chamber of Commerce and ask the Chamber of Commerce, hey, you know what, we're concerned about the plastic utensils and the number of utensils that are given out and I share a lot of those concerns. But I'm not sure a legislative enactment or a policy has to be the way to go about getting the word out in the community. You may have businesses owners that would love to save money, because they're very expensive, by the way. And they may love to save money on that, but I'm not sure this is the appropriate way of doing this, Mr. President. And we heard for a long period of time about doing away with straws. Now it's stirrers, plastic utensils. I just think there's a better way of doing this, Mr. President. Therefore, I cannot support this tonight. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Why would we send a draft ordinance to the city solicitor for review?
[Michael Marks]: Why would we have a city solicitor look at a seven page draft ordinance that hasn't been looked at by this council, no recommendations by this council, no public meeting by this council, other than the fact that it paid off this agenda. Why would we send this paper to the city solicitor for review? Review of what? Review of this language? Is the city solicitor now part of this council? I mean, I don't understand. I don't understand putting the seven-page ordinance on, Mr. President, because we have ways of initiating subjects, Mr. President, for this council. But, hey, that could be, you know, I'm not going to criticize that, but why would we send a paper to the city solicitor? It makes zero sense at all. I would like to provide some answers.
[Michael Marks]: That seems like a convoluted way of going about this. It really does. I know I appreciate your response, but that seems like we're the legislative body. So if this is language that we want to attain, we should send it to committee, the whole subcommittee, take a look at it, review it. It just doesn't make sense, especially now knowing that the city solicitor may be working on an ordinance at this council's request and then giving her another seven pages, saying take a look at this, unless we think she's doing nothing all day. It just makes no sense to me.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: What prior paper are you referring to?
[Michael Marks]: So maybe that's what needs to be had rather than... You know, we can entertain new language, but this seems like it's... asking for its own separate process. And I think, you know, it's, I don't know. Second.
[Michael Marks]: No one's saying it's controversial. We're just saying there's an order of how we do business, Mr. President. If we're discussing an item already in subcommittee or committee of the whole, and to reintroduce something different, Mr. President, on the floor is not how we operate as a council. That's all that's being said. That's not how we operate, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, if the petitioner could just state how much off-street parking that they have.
[Michael Marks]: Eight spots off-street? Eight spots in the parking lot. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I move approval.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'll just defer to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. If I could, thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the fact that both chiefs are on tonight, as well as the union representative. I believe both on the police and fire side are both with us tonight as well, Mr. President. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, the concern I have and the reason why I added my name to this resolution was the fact that we did receive a correspondence from Mayor Lungo-Koehn regarding the urgent need and the emergency of putting this particular position forward. And when I saw that email, Mr. President, it kind of alarmed me that there was a concern of that urgency within 9-1-1. First, that I'm hearing that 9-1-1 has existed for the past year and a half. And I would hope that there was proper supervision. I would hope there was proper training policies and procedures set up in that past year and a half. So I'm eager to hear tonight from both chiefs to hopefully dispel the emergency that was stated by the mayor in her email. And hear from both chiefs, Mr. President, and the union representatives as well. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. Thank you, Mayor Longo.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the mayor being on the call tonight. So the question I have to the mayor, Mr. President, is the fact that I can appreciate, and it's the mayor's opinion, that this is a critical need for the operation of public safety in the community. And she has every right to state that if she believes that. My question is that since January of this year, The fire department has reached out on several occasions to not only the city administration, but to both Chiefs, Chief Gilberti and Chief Buckley regarding their concerns with 911 and some of the concerns that they had. that they raised back in January of this year. So I'm just wondering when the mayor figured out that this was a public safety emergency and why did it take almost 11 months to do so?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so Mr. President, if I could follow up, and I appreciate that statement, but it still doesn't answer what happened from January to the past, even if we say two months that they've been working on this. What happened to the seven months in between that, Mr. President? And I'm looking at a correspondence from Union President Eddie Buckley from January 21st of this year, raising concern, Mr. President. And that email was sent to Fire Chief Gilberti. Police Chief Buckley, Chief of Staff Dave Rodriguez, and Union Rep Harold McGilvery. And if you could, Mr. President, I'd like to just read it briefly. It says, good morning, gentlemen. I would like to formally request a meeting with all interested parties to discuss the future of dispatching. There are too many rumors and scuttlebutt going around, and we as a union would like to meet face to face to communicate our concerns. get a grasp on the future of fire dispatch. Please let me know at your convenience when we would be able to be a good time to sit down and talk. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Eddie Buckley, Union President 1032. The same day, Mr. President, Union Rep Harold McGillivray reached out and gave his availability. Mr. President, but the part that I'm troubled by is Fire Chief Gilberti never responded to the request by the union. The Mayor's Chief of Staff, Dave Rodriguez, never responded to their request. And Chief Buckley responded saying, thank you for your concerns. At this time, I will decline. So I'm trying to figure out, Mr. President, if this was an issue that's been brought up, and this actually dates back actually even prior to January, when a letter was sent out in June 2019 to the former mayor, Burke, asking for a meeting. which was never responded to. So this has been a year and a half, and now 10 or 11 months under this administration, going on 12 months. And I'm just concerned, Mr. President, with the lack of attention for the last, from January to just say September, October. when nothing was done and now all of a sudden meetings are being held and we're being told it's an emergency, Mr. President. But from what I'm being told, there was concerns all along, Mr. President, from day one when this 911 center opened. From day one, there was a lack of a manual, a lack of policies and procedures. And there has been very little put into trying to get to the bottom of what's happening. And I think everyone behind this room, I won't speak for them, no one's opposed to the position, Mr. President. We had some legitimate questions regarding the position, and I'm hoping to hear tonight what's being worked on. But I have other questions, and I'll wait to hear as soon as both chiefs respond, and hopefully the union representatives.
[Michael Marks]: If they'd like to respond, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Marks. Publicly. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here, Mr. President. When exactly, because We're hearing that they need a coordinator or supervisor for 911. This has been set up for a year and a half, Mr. President. When exactly did the administration and both chiefs figure out that this is now so urgent that it's an emergency now where it hasn't had supervision for the last 15 months, Mr. President? That's what I said.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's great that both chiefs are meeting, but they fail to include the membership, Mr. President. And that's a problem when you have the union, at least on the fire side, that has reached out on several occasions, Mr. President. June 14, 2019, July 27, 2020, October 26, 2020. Raising questions, Mr. President, requesting a meeting to discuss ongoing issues and concerns with Method Fire Alarm. In particular, with delays in dispatching and calls for lack of supervision. This is from the Method Fire Union, local 1032, Mr. President. They also raised concerns on July 27th. Union raises concerns on manpower assignments on multiple alarm fires. Dispatch policy regarding this subject was changed without input from the fire department. That's not coming from this council, Mr. President. So if the chief is working out of a vacuum, which seems to be how he operates, Mr. President, and not hearing what's happening in the community, or at least in the 911 center, then shame on him. Don't point the finger at this council because we're raising concerns that we're hearing from membership of the police and fire, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President? Point of information, Councilor Marks. Mr. President, it's my understanding that the police oversees the 911 center. Is that not correct? It is correct. So why would the chief of police, who oversees the entire picture, not want to sit down with the fire side, who does not have someone that's up there supervising, and listen to their concerns?
[Michael Marks]: We weren't. Mr. President, point of information. Point of information, Councilor Marks. With all due respect, Mr. President, I'll let the union reps that are on the phone now dictate whatever their narrative is, Mr. President. Because clearly, that's not their feedback that I received, Mr. President. So I guess there's two different realities going on in this community. And so I'd like to hear from the union representatives as well, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: At some point, Mr. President, I'd like maybe for the chief to finish his presentation, but I'd like to hear from them too, Mr. President. Okay, Chief Buckley, if you want to continue.
[Michael Marks]: I guess my question would be to Mr. Buckley is what have been the concerns for the past year and a half that have been raised by the fire department regarding their concerns with 911 in the community?
[Michael Marks]: So based on the October 26th letter that was written by local 1032 regarding concerns of method fire and in particular delays in dispatching calls and lack of supervision. I was wondering if you can address that particular letter that was sent to the city administration.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, also, maybe if you can address the July 27th letter, which discusses manpower on assignments on multiple alarm fires and the dispatch policy that was created without any input from the fire department. Has that been rectified?
[Michael Marks]: I'd like to hear from Harold, Mr. President, Mr. McGillivray. But also, Mr. President, I guess what it takes to get things done in this community is a resolution by this Medford City Council to get people to act on certain items. And I'm glad to see both chiefs met last night, Mr. President, after many emails going out regarding concerns of a lack of supervision and delays in dispatching over the past 11 months. And now they're being addressed, Mr. President. So if anything, I am happy that I put my name on this, Mr. President, to make sure on behalf of the 58,000 residents of this community that 911 indeed protects the residents of this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just made my statement, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Chief Gilberti. Mr. President. Councilor Lox. Mr. President, since we trained and lost a number of dispatches, I was wondering if there was any exit interviews given, and if so, what were the sentiments of the candidates that were trained and given a job here in the city of Medford, and then after a short period of time decided to leave, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to be able to understand, Mr. President, This issue of civilian 911 was being discussed. And at the time when they decided to move forward, I'd like to be privy to what the discussions were around hiring a civilian 911 supervisor at that time, a year and a half ago, if any. Because I think it's important, Mr. President, there's not one member behind this reel that I've heard once say, we don't need the position. There's not one person for the last three weeks, I've never heard one person say, this is not needed, Mr. President. We have been asking questions on why it's an emergency right now, absolutely. And I'll continue to ask them, like Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Caraviello have mentioned. But I'd like to know, Mr. President, a year and a half ago, when the powers to be sat down and started discussing how this 911 center was going to work. What were the discussions around hiring someone from the start that had that supervisory skill to oversee this department, Mr. President? And to make sure that the proper unified training manuals were set up, Mr. President. To make sure the rules and procedures and policies were set up to set up our workers for success, Mr. President. and not failure. People leave for a lot of different reasons. Some may be location, but others may leave, Mr. President, for other reasons, such as lack of supervision and lack of a clear, defined training manual and other reasons, Mr. President. They may not state it, Mr. President, but they leave for a host of reasons. But I'd like to know why from the inception that we did not hire, don't forget we just went through the budget this June 2020. If this has been discussed for the last year and a half, why was it in the June 2020 budget, Mr. President? Why are we looking at a supplemental after the fact? So I'd like to know why this wasn't discussed, and if it was, I'd like to know why and why it didn't get in to the planning of this 911 center. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, to me that's critical to have someone that oversees and has the experience in both police and fire and able to put this together and create the policies and manuals and the hiring and the training. 101, Mr. President, of creating a dispatch center. So I'd like to know why that didn't happen originally.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, just so I understand, and I appreciate Chief Gilberti's response. So if the chief was advocating for a fire supervisor, and I'm sure the police were advocating for a police supervisor, we ended up instead of having both Mr. President, no trained supervisor at all for the past year and a half. And this is no reflection on Lieutenant Rudolph, because he stated himself that this is not really his expertise. And he can't really train, he can't really oversee, because he's not aware of what's taking place. in the dispatch to really supervise it, Mr. President. And I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I just don't understand how you may be advocating for something, but it resulted in no supervision at all for the past year and a half. And I should say no trained supervision, no expertise in 911 for the last year and a half. And that's the shortcoming, Mr. President, that I have a concern with. And we've had the last 11 months to do something, and finally we're getting a paper. In my opinion, if this was such an emergency, I would have sent it out as its own paper, Mr. President. Having a reverse 911 supervisor as its own paper, not mixed in with nine other items, like an interpreter. and other things, Mr. President, in there. So that would be how I would have handled it. But again, I'm not the chief executive officer of this city, Mr. President. And that's how they chose to handle it. Because maybe if it was submitted in that fashion, this would have been handled three weeks ago. Mr. President, so I'm still not happy with the answers regarding the lack of supervision, the lack of a trained personnel to oversee this department, Mr. President. And we don't know what this has resulted in, the lack of manuals, policies, and procedures over the last year and a half. We don't know potential lawsuits or anything else that may be brewing in this community, Mr. President. over this 9-1-1, and I guess that'll speak for itself, Mr. President, at some point.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, point of information. Just a point of information, Mr. President. It was stated that this paper would die tonight because the tax rate You can't vote on it after the tax rate's set. When are we setting the tax rate, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: So we have another week if the mayor wanted to submit a paper, a revised paper. Withdraw the current $740,000 supplemental amendment amount and submit a revised paper. The tax rate won't be set before next Tuesday, correct?
[Michael Marks]: So we do have another week.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if we vote on the paper Tuesday night, that'll be prior to us setting the tax rate. correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so if the mayor submits a new paper next week amended to approve the supervisory position in 911, you know what the dollar amount is already. This council, I think, has stated, and I won't speak for everyone, a commitment for that paper. I don't see why that can't be done next week, Mr. President, and added into the paperwork that Alicia is saying, because she's right, she probably needs time to do that. But I think we're able to forecast now, we have a week to forecast that, Mr. President. I don't see why that can't be done.
[Michael Marks]: It almost seems like people don't want it done, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank the Mr. President, I have a few questions on the same line as Councilor Caraviello. Can you get a little more specific on the types of trucks that will be entering and exiting your particular facility? Are we looking at 18 wheelers? Are we looking at refrigerated trucks? What type of truck?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and you're aware that you have residential neighbors on both sides, correct? Yes. Okay, and regarding your plant that after full build out, compared to what's there currently, how much more manufacturing will be done on that site?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and did you state that you do both retail and wholesale?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so regarding, get back to the trucks. Are you aware that there are many surrounding roads where you're located that do not accept heavy trucking?
[Michael Marks]: Well, that's a tough question to answer because as you just alluded to, you're not sure what the older capacity was at the existing site. And it seems like you're going to be growing the site. And I could just tell you from a first hand experience that The Fellsway, many of your class A trucks cannot use the Fellsway. They cannot use Mystic Valley Parkway. And I would be very curious to see if this work has been done ahead of time to see what the potential truck routes would be. Because in my opinion, they would be cutting through many neighborhoods. And I think that's extremely important for us to know, as a council, the impact this may have on surrounding neighbors. And that leads to my other point that I think, Mr. President, before we move forward with this, this would require community input. And I realize this is a council meeting and it's open to the public. However, it's the first time it's appeared on the agenda. And I think the neighborhood where this is, I realized there was a baking facility there on a smaller scale. I think this is going to have a much larger impact on the Wellington area. And, you know. Haines Square and so forth, Mr. President. So I would ask that we have a public meeting on this where we invite the Wellington, Haines Square area, Mr. President, and notify them of what is taking place to see if residents would have any particular questions. There's a host of questions that I rather do in committee of the whole regarding, I could just tell you first hand, I go to that Wendy's. I hate to say it, quite often. And I can tell you at night, Mr. President, that the rats are rampant in that back area. If you want to check out rats, go by the back of the Wendy's. And so there's a lot of issues regarding, and I'm sure these are addressed by the company, but there are a lot of issues I'm sure residents are going to have. I know my colleagues already asked about odor and smell and so forth. We've had a number of issues. Mr. President, with docking stations. We've experienced them in Salt Method with the Dunkin' Donuts that has a distributor off of Mystic Ave. And even though businesses say they're quiet, when you take pallets to and from the trucks, especially if they're outdoor docking stations, that noise travels. And as you know, we just built 145 condos behind the Wendy's in that particular area. We have residents off to the left, which is right next to BJ, which is probably 100, 200 yards away, a couple hundred yards away. So there's definitely a neighborhood in that area, Mr. President, and I would ask that we set up a committee of whole. or if we want to have a next council meeting, serve as a public meeting to invite the neighborhood, Mr. President, and area residents so they can have input and see this presentation and ask questions. And I appreciate also the fact that the administration is looking into bringing in additional businesses in our community. I've always stated the Office of Community Development is supposed to be out there soliciting new businesses into the community. So a TIF is another way. Would I rather do it differently and not give any incentive? And I probably would prefer that, Mr. President, but that remains a vote of this council and to see how this works. So far, the last TIF I voted for, which was the sausage establishment on 9th Street, seems to be running very successful. They're a good neighbor. They're located within a residential area, but there were a lot of issues on that TIF that we had to work out, Mr. President. A lot of neighborhood issues, as this gentleman mentioned, with the silos, noise, trucking, trucks that are idling. It always happens, Mr. President. The BJ parking lot, which is a giant parking lot right next to this building, go there at night. There's 18 wheelers idling there at night, Mr. President. Maybe not trying to get it to BJ's, but just a place to stay. Also, Mr. President, the city just approved a gas station for the BJ's parking lot. So we're going to add a brand new gas station with, I believe, eight pumps located right in the frontage on Middlesex Ave of a new gas station there. So there's a lot going on in this area, Mr. President. And to be quite frank, Middlesex Ave is deplorable. The sidewalks, the street, it looks like a third world country. It really does. It's deplorable, it's a state owned road, it gets zero attention. from the state, and Natural History City has zero responsibility. So if we do move forward, Mr. President, and the TIF is with the state and so forth, I'd like to see a commitment from the state to do some work, Mr. President, on Middlesex Ave. And bring it up to the 21st century regarding crossings, pedestrian safety, cars, and everything else, Mr. President, bike lanes, and everything else that needs to take place on Middlesex Ave. So I would ask that, Mr. President, I am not going to vote on this tonight. That doesn't mean I don't support it. I want neighborhood input and I want the questions to be asked about the roadway and neighborhood concerns addressed. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: that we provide in the reverse 911 call, a description of the project, a very brief description and the intent and how to get onto the Zoom call, Mr. President. So we can do that.
[Michael Marks]: That's the way I would prefer it rather than the committee of the whole.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I know myself and other members of this council, I believe Councilor Morell put this on within the last couple of months. Asking for an update of our Massport Community Advisory Committee, who have been doing yeoman's work, representing this community for issues that are confronting the noise pollution that we experience on a daily basis. Recently we received a response from a representative to the MCAC who is. Peter Hauk is our representative, he's been doing a great job. But Mr. President, the reason why I bring this up is he made a recommendation of this council and also for our state and federal delegation. And I want to make sure, because this council has been on top of this issue for many years now, back in 2010, and then back in 2016 when the MIT study was initiated to look at departure and arrival procedures at Logan Airport. And how to more equitably find solutions to dispersing flight traffic over the city of Medford. As was stated in my resolution on August 14th, 2020, the North Regional Administrator for the FAA, sent a letter to Massport Community Advisory Committee stating that they were no longer going to look at the dispersion proposals that came out of the MIT study. So that was a big hit to us as a community, because we were really counting on having at least someone from the FAA consider how to ease up and disperse some of the flights that are impacting our community so daily. On October 15th, the leaderships in Method, Cambridge, Arlington, and Malden responded to the FAA, their feasibility assessment with a request back to the FAA to earnestly and promptly apply the considerable resources at its disposal to propose an alternative departure procedure for runway 33L that would disperse jet noise more equitably. So that was sent out on behalf of the four communities, Mr. President. Then on October 21st, six members of the federal delegation sent a letter to the FAA regional administrator reinforcing the October 15th letter sent by the municipalities and their proposed ideas to reduce overflight noise over the city of Medford and the surrounding communities. So I just ask, Mr. President, in follow up to the response that we received from Peter Hulk, dated November 16th, 2020, that we request that our state and federal delegation commit to reinforce the message. That noise concentration has created permanent problem that will not go away until the FAA addresses the problem with a procedure change. So I would ask that we send that to our local delegation as well as our federal delegation, Mr. President, asking that they keep up the request to make sure that the FAA and Massport realize that this is considerable noise, pollution, and destruction to the quality of life for area residents, and that we stay on top of the issue, Mr. President. And I appreciate, once again, our representatives on the MCAC for their due diligence, Mr. President, and their foresight on this issue. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank you for setting up that meeting and inviting all the city players to the table. It was a great meeting and my council colleagues couldn't ask better questions to get results on behalf of the neighborhood. I would just ask that we do set up the follow-up meeting because that was our commitment. to the neighborhood and also I know we met at the corner of Fulton Spring and Fern, but there were a number of other hotspot areas going up Fulton Spring Road that also need to be addressed. And I'm hoping that on this next meeting, we can start picking away little by little on some of the other areas and staying on top of them. And I just want to thank my colleagues for taking a Saturday out and going down there and thank the residents for coming out. I firmly believe we have to do more of that because I think it's a good way. We can talk and talk and talk. It's a good way of getting issues addressed. We bring the department heads and actually witness firsthand what's going on. How many cars do we see roll through that four way stop?
[Michael Marks]: Many, we could have given out 100 tickets. Mr. President, it was really, it was a dangerous area, but we slowed them down. There were so many of us, we actually slowed them down, but I think it shows you what's happening in our community, in every neighborhood of this community. So I thank you for your leadership, Mr. President, and look forward to the upcoming meeting.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Yes, Councilor Marks. I would just ask that the entire council be named on both those papers. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This truly is a big loss for the community. You know, Sandy was one of the first people I met in public office back some 26 years ago. And you couldn't meet a kinder, gentler person that just, for many years she served as the Program Administrator for the Early Child Care Program within the Medford Public Schools. She was just a sweetheart of a person. She was devoted to her family and friends, a truly loving mother, wife, sister. And what I didn't know about Sandy, and she was a woman of many talents, she was an accomplished and published poet, which I never knew. And she was an accomplished world traveler. And, you know, she really is, There's going to be a hole in this community that's missing, Mr. President. Because when you lose someone of that character, someone of that stature, someone that put kids first, I don't know if you can recover from that. And I just want to, on behalf of the city council, wish her family well and her husband Rick, who we all know. I wish him well, Mr. President, in this very difficult time.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. For those that have been around this city for a number of years, Ralph Surrett was our faithful cameraman for a lot of years in this corner room. You probably never saw him because he was very behind the scenes, never wanted any public light, was truly a kind, gentle man when you talk to him. He'd always tell you about what's going on in local news and he was a real animal lover and someone that was an advocate for animals within this community and a graduate of the Medford Vocational School and someone that was a true Methodite for a lot of years, Mr. President. And on behalf of his family, I want to dedicate this meeting and dedication to Ralph Surrett for his many years of service to this community and to the Method City Council, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? Thank you, Mr. President. I put this on the agenda, Mr. President, it's been some time now since this council has approved municipal aggregation. I've received a number of calls from residents that are pleased with the aggregation and other residents that are questioning why their bills are so high. So I thought it was only appropriate now that we revisit the program. see how the program is running, Mr. President, see if there's anything needed, maybe to update residents of this community, or if there's anything we can do as a community to improve the program. So I believe we have Alicia Hunt on the phone. Yes, she is. On the Zoom. So at this time, Mr. President, I will yield to Alicia.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Alicia for her presentation. That was very helpful. I would ask that while this program goes forward, that we receive quarterly updates. I think that would be extremely helpful. Alicia, my question to you is, just so we're comparing apples with apples. I'm trying to compare someone that opted out of the program, that stayed on National Grid, compared to if they were to go on to the program for the same period of time with DiEnergy. And you're saying to me the average difference over a period of time is $0.04?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So, so that's an average. So, so that's an average. So naturally there are some residents that paid less than $4. And some that paid more than four. Do we know how much more than four?
[Michael Marks]: So just fill me in because it's been some time, Alicia. If I opted out of the program and someone that's currently in the program wants to go back and forth, how easy is it to go back and forth, opt in and opt out of the program?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so from what you're telling me, that was going to be my other question. As a community, we're not allowed to advise our residents as you just stated. You said, jeez, if everyone's in the program now, I would ask you to stay in the program because the contractor's rates are going to be far better than national grid's rates. So what you did was just advise people to stay in. And you're saying that's something that we really shouldn't be doing as a community?
[Michael Marks]: So how would one, when you say, look at these differences, I realize you're showing us the presentation now. How would one know this to actually take advantage?
[Michael Marks]: Right. Do we provide a chart similar to this?
[Michael Marks]: So do you think we would be in violation if we were to share this particular graph with residents?
[Michael Marks]: Right, and the reason why I say it is, and the reason why I think it's important to give quarterly updates, is that we have consultants that are working on this. And why not be able to benefit from their knowledge to spread that out to the community to allow them to make an informed decision whether they want to come and go from a program. And I can appreciate the fact that our numbers are based on enrollment, right? Because if the numbers drop too low, we're probably not going to get the same rate, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So for the time being, I didn't know we were locked in until 2022. And it doesn't matter. Enrollment doesn't matter for that period of time, which is great news for us, because there's no bottom line on that. So my question again is, why aren't we promoting this as a program to show when the best time to get on and off the program is? You're saying we can't do that legally?
[Michael Marks]: So when you say that number, how does that compare to prior to aggregation? Because anyone could have opted for green options prior to aggregation, correct? I didn't quite question council. So you mentioned 3.6 million, correct? That's correct. And that's what you said. Additional 3.6 million with aggregation. Prior to aggregation, where were we as a community? Do we know those numbers?
[Michael Marks]: Well, just if I could, so prior to municipal aggregation, I'm under the impression that people were allowed to get additional green energy if they opted to. So before municipal energy came into, aggregation came into the community, there were people buying green energy. Is that not correct?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And we don't know what that figure was then in our community.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, I'd like to make a motion at this point that the city interact with our rate payers. And our city provide information relative to, like we've seen the chart tonight, relative to where the market is and where the rates are over a given span of time. So people are allowed to make informed decisions, Mr. President. So I would ask that that be part of the website and part of any type of outreach. I have yet to see any outreach since December 2019. It's not to say it hasn't happened, but I have yet to see any outreach letting the community know where we stand with municipal aggregation. This was a very large endeavor when we instituted this. And I find it ironic that You need a buy-in into the program, right? They're saying, well, look how many of these people signed up for the program. But this was an opt. You had to opt out of the program, so everyone was automatically opt into the program. So if it wasn't for the legislation that allowed for that, Mr. President, the numbers may not be this large. So I think the program started off with the ability to have everyone automatically enrolled and then those that wanted to get out of it, which is a little different than the way I would personally handle it, but that's how the state legislature decided to implement this program. But I would ask that as a community, Mr. President, that we do a better job notifying residents where we stand from quarter to quarter or maybe six month period, whatever Alicia feels would be beneficial to our residents. So they can make informed decisions when they want to opt in and opt out. And the other point, Mr. President, is if when this contract does end in 2022, that maybe they can put an ending period where they stop providing that information, maybe three or six months prior to the end of the contract, because you don't want the volatility. I can see that with people coming in and out of it towards the end of the contract. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President. It doesn't seem to me that that would be a violation of the contract, just updating our residents and alerting them when the best time to be on municipal aggregation in the interest of their pocketbook. Also, Mr. President, if I could, the residents that I heard from, I didn't see any of their bills. But some of the information I was receiving was not $4 for It was far more than that that they were paying. And I didn't do a real deep dive into it, but some of them were hundreds of dollars that they feel that they were paying more with this new municipal aggregation compared to last year. And it could be a change in, maybe they did use more air conditioning. I don't know, I didn't do a deep dive, but there were many residents that did reach out. because I was vocal with municipal aggregation, asking why their bill was that much higher. And it wasn't $4, it was a lot more than $4.
[Michael Marks]: John, can you provide us with your contact information?
[Michael Marks]: By way of that graph that was presented to us, that was extremely helpful. I mean, it's somewhat easy to look at and make a determination.
[Michael Marks]: I am all set.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, November 19th, this Method City Council received an email from the mayor outlining her concern regarding the council tabling her paper, which was a $740,000 supplemental to this year's budget. which added several positions and some other odd items, Mr. President, within this year's budget. The council did have some questions regarding some of the positions. We asked for job descriptions and we also asked that we address an issue that a longstanding issue this council has been talking about regarding hiring of the election coordinator position to assist in the clerk's office with running these very important elections. Since then, Mr. President, we received this email on November 19th because the paper was tabled and the mayor within the paper mentioned that this 9-1-1 position for supervisor is an emergency. And as my colleague, Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, that actually raised my eyebrows, Mr. President, because I have yet to hear anything about an emergency taking place at our 911 center. The mayor went on to state that she met just recently with the dispatchers, members of the fire and police departments, and both chiefs of the police and fire, as well as Lieutenant Rudolph, who we heard make a presentation a couple weeks back regarding, I guess he is the oversight now of So based on the mayor's letter and the fact that she mentions the position as an emergency, she stated in the letter that it's a critical need for the operation of public safety. And I think it's only appropriate that we as a council are aware if there is a critical need with 911, which is vital to the function and safety of our residents, that we should be at least privy to what's going on, Mr. President. It also mentioned that the mayor is bringing in someone to assist with the development of a unified training manual, rules, policies, procedures. and chain of command protocol. Now, this operation for 911 with civilians has been in place for a year and a half. If unified training manual does not exist, if rules, policies, and procedures and command protocol doesn't exist for a year and a half, maybe there is a serious problem, Mr. President, that we should be made aware of. So that really alarms me, Mr. President. I think this resolution is calling to get information regarding what's happening. When this was presented, the $740,000 to address several positions of which one was the supervisor of the 911 center. There was never one iota, not one mention of this grave of a concern in the 911 center. of an emergency. Not one mention, Mr. President. Maybe my other colleagues heard it. I didn't hear any mention of that. I also had a conversation, Mr. President. I picked up the phone. I reached out to the union representative for the dispatches. Officer Harold McGillivray, he's also the union representative for the Patrolmen's Association. And I asked him point blank, are you aware of any emergency that's taking place right now for public safety within 911? And he stated to me, Mr. President, and he could speak for his own, he's very eloquent. He said, I am unaware of any public safety emergency happening currently at the 911 center. So that flies in the face with the November 19th email we received. Unless that email is nothing but a scare tactic to get us to vote for a paper that, in my opinion, was flawed, Mr. President, and didn't address some of the concerns that we as a council had. So I hope we get some answers, Mr. President, from the two chiefs. I'd like to hear what's going on. Maybe this may require, because we're talking about sensitive public safety information, maybe an executive session next week. Who knows, but we have to be prepared if that's the case. Because I refuse to sit here and hear once again that we can't discuss concerns of public safety like we did a month ago regarding a breach of information. from city and school employees where private information was taken, Mr. President, and that we couldn't discuss it as a council. We couldn't go into executive session. We couldn't find out anything about this information. And I'm not going to sit around and sit back, Mr. President, when I'm hearing from the mayor that there's an emergency within 911 call center. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. If we are going to invite Lieutenant Rudolph, I would ask that the union representative be invited as well. That represents the dispatches. And that would be Officer Harold McGillivray.
[Michael Marks]: Further amended by myself, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: It was to invite the union representative who represents the dispatches.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Councilor Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. I do have a number of questions and I'm not sure if it's appropriate tonight, but it's my understanding level three sex offenders have to register with the local police department. Has that happened? Is there a loophole for long term facilities? Is that not a requirement if someone is a level two or three sex offender? And are they required to report? That's state statute that requires the reporting. And it's an offense not to report. So I was just wondering if that took place or if there's a loophole within the statute that doesn't require for these type of facilities.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so if that's the case, Mr. President, as was stated earlier, that the state statute also requires that these level sex offenders not only report, but be a certain distance away from schools, and churches, and parks, and a number of items, Mr. President. I don't have it in front of me, but I know it spells out a number of items. And who is the responsibility to oversee that? Is it our police department to make sure that because you can go on the website and see where level two and level three sex offenders are within your community currently. And there are pretty stringent requirements also that as long as they report, Mr. President, you're not supposed to harass, do anything against these offenders as well. So they have protections as well. However, if they're in violation of state statute because they're too close to an area where they're prohibited to be, that's a major concern of. of us as a community, and I think one that, as Mr. Rodriguez, the Chief of Staff, mentioned, if there is a lag, we've got to figure out why is there a lag and so forth. I put on the agenda a while back, and I'm hoping we have a committee of the whole. I know we've had a lot, Mr. President. But I asked for a public safety summit regarding the incident that Councilor Caraviello mentioned about a senior citizen in this community that was assaulted by someone from a group home within the city of Medford. And it turned out actually to be better than expected because of this senior's ability to get out of the home and find safety, but it could have been a very dangerous, dangerous situation, Mr. President. And I asked for a public safety summit, and maybe this is another issue that we can put on that agenda and discuss these particular concerns that we have in the community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I just want to say that was a very fruitful meeting, and I want to thank Chairman Scarpelli for calling that meeting. After all these years, Mr. President, of this council barking about the dangerousness of that particular intersection, we have a lot of them around the community. But that one in particular, South and Main, Mr. President, it was very pleasing to hear from the project manager from DOT, Mike Trepanier, who from what I hear is a very capable person. And when he's in charge of something, it gets done. So I was very pleased to hear that he is responsible for moving this project forward. He mentioned it's the intersection program that's part of a federal funded program where design dollars come from MassDOT and construction funding comes from MassDOT as well. And as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, they're looking at a three to five year potential program. And we asked on multiple occasions, the three committee members, that we were looking for some immediate resolve to some of the concerns that have been mentioned by this council regarding raised crosswalks, additional signage, a traffic light at that particular intersection, some low-lying foot for temporary public safety concern. And from what we heard from the city engine,
[Michael Marks]: So I'm very pleased to hear that as well. And one thing I did find interesting is over the years, we've always been told that the intersection of Maine and South was under state control. And when the gentleman from DOT mentioned that this is kind of outside their boundary, I questioned him and said, what do you mean this is your road? And come to find out, someone from the state made an additional call to And district four said there's some cross sectional lines in that particular location. So it's not clear cut that it's state versus city. And I think some of that, according to my conversation with the traffic engineer, I think still needs to be ironed out. But I was very pleased to hear that DOT is going to look at this. as a total approach. They're not looking at that intersection as they mentioned all along. They're looking at from Salem Street all the way down to High Street, going towards Main Street. And the signalization, the whole length, which makes sense, Mr. President. And I also want to thank our city clerk. If you want to read the minutes that were put out by the city clerk, it's really like you attended the meeting. It's amazing, Mr. President. Extremely detailed. And it's extremely, the reason why I bring it up is not to give accolades to the city clerk. These are the records that will go by, the minutes, someday when, in a year from now, when they say, we didn't say this or that. We're going to have it in writing, Mr. President, the commitments that were made. during that particular meeting. And I think it's going to go a long way, so I want to thank Chairman Scarpelli, Councilor Morell that was on the call that asked a number of good questions, and the City Clerk, Mr. President, for his detailed notes on the meeting.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, and to the one thing you can count on this time of year, right around the holidays, especially Thanksgiving, is the generosity in the community. And one person that stands out, and I don't want to put them on the spot, but Councilor Caraviello, Every year, Mr. President, this isn't Johnny come lately. He's been doing this for years and years and years. And he's the first to stand out there and help local families, Mr. President, those that may not even ask for help. He is the first to get out there and dedicate himself, Mr. President, and put up his own, Mr. President, his own resources on many occasions. And I just want to personally thank him on behalf of the many people in this community.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, thank you very much, and I appreciate the due diligence of the administration providing the job descriptions. It was helpful, Mr. President. The issue at hand that I had last week, as Mr. Rodriguez just mentioned, was regarding the I feel, and I won't speak for my other colleagues, that this is an issue that's been discussed at least for the last two to two and a half years. There's a need in the community to have someone coordinate our elections, Mr. President. We've been very fortunate to have a great staff and a clerk that oversees the process. However, Mr. President, we're at a point right now with early voting, mail-in voting, absentee voting, And our voting rolls have increased over the last number of years, I believe by almost 10,000 new voters in this community. That in my opinion, and I'd like to hear from the city clerk, that this position is well warranted within this community. And I think we should get all the stakeholders, I agree, at the table. However, Mr. President, this is two years now. And I appreciate the commitment from the administration to take 100,000 out of the facilities, but I would like to have a time frame on that, Mr. President. I believe a job description has been drafted, sent to the appropriate personnel within the city administration. And if we can arrive at some type of time frame, Mr. President, I will give it my support tonight. If not, Mr. President, I am tired of lip service. Not to say that that's the case here, but I am tired of lip service. And I want to see action, especially on such an important position in this community, Mr. President. If we can't guarantee to residents in this community that we can have a fair election, Mr. President, and an election that we know is On the utmost regarding security safety, then we're not doing what we were supposed to be doing as elected officials. And I believe having this position would secure that, Mr. President, and it would secure us for a number of years moving forward as we see elections changing, not only in Method, but across the nation. So at this point, I'd like to ask the city clerk, because this is not something we just want to create a position on. This is something that's needed. And I'd like to hear from the chief election officer in the community that's been overseeing the process for the last two years, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Can you just speak to the particular need?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and if I could just follow up, Mr. President. It's my understanding, and I think I mentioned this last week, that some many years ago, there used to be two separate positions. It was the city clerk position and elections coordinator position that existed. The person in the election coordinator position, from my understanding, retired. And rather than looking for another election coordinator position, the city clerk took it on as a stipend position. And that's where we fell for many years. And I can guarantee you in all the surrounding communities that the city clerk is not the person that's in charge or coordinates the elections in all the surrounding communities. That is a separate and distinct function and role and separate person. And I think we're at a point right now in this community and the size of this community that this is warranted. I don't believe anyone in the administration doesn't believe so either. But I want to make sure, Mr. President, that we're not here another year from now talking about the same issue and putting our resources into the same things over and over again. So that's why I'm hoping if we can get a commitment tonight on when we will see this position, I'll give the administration all the needed time they need to meet with the stakeholders and parties and draft the job description and so forth. But we need a time frame, Mr. President, that someone will be in that position. And that's how I will vote for this tonight.
[Michael Marks]: No, I understand that. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this paper was on the agenda a week ago, and we sent back last Tuesday a message to the administration, and I believe the chief of staff was on the meeting last week with this council's intent. And to come back and say that he has no authority to make any decisions as the chief of staff, I think falls short of the mark, Mr. President. Because clearly the council made it known what our intent was last week. And I agree with Councilor Knight, however, the paper was presented the way it was presented. I don't think we can go through this and pick and choose what items we'd like to move forward with and what items we'd like to sit on. I don't believe we can do that. If the administration wants to recall this, paper and then submit another paper that we can agree upon. Ideally, Mr. President, it would have been nice for the administration maybe to sit down in a committee of the whole at the council and say, hey, look, we have $740,000. These are the things we'd like to do in the community. What are your thoughts? Right? That didn't happen, and so be it, Mr. President. But clearly, I am not going to commit because the administration's unwilling to commit. Because from what I'm hearing tonight, there is no commitment. You can wait your 45 days. They can come out with ten different job descriptions. There's still no commitment to fund this position, Mr. President. And just because they come out with a job description doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy that that's a commitment. That is not a commitment, Mr. President. Been around a long time, and that is not a formal commitment. And I think we heard that here tonight. So as we stated before, if the council feels this is necessary, Mr. President, we stand up, send the paper back. So if that's the will of the council, I will follow that, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, would you like to- Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate the representative from National Grid being on the call again tonight. The question I think which was supported by this council, Mr. President, was to have Diana go back to National Grid regarding putting together some mitigation to address curbing in the area of Riverside Ave that this construction work was going to be done. I think the total construction paving and marking, according to the representative from National Grid, was about $400,000. We by no means were looking for mitigation to that level. However, we were looking to address the lack of the appropriate height of curbing on Riverside Ave, which currently right now is level with the street and very dangerous to pedestrians. So I would like to just find out what Diana came back with regarding her conversation.
[Michael Marks]: And for the pipes, valves, governors, manholes, and structures, fixtures, and appearances designed- Mr. President, motion to waive the remainder of the reading, and if the representative from National Grid can give a brief synopsis of the request.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank my two colleagues for putting this on. This was a real big shock, Mr. President. Leo was always very spunky. He'd be the first to give a good word and also tell you the truth on something, too. He didn't hold back any punches when you talked to Leo. He'll tell you how it was, and as Councilor Caraviello put it so eloquently, he was involved in a lot of different things in the community. But what stands out to me is the involvement, those late night meetings that we used to have with the Democratic Warded City Committee. He would be out on every issue supporting his cause. He was a man of, really, of integrity and someone you can count on as a friend. And he will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Anyone that knew Trieste knew him as a real family man. Married for many, many decades to his wife, Lucy. They were always together. Trieste was a loving husband, a loving father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, Mr. President. And they were a staple, he was a staple in Salt Method for many years. A family very involved in the community. And he will be solely missed, Mr. President. I would ask if we could, in honor of him, that this meeting be dedicated in Trieste Silvio's name, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I review the records, find them to be in order, and move approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before we adjourn.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. The council last week voted to have an on-site meeting up to heights on Fulton Spring Road and so forth. This Saturday, Mr. President, I would ask that we get a correspondence from the city administration regarding the reverse 9-1-1 that I believe Councilor Knight requested to notify area residents. And also that we get a correspondence of the location and the time. I think we established 11 o'clock.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just want to stress, it's extremely important that when we meet as a council to discuss neighborhood concerns, public safety concerns, that we get a buy-in from the city administration. And it's extremely important that all the parties that can make substantial change in this community be present, Mr. President. So I would be extremely disappointed if we didn't see the leadership in this committee, this community, show up to this particular Committee of the Whole meeting when we're discussing very important issues up the heights, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for following up on this. These type of presentations, in my opinion, are extremely important and aren't done frequently enough to this council. So I appreciate Councilor Knight following up on this. My question is twofold. First, what regarding the capital plan is part of this current budget now. So anything that's in the capital plan, what would be expended out of the current budget? Or do we anticipate bonding for everything?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so online to what Councilor Bears mentioned, do we have any idea what percent of this $740,000 would be actually items that would be part of the capital plan?
[Michael Marks]: So this $740,000 would be an integral part of moving forward with a five- or six-year capital plan?
[Michael Marks]: So why are we taking this approach that we haven't seen a capital plan but we're moving forward with items that may or may not be part of the capital plan?
[Michael Marks]: And the reason why we're moving forward now, although we just did the budget four months ago, is that this newfound money is giving us the ability to progress on some of the issues that the city needs to move forward on. Is that why we're looking at this?
[Michael Marks]: So my other point, and I think you're right with some of these concerns, and I do support many of the items in here. And when we get to this paper, I have other questions on this paper itself. But regarding some of these positions, there's been long discussion, not just this particular year with the election. that the elections department just went through, but for the past several years, this city has requested an election coordinator. We currently don't have someone that coordinates our elections. We do have a city clerk that wears multiple hats, but he is not an elections coordinator. And all the surrounding cities and towns that I looked into have that position. And for some reason, the city of Medford, with a city of almost 60,000 people and 41,000 registered voters, we don't have someone that coordinates our elections. And I think that's a shortfall in this community. And with everything going on nationally, that it's very important that We have someone that can make sure the integrity of our election is what everyone would come to expect. So have we looked into, I know this council has put forward several, and I know I've put forward a couple, and I know my colleagues have, several requests for the city administration to hire an elections coordinator. I believe the mayor has sat down and has discussed the issue. Can you give us an update? where we stand with an election coordinator, and why it's not part of this list here.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but those are one-time funds, and I'm talking about a long-term plan in the community to have oversight within a very important department. And I think when this list that we're going to go over soon that was presented to us, this is to help the city move forward on some shortfalls that we have. or shortcomings, I should say, in how we operate city government. And in my opinion, election coordinators should be at the top of the list, to be quite frank. So I would hope that we can get some answers tonight on this.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so and I appreciate that response, Dave. It's my understanding that a fair amount of work over the past two years has already gone into what this petition position would be created for what purpose, the duties and responsibilities, the actual job title, who they would oversee, the responsibilities, the salary and the position. So I think a lot of the legwork that you just mentioned has been done. So to hear that this is something that we're going to look at once again after the election seems to be, with all due respect, more lip service. So in order to get my support for this particular paper, and I don't know where my colleagues stand, but I can tell you we've all reiterated this over and over and over again ad nauseum. I will not support a paper that doesn't include an election coordinator position. And you can work out the details. The facilities manager, I haven't seen the job description other than the title and the salary. I don't know anything else about that position. But it found its way in this paper. And I would think, in my opinion, that there's been more homework and due diligence done already for the election coordinator position. The need's there, the demand is there, and the integrity of our elections is extremely important in this day and age. And to have someone facilitate and pull this together. I think is vital in this community, extremely vital. So I just want to put that out there. I will not support this paper unless the paper includes the election coordinator position that this council has voted on, I believe unanimously, a half a dozen times in the last two years. And I'll let my colleagues speak for themselves. So I just want to let you know where I stand on this.
[Michael Marks]: I believe it's out there, so we will get you a copy of that. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli. I think he hit the nail on the head. As a member of this council, I would like to see Mr. President for any newly created position, which this request has several, that we receive a full job description on the position itself. I realize that the city administration probably put a lot of time and effort into this, but they have to realize we weren't privy to these conversations. Secondly, Mr. President, I would ask that when my colleagues are done speaking, that I would like to evoke rule 20. for this particular paper. It's the first time it has appeared on the council agenda and it's a financial paper and any request of a member of this council for a financial paper appearing for the first time gets automatically laid on the table for one week. So I would say when my colleagues are done speaking, I would like to evoke rule 20 Mr. President. I would also ask that within this week that the city administration which is the chief of staff, along with the mayor, sit down with the city clerk, come up with a job description for the election coordinator, a salary for the election coordinator, and what their responsibilities would be, and come back to us within a week with that title added to this particular list. And if there's no money for the appropriation, I would ask that it be taken from the facilities, line item of 200,000 minus whatever the salary for the election coordinator position would be. And when we receive the job description for these other positions, that we also receive a new job description for the election coordinator, Mr. President, as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could, there was a number of questions. The major question I believe was by many of the council members was why this work was taking place. Gas work, first of all, during the holidays and secondly, during cold winter months. where it potentially could impact residents of this community. And we asked what the nature of the emergency was to do it at this particular time. So I'd like to hear a response from National Grid.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, that's good news as far as I'm concerned. Another issue that I brought up, I believe it was last week or the week before, not week before because of the election, was the fact that item bullet point number 12 was the scope of the MWRA section 57 project includes the resurfacing and striping this portion of Riverside Ave. The engineering division requests that National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to other paving in the city. And we got a commitment from our city engineer at the time that the restoration and other paving will indeed take place on Riverside Ave to make sure the curbing is brought up to standards, Mr. President. Currently, much of the curbing on Riverside Ave, in this particular project span, the curbing is level with the street, which poses a safety concern and a public safety risk for area residents that are walking. And I know that language wasn't changed, but I want to make sure that that indeed is what's going to happen. So I'm not sure if we formally need to change this scope. of service, bullet point 12, if there's a need, or if the city engineer feels that that's not necessary. I know he's on the call, I thought I saw him earlier. I think he did actually, let's see, so.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could. And I appreciate the city engineer. So it's my understanding that the MWRA is going to pay for the resurfacing and the striping of the portion of Riverside Ave that's going to be torn up. This also states that National Grid is supposed to contribute to the final restoration project. Whereas the MWRA is paying for it, that money that the national grid would be kicking in goes into, just say, a different pot now. And the city engineer said, okay, we'll take that different pot and we'll use it for other paving in the city. So my request two weeks ago was rather than looking at other paving areas in the city, that's put it towards Riverside Ave. We know there's work that needs to be done on the curbing and so forth. So I can appreciate the fact that this is not part of the scope of the overall project. What I'm asking is as a city that that money be dedicated to the curbing on Riverside Ave. I don't know what the actual final restoration cost is. So is there any indication what this would cost National Grid or what money they'd be giving to the city?
[Michael Marks]: So my question to you, Mr. Engineer, is that if we were to allow the resurfacing and striping take place at this particular juncture, that would preclude us down the line for raising our curbing. Or would it make it more difficult? at that particular point to do maybe curbing and sidewalking at a later date?
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, National Grid's exception to this is not the fact that we want to do curbing, it's the fact that they don't want to be involved in curbing, but the money that they give towards the project, we can put towards curbing or whatever we want to do as a community, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. I mean, I think we're well aware of projects like we're going through right now with 3.2 miles of Eversource coming through the community that gives zero benefit to this community other than ripping up our streets, 3.2 miles of our street, and we get zero benefit. So I think we can appreciate the fact that National Grid is doing this on behalf of the MWRA. My question is then the way this is worded. It says the scope of the MWRA section 57 project includes resurfacing and striping. So from what I understand is the MWRA is going to pay for resurfacing and striping. Am I correct with that?
[Michael Marks]: OK, just so the MWRA is paying for resurfacing and striping the portion of Riverside Ave. Then it goes on to say the engineering division requests that National Grid, not the MWRA, National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to other paving in the city. So it's our engineering department requesting not just MWRA do their surfacing and striping, but also now that National Grid pay something towards other paving projects in the community. Is that not correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but from what I'm hearing now is that the other project can't be us putting that money into curbing on Riverside F. Not National Grid, us as a community going off on our own and putting that money into curbing on Riverside F. Is that what I just not heard?
[Michael Marks]: We would replace the sidewalk as well. We wouldn't just raise curbing and leave the sidewalk.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Council of Peers.
[Michael Marks]: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what Councilor Bears said.
[Michael Marks]: OK, so the request from the engineer that would be voting on tonight that states that National Grid would contribute to the final cost is now different. That's for Tim. Anyone that wants to answer it.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so if we were gonna vote on this tonight, we're voting on this language that's in front of us, and we're hearing that they're not gonna honor this language. That is what you're hearing.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so let me, just so I understand. So if we made it as a condition, this says the engineering division recommends that the grant location be approved with the following conditions. Now, he doesn't recommend it unless it has these conditions. Am I correct, Mr. Engineer?
[Michael Marks]: From who?
[Michael Marks]: So why can't National Grid go back to the MWRA and say, you know what, we applied for a permit and the city's requesting these conditions. And if you want the work done, these are the conditions they're requesting. Why can't that be done? I understand National Grid's the middle man, but they're the ones applying for the permit. And if we're saying that we want X, Y, and Z done, these are the conditions, and National Grid says we can't do that because legally we can't obligate ourselves to fix that that way for whatever reason, they can't do it. Then they need to go back to the MWRA and say, this is the pushback from the city. The city wants X, Y, and Z done in order for you to get this project moved forward. I don't understand why we have to back off as a community. Point of information, Mr. President? Point of information, Councilor Layton.
[Michael Marks]: Exactly, exactly. A contribution towards that particular project that we will do as a city. We weren't looking for National Grid to take on that project.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would just ask that we get a commitment tonight from National Grid that a portion of funds be allocated to curb work on Riverside F. And that could be discussed between the city engineer and National Grid. And that's what I thought this originally was requesting. And I just wanted to make sure that what the request was that it stayed on Riverside Ave, because the original request was that that money be spent somewhere else in the city for paving somewhere else. So I understand what National Grid's stating. I understand that. I would just hope they make a commitment tonight. If they don't, I cannot support this paper, Mr. President. based on what I see in the community. I don't think the city gets a fair shake, to be quite honest with you. Everywhere you look, they're digging up our streets. They're a mess. They're never put back the way they should be, Mr. President. You've got sinkholes everywhere in the community. You've got double poles all around the community, you see popping up everywhere. And these utility companies thumb their nose at us. Mr. President, to be quite honest with you. And if they want to come up and move their pipes underneath the national grid, it's going to move for the MWRA, let them figure it out. Let them figure out, Mr. President. But I'm not going to stand around, Mr. President, while we talked about these curbs. And I live off of Riverside Ave, not this general area, but I live off of Riverside Ave, and I witness, Mr. President, every time I go by there, curbs that are level with the street. And the gentleman that called me up just recently that his front stairs were totally annihilated, brick stairs at the Conner Locust and Riverside Ave. If anyone remembers that, a cop plowed right into his home, Mr. President. And partly because that the street is even with the sidewalk. Partly because the person was probably a bad driver, God knows what else was going on. But it lends itself, Mr. President, for a very dangerous area. And if we're going to do total work like this, that's complete the work, Mr. President. And if the city has to step up and put some obligation, fine, but let's get it done now. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, do we have any understanding what level leaks exist within this span of work? What level gas leaks, I believe there's level one, two, and three. What level leaks are within this span of construction?
[Michael Marks]: I don't know that. My question wasn't how many leaks. What level leak is in that particular area? Are they grade one, two, or three?
[Michael Marks]: Two or three. Right.
[Michael Marks]: Right, which is very common in the city of Medford. We have hundreds of them. around the community, hundreds and hundreds of grade level two and grade level three leaks. And I realize this wasn't a planned project, but by no stretch of the imagination, we're replacing these because they're leaks that are emergency in nature. So I would differ with my colleague a little bit. I appreciate the fact that he may see this a little different, but these aren't leaks of emergency nature. This is work being done on behalf of the MWRA, which has nothing to do with gas. Right? They have nothing to do with gas. They're looking at their own piping underneath the gas lines and naturally have to move gas lines in order to get to their piping. So I think that's why I believe strongly the MWRA should be ponying up some money into this project, Mr. President. Like we do with all other projects, like the Eversource and so forth, that we look for mitigation. And I don't see that other than just resurfacing and restriping an area that we're getting any mitigation on this project, we're getting disruption. And a lot of it, Mr. President, in a highly traveled street. So again, I will not be supporting this paper on behalf of area residents, Mr. President, because I don't think we've done our due diligence as a community to negotiate with these two particular utility companies in order to get the utmost benefit on behalf of our residents and our city, Mr. President. So I will not be supporting this paper tonight.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, while we have the city engineer on, has he had a discussion with the head of WIAS, Mr. Randazzo, about the OptiComm system at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street, which is used to allow ambulances and emergency vehicles to pass through quickly at major intersections?
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, I believe I offered the language last week, but I'll do it again, that item 12 be amended to read the engineering division requests that National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to Riverside Ave curbing project. So I'll add that, however, Mr. President, knowing what we heard tonight from the representative from National Grid, that they are not going to fund such a project or even partially fund a project. Mr. President, I will not be supporting this. And I would ask my fellow colleagues, in order to send a message to National Grid and the MWRA, let them go back and work this out, that we do not support this, Mr. President. even with this language, because this language is, as Councilor Scarpelli stated, a false sense of security. Because ideally, I believe we've all, not ideally, I believe we've all heard that it's not going to happen, Mr. President. So that's why I will not be supporting it, even with that language. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, councilor. Mr. President, no one's looking for a blank check.
[Michael Marks]: I know, and we can word it, as you see, we're the legislative body. We can word it any way we can strike an agreement tonight. So if you're willing to strike an agreement, we're willing to word it that way. But by no means are we looking for a blank check or an open-ended proposal. We're asking that you contribute towards a project that the city will implement and work on, having nothing to do with your scope of service. And if we can get that commitment tonight, you'll have my vote. And I don't know where other people stand, but if not, you may have to go back to the drawing board.
[Michael Marks]: But I can look into it. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I think what Councilor Knight just brought up a great suggestion. Maybe if we lay this on the table for one week, asking the representative, Ms. Cuddy, to go back and ask whether or not they'd be willing to give the amount of the resurface and the striping towards the curbing. if they would be willing to make that type of commitment to the city. Or any commitment to the city, I don't know the cost.
[Michael Marks]: So $400,000, so if we can get some type of- We'll take half. You got a deal? If we can get some type of commitment, Mr. President, between now and next week, I'd be willing to support this, Mr. President. And like I said, it doesn't have to be done under their scope of service. This will be something that the city will embark upon at a later time. But I would ask if the representative is amendable to that. If she doesn't think that will happen, then I'm prepared to vote no tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Connie, would you be able to comment on that?
[Michael Marks]: I'm not looking for a program. That was Councilor Knight. I'm looking for you just to make a commitment, a mitigation commitment to this city to put funding within, uh, the curbing for Riverside F. And if you can't, I can appreciate you can't make that commitment, but if we give you a week, are you willing to come back or?
[Michael Marks]: I think that would go a long way to doing sidewalks and some curbing. It's not the entire lane, if you look at it. There's some sections that don't need to be done. So I think that would go a long way. So if you're willing to do that, I'd be willing to lay it on the table for one week, if my council colleagues see fit.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to lay on the table for one week, Mr. President. Pending response from National Grid on the mitigation response for the curbing on Riverside Ave. Thank you, Councilor Markswell.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I know some of my colleagues that live in the area are very familiar with this. We all recall when we had the meetings at St. Francis back a couple years ago, and there were a number of area residents that came down regarding speeding, cut through traffic, lack of signage in the Heights area. And I thought really, Mr. President, at the time we had all the players at the table, and I really, really thought some movement was going to happen. And now it's been two years, Mr. President, and other than some signs that are restricted use only during rush hour and resident only signs, there's been very little done, to be quite honest with you, in regards to trying to alleviate some of the concerns of area residents in that neighborhood regarding cut through, regarding speeding, and so forth. We did request, Mr. President, that a complete comprehensive traffic study be done. Does anyone behind this reel know of or read or aware of this comprehensive traffic study?
[Michael Marks]: That may have been part of the study, and Officer Brooks does a great job. But Mr. President, I'm not aware of any comprehensive traffic study that resulted from this council's request over and over again. residents request over and over again, Mr. President. And it's quite troubling when you have area residents that call you up and say, whatever resulted with the meetings that we had at St. Francis? Whatever resulted with the traffic commission that was going to look into speeding cars and cut through traffic? Whatever resulted from the additional signage that we spoke about on Fulton Spring Road, Fels Ave, Murray Hill Road, Fels Ave Terrace, that particular corridor, Mr. President? which is still a bone of contention for many, many area residents. I don't have to tell you that, Mr. President. You're well aware of the concerns and have fought just as hard to get something done in that particular area, Mr. President. I had a resident call me the other day. It said, we as residents were concerned about a four-way stop at Rockland Road, Fels Ave, and Fels Ave Terrace. And they asked for a four-way stop. They were told by someone within the police department or the traffic division, well, what you need to do first is get together a petition. Then you're going to get more than 50% of the area residents to sign the petition. And we'll entertain it with the traffic commission to put up a four-way stop. And I'm thinking to myself, Mr-.
[Michael Marks]: That's an excellent point. I'm not sure what that process was, but I can tell you, Mr. President, it's one thing to say that you're looking to get resident permit parking on a street and to see if there's a buy-in from the area residents. I can see that, Mr. President. I may not agree with having someone go out and do the legwork, but I can see why that's done. But to get basic signage regarding four-way stops, Mr. President, there should not be a need of area residents to get together, sign petitions, do the legwork. It makes absolutely no sense, Mr. President. That should be an issue that's presented before the Traffic Commission and let them do their homework. No reflection on the traffic commission, but I've stated this for years as a member of the council. We used to have a traffic commission and then an off-street parking commission in the city. And people would say, how do I get this done? Well, I'm not sure, you may have to go to the off-street parking commission or the traffic commission, maybe they don't handle that particular item. We finally merged both back some years ago. We finally merged them together, so it's one stop shopping. However, Mr. President, I hate to say it, but the chief of police in his capacity with a department of over 100 people in a major city is also the chair of the traffic commission. And in my opinion, no reflection, I know many of the members and they do great work. It's a reactionary body. They don't go out looking to make improvements, Mr. President. They just wait for stuff to come to them. And I think it's long overdue that we look how we operate the rules and regulations and how our traffic commission operates, Mr. President. Because it's too much of a process to get quick turnaround and things to happen quick in the city. Because you may get something through the traffic commission, but it may take you eight months to get the sign. Erect it. It's just an issue, Mr. President, that needs to be attended to. And like I said, I hope I don't offend anyone, but when you see something that needs to be attended to, after so many years, the traffic commission's created by, I believe, the state legislature. It was a home rule petition that creates the traffic commission and so forth. It needs to be looked at. It possibly needs to be revisited. A couple of the concerns I had with area residents. that I tried to bring to the chief's attention. I'm still waiting for phone calls back from the chief from weeks and months ago. Multiple phone calls. I realize he's a busy man, but guess what? In that capacity, you have to delegate. If you're that busy that you can't return a call to a resident or an elected official or whoever it might be, then maybe you should practice the art of delegating and having someone follow up, Mr. President. I went to him because he was the chief. And I have to say, I am very disappointed in not getting a return phone call, though. Common courtesy. It wasn't on my behalf, Mr. President. It was on behalf of the residents that are so angry, Mr. President, that they see no results on meetings, city meetings, and so forth. But yet again, I'm going to call for another meeting. And that's what this resident said, and we're going to have more of the same. And it's hard for me as an elected official to say, you know what, the other meetings we had at St. Francis, we tried to do something but nothing resulted. This onsite meeting, hopefully we'll get the chief, hopefully he'll participate. I know he's busy, hopefully we can get him. Hopefully we'll get the mayor. The mayor has stated when she ran for public office, she stated unequivocally, I'm gonna be before that Medford City Council. I believe even one time she said, they'll see me so many times, they'll get sick of me. I know it's COVID, Mr. President, but the line of communication is not there. It's not there, it's lacking. That's why I'm asking for an on-site visit, Mr. President, with the traffic engineer, with the head of DPW, with the mayor, and our office, and the chief of police. And I would hope, Mr. President, as I put two Saturdays down, the weather's still fine, COVID's out there, but we can meet outdoors in a safe manner. and inviting area residents to let us know what they go through on a daily basis, dealing with the traffic and the cut through. And this is during COVID. You guys see it, it's starting to pick up again. It had a lull for a little while and it's starting to pick up again. And residents are very concerned, Mr. President. So I would ask with all due deference that you set up those meetings, Mr. President, on one of the other dates.
[Michael Marks]: This is an extremely important issue. This is happening throughout the entire community. We have to get a handle on what's happening on our streets. We've got to take back our roads. We have to make it safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, anyone that wants to traverse, Mr. President, our roads. We have to make it safe. And clearly, what's happening up the heights right now is not safe. And a few signs that are put saying area residents only or restrictive use doesn't take the place of enforcement, doesn't take the place of additional signage, Mr. President. And my second point, the Connor of Doonan and, Doonan and, that's the next one. I'll leave that for the next one, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: But it's the same issue, Mr. President, and that I'll leave for the next one. But I would hope my fellow colleagues, Mr. President, I know they all support this. And I'm sure many of them are tired of hearing of it. But guess what, Mr. President? It still remains a concern. And maybe our public safety, I think Councilor Bears, are you the chairman of public safety subcommittee? The public safety sub, it may not be you, but we really need to have a public safety summit, Mr. President. I've been calling for it for years. And I've still yet to get a buy-in from the city administration or the chief of police to call for a public safety summit. And it's long overdue in this community, and maybe we as a council have to call for the meeting. Because clearly this administration and the chief of police have other things that they're embroiled in right now, and it's clearly not safety in this community. Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody else like to speak?
[Michael Marks]: Why don't we set it for the 21st and what time works? Is a better time?
[Michael Marks]: Why don't we set it for the 21st at 11 o'clock? Carr Park. And say Carr Park.
[Michael Marks]: I second that. Let's meet right in that stretch, Mr. President. You pick an area. Fulton Street and Fern Road. Yep, a corner and we'll meet right there. If you want to do Fulton Spring and Fern.
[Michael Marks]: And I second Councilor Knight's robo-call.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just so we are all under the same impression, that the roll call go out. First we invite all the department heads and so forth, and the roll call go out requesting that the Method City Council is requesting this meeting.
[Michael Marks]: Chief of Police, City Engineer, Traffic Engineer, DPW Commissioner, Mayor, And mayor's office, anyone else? I mean, I think that covers.
[Michael Marks]: Just tell the chief, the chief, you know, it's fine.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah. Yeah. Right, that cover, I may have missed the street or two, so. I mean, does that cover Fulton Spring Road, Fell's Ave?
[Michael Marks]: Murray Hill Road.
[Michael Marks]: You want to add Rockland Road? You want to add Fern?
[Michael Marks]: Let's hit that chunk of area.
[Michael Marks]: How are you? Westfield and some of the- West. Rova.
[Michael Marks]: I'll go whatever you want to send it out to. We'll figure it out. Okay. Yeah. Sounds good. It'll be sent to the whole ward. It's not a bad idea.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And actually, this was an intersection that we ended up getting after many years of four-way stop at the corner of Doonan and Park. Some of the signs that were erected were put back in an angle that makes it very difficult for people coming into the intersection of Park and Doonan. And from what I'm being told by area residents, that people are blowing right through the four-way stop, not stopping at all, just going through. They believe partially it's the inability of people to see the signs when they're approaching because of the angle. Now, I had a discussion with Chief Buckley. We were going back and forth with a couple of the residents and the chief, and the follow-up wasn't there. I reached back out to Chief Buckley, and the follow-up still wasn't there, and the calls weren't returned. And that's why it's on the agenda, Mr. President, which is unfortunate. But I'm asking, Mr. President, in the interest of public safety, that the chief of police, along with his traffic division, go out and take a cursory look at this particular intersection and see what may be the underlining problems. Why cars are blowing through this intersection, if it's how the signs are faced, the stop signs are faced or not. And also, Mr. President, the residents asked for, no one wants to get ticketed, but they asked for increased enforcement. And it happened for a short period of time, and then it got brushed aside. And people are real concerned about safety and concern of area residents in that area, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Councilor Bierce for bringing this up. You know, it's no secret the MBTA, even before COVID, has been trying to cut service for years, Mr. President. You know, for an agency that's responsible for public transportation, I've never met a group of people that are looking to cut services constantly. And I can appreciate they're dealing with the budget and so forth, never ending. You know, I just read an article that We're creating dedicated bus lanes. We're creating rapid busing. And then in the same breath, we're cutting bus service. Does it make any sense? It makes zero sense. And COVID, we've been dealing with COVID since March. It's now November. So they wait, what, seven months to figure out that bus service ridership is down? It took them seven months to figure that out, and now they want to make these draconian cuts across the board. I was watching the news tonight, they're cutting ferry service for the salt shore. They're cutting across the board some deep, impacting cuts. And as Councilor Beals mentioned, once it's gone, it's going to be very hard to get it back. The 326 and the 325, as you know, Mr. President, those are vital lines that take residents into town, vital to this community. And always constantly on the chopping block. I know a lot of the other routes have been subject to cuts. But those particular lines, for some reason, and you pay through the nose to get on them, those are always the first they want to chop. We had a problem with overabundance of people on those routes, because they were cutting the routes and the limit of the capacity on the bus would be 50 or 60 people. There were 80 or 90 people on the bus. It was like a cartoon you were hanging out the window to take a bus ride. And then we finally figured it out that they had to add some more roots on there. And they did, Mr. President. But the ridership was there. Then COVID kicked in, the ridership's not there. But it's gonna come back. I hope this is temporary. And that's what, everything I've read they're saying, I don't know if it's just PR, that this is gonna be temporary. But I have a tough time believing that, Mr. President. And I hope a lot of residents get on there. But I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling when I deal with the MBTA. I really don't. It's their way or the highway. No pun intended. It's pretty funny, though.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for co-sponsoring this resolution. If you know the Crotties, you know what type of people they are, Mr. President. They're true family people. They are people that love their city, love their neighborhood, are always willing to step up and be the first to commit themselves to whatever they do in our community. 50 years of wedding bliss, Mr. President, goes without saying. When you see Joanne, you see Ron. When you see Ron, you see Joanne. They're like frickin' frack. They go together, Mr. President. They're a perfect match. And I wish them well on 50 years of wedding bliss. And I just want to also say hi to Mary Ann, who is another integral part of Ron and Joanne. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Knight, for putting this on.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up. The issue on Commercial Street has been brought up for the last couple of years. And I believe there was a sign put up back about two years ago. It says no idling. So the trucks used to park there and idle for hours and hours and hours, so they stopped the idling. But if you're going to stop and shop and come out the commercial street entrance, it is such a dangerous area now because they park the 18 wheelers and you have to literally inch, inch, inch, otherwise you're going to get in a horrific accident. It's really bad. And I think at the very least that this should be sent to our traffic division to have them take a look, Mr. President. I don't know how other communities do it, but maybe we can get creative. And if these truckers want to park for hours in a particular area and take up spots that are not one car spot, two cars, but ten car spots. in a particular area, maybe we should charge them so and maybe have areas on these streets that offer trucks. because as Councilor Knight mentioned, these truckers keep logs and they have to be off the road a certain amount of hours and so forth. So we don't want to encourage truckers to not get their rest, they need their rest. But maybe we should come up with creative ways that we allow a certain number of them in areas that are conducive to this and charge them at the same time, Mr. President. If I have to go put meters in the kiosk when I'm in the square, why can a trucker stay there for 12 hours on Commercial Street? because they're delivering something? Who cares? Charge them.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could just get, what type of food will be sold and what are the hours that the food will be sold?
[Michael Marks]: All right. I wish you good luck. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last time we met to discuss this ordinance, there were a number of recommendations made and voted on by this council. Of which I proposed under the representation section that a behavioral health specialist from Lawrence Memorial Hospital and a behavioral health specialist from Tufts University be part of the membership of the commission. And I don't see that language incorporated, Mr. President, that was voted on by the council.
[Michael Marks]: And I think, I don't know if Councilor Bears had one also.
[Michael Marks]: So what do we ask to vote on tonight?
[Michael Marks]: I second the motion to table by Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to refer back to regular order of business. Second.
[Michael Marks]: The trucks, does he work on trucks?
[Michael Marks]: Paint? No. Do you paint trucks?
[Michael Marks]: No painting?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if the petitioner can answer several questions. Does this run the entire length of Riverside Ave?
[Michael Marks]: Does it not go up to Locust Street? Let me see, Locust Street.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so I'm just trying to figure out, so does this construction start after 93 on Riverside Ave and go all the way up to Locust Street? Is that roughly the area? No.
[Michael Marks]: So the number of feet that's being installed of eight-inch plastic gas main and six-inch plastic gas main is about 1,700 feet. So I'm just trying to figure out how much of Riverside Ave that would cover.
[Michael Marks]: Lake Drive starts right across from Spring, right? Hall Street is from Spring to Hall.
[Michael Marks]: That's not that big of an area.
[Michael Marks]: You think that's 500 yards?
[Michael Marks]: When is the anticipated start date and what's the duration?
[Michael Marks]: So what are we looking at, the middle of November?
[Michael Marks]: And what's the project duration?
[Michael Marks]: Do you work for National Grid?
[Michael Marks]: This is not a Zoom bomb, is it?
[Michael Marks]: Oh, we have Zoom bombs all the time.
[Michael Marks]: The reason why I ask is I've had calls from concerned neighbors because if they're going to do any type of shut off of gas, especially over the winter months, they're concerned about heating in their homes and so forth. So there's a lot of associated questions on when this work will take place and how long will it last for.
[Michael Marks]: So when you say slight interruption, roughly how long does that changeover take?
[Michael Marks]: So that's my concern. If this work is going on, just say, in December and January, and when it's 10 below, to have your heat off for five, six hours could be a problem.
[Michael Marks]: So that brings us into probably January. November 15 is towards the end of December, beginning of January. So I'd be real curious to know how long these changeovers take, and if there's anything we can do to get a quicker changeover on behalf of the residents that are going to be impacted.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So why was this project held off until the winter months?
[Michael Marks]: Right, because to me, this would seem like the most inconvenient time to do a gas changeover in the winter months. And I realize the MWRE is requesting it, but that seems like a real selfish request to do it in the cold winter months of New England. It doesn't make any sense to me. Okay, so my next point is, and this may be a question for, is our city engineer on the call, Mr. President, do you know?
[Michael Marks]: Projects of this nature, I would just request in the future that the city engineer be part of the call as well. especially with these conditions, there's 14 conditions that were put on by our engineering division. And I would ask that someone, a representative from the city, be present on behalf of the residents of this community. The question I had, Mr. President, and this has been an issue that's been near and dear to me for a lot of years. Many of us travel down Riverside Ave constantly. I happen to live right off of Riverside Ave. And many of the curbs a level with the street. So there's no distinction between a sidewalk and the street. They've become level. And that's a very dangerous proposition for area residents. We just had a house struck at the corner of Locust and Riverside, where a car plowed in to his walkway and his stairs. Thank God no one was there. And it demolished brick and cement stairs. And that was largely in part, Mr. President, bad driving, one thing, but the fact that there's no distinction between a sidewalk, there's no curbing, and it's a very dangerous situation. Under number 12, under the conditions, It says the scope of the MWRA section 57 project includes resurfacing and striping this portion of Riverside Ave. So they're saying the MWRA is responsible for the resurfacing and restriping. That's great, Mr. President. But what about the curbs that are level with the street? In my opinion, if we're going to look at resurfacing this road, We have to do it correct. If they're going to grind it up or whatever they're going to do, we have to make these curbs full curbing. And now's the time to do it. And it would cover a large stretch. This particular recommendation says the engineering division requests that National Grid contribute the cost of the final restoration to other paving in the city. So they're saying, we realize MWRE is going to do the paving. We're doing the job, but they're going to pay for the paving. And instead of us being responsible for something, we'll do some work somewhere else. I would submit to you, Mr. President, the work should be on Riverside Ave, and it should be leveling off the curbs on Riverside Ave. So I don't agree with this condition 12. This money should be spent on Riverside Ave. It should bring those curbs up to the current standards, the safety guidelines and highway standards of DOT. which I can guarantee you level curbs with streets are not the safety standard of DOT. So I would ask, Mr. President, I'm going to ask that we don't approve this tonight, even though this is going to prolong this a little bit. And that's why I was hoping our city engineer would be on until we can get a commitment that the curbing on Riverside Ave will be part of the condition from National Grid. to recreate the elevation on the curbing when they do the street resurfacing over for that particular stretch. So that would be my first recommendation, Mr. President. My second recommendation is that at the corner, and I'm not sure this would be a question for National Grid, it would be a question for our engineer, but at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street, as we know, there was a fire many years ago. in the DPW public works building that held most of the plans of our engineering. And many of the plans were lost. And from what I'm being told, the plans and the drawings for the underground utilities at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street are no longer around. So you can't find these plans because they were burnt in the fire. And now would be a perfect time if they're going to be digging up that area, which they are, would be a perfect time to recreate these drawings and digitize the underground utilities in that area. That would save us a heartache, Mr. President, and also get the work done on behalf. And I raise this question because when they were working on Wegmans and the project on Locust Street, there were many questions raised about underground utilities, and the city of Medford could not produce these plants. So I would ask that as a second recommendation, that at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street, that during this project that the city recreate the drawings and digitize underground utilities at that particular location in the interest of our public safety and our community. So I would ask that that be part of a condition on this report. My third and final condition, Mr. President, is that that particular set of lights, as we all know, that's a busy, busy intersection. Especially now we're adding 400 and I believe it's 50 units in that area of new housing. And we have the Wegmans, which is very busy. And the Opticom system, which you know is the little gadget that they put on the lights when ambulances and fire trucks go through intersections. It has a connection to our public safety vehicles and it allows these vehicles to go through in a quick manner and in a safe manner. And that particular intersection, we can ask head of Y's, I don't believe has the OptiComm system in place. And I would ask that it be installed as a recommendation or a condition. under this particular digging, Mr. President. If we're going to dig the street, that requires wiring under the roads and so forth, and that be done during this particular project. So I would ask that that be outlined as a condition also that the Opticomp system at the corner of Riverside and Locust Street be done during this project. So those are my three conditions, Mr. President. I would respectfully ask that we lay this on the table for one week, Mr. President, to get answers back from our engineering department, our head of wires, and also a national grid on the curbs and other two conditions that I put on this, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Very accurate. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, I don't want to table right now. I want to hear from my colleagues, but I am going to ultimately ask that this be tabled if we can't get answers tonight. This is a very important road, length of road in our community.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Engineer, my question is, I actually had three questions, but as you know, the curbing on Riverside Ave for the most part is level with the street. And I was wondering what your thoughts are if we are going to do a paving and a re-striping and so forth. why we wouldn't be addressing, at least within this stretch, the restoration of the curbing and reestablish it as a true curb and not something that's level with the street.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so as part of Number 12, Tim, it says that the MWRA section 57 project includes resurfacing and striping of this portion of Riverside Ave. And then it goes on to say the engineering division requests that National Grid contribute to the cost of a final restoration to other paving in the city. So it seems to me that we could ask of National Grid to step up and look at some of our curbing conditions, but rather the condition in here states we'll look at them to do other projects in the city. And what I'm saying is right now, I don't believe that the current condition of that curbing on most of Riverside Ave meets any safety standard of DOT. I can't see how a level curb that meets the street meets any requirement of safety standard.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. So what I'll do different, and this is no reflection on you, because you're relatively new in terms of this city, is that I've been hearing about Riverside Avenue curbing for a number of years, a lot of years. And now we have an opportunity where we have the MWRA and we have National Grid doing a fairly major project. And we're asking to resurface a street that we already know has some potential safety issues, i.e. the curbing. And we're not going to address it at this point. We're going to kind of kick the can down the street again. And I appreciate the fact that this may be much larger than the scope. But I think at this point, I assume they're going to be grinding the entire street down?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So why not take this opportunity to call upon National Grid and the MWRA to step up and do this work. I just don't understand it.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so would you be amendable then to updating your conditions to include in the language rather than say that final restoration to other paving in the city, which is the responsibility of National Grid, that the engineering division requested National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to curbing on Riverside Ave?
[Michael Marks]: OK, so I would ask, Mr. President, that that language be updated. So we'd read, the engineering division, this is bullet point 12, requests that National Grid contribute the cost of final restoration to curbing on Riverside Ave. And then it goes on to say, this can be coordinated with the engineering division, which is perfect. We have our city engineer that can do that. So that sounds good. The second thing, Tim, and you may be able to clarify this, is I'm under the impression that many of our drawings that were lost in the fire down at the old DPW public works building The drawings were lost that show the corner of Locust Street and Riverside Ave regarding underground utilities. Is that accurate assessment?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so at this point, would it make sense to put a condition in there where the road's gonna be ripped up that we look at recreating drawings and digitize our underground utilities at the corner of Locust and Riverside during this construction?
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. As you said, their pipe is well below yours. Right. So it would seem to me that this would be a perfect time, and I defer to the city engineer, that if indeed we don't have these drawings on file, this would be the perfect time to digitize the underground utilities in that area.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. But you're doing this job on their behalf. So now we have leverage through you to the MWRA, right? So now we're requesting that this take place. So I could appreciate the fact that you don't have, National Grid doesn't really have any responsibility in that. But now's the time that we as a community have leverage. So I would ask the city engineer, if that would make sense at this point.
[Michael Marks]: OK, so I will leave that up to your expertise. My last question, and this may be not a question to you, but the Opticom system, I know we have one further down, I believe on Riverside Ave, for fire trucks and ambulances. Does that wiring happen underground, do you know? When they wire the intersections? What's that?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so maybe Mr. President, if we can ask that question of Head of WIAS. to ask them, and if the case is that the wiring is underground, this would be an ideal time for the city, rather than dig it up again, because that's a very busy intersection, to run the proper wiring underground while this area is going to be open. So I would ask that maybe if the city engineer can work in conjunction with Mr. Randazzo, the head of wires, so we can check to see if the Opti-Com system and the running of wires during this particular project would be worthwhile. And I appreciate your time, Mr. Engineer.
[Michael Marks]: I think that was it, Mr. Clerk. That's perfect, that the city engineer and the head of wires get together and see if this would be an ideal time to run piping.
[Michael Marks]: Well, if my colleagues feel comfortable, I'm not comfortable with when this project has taken place, but I'm not sure at this point.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah. So, Mr. President, just, uh, Councilor Knight mentioned that, I didn't see it in here, but, um, you mentioned that this was submitted to the city back in August. That's correct. And why, why are we seeing it now? Tim? The question was- I'm not sure.
[Michael Marks]: And how long would that be, Tim? A typical grant- I don't have that in front of me.
[Michael Marks]: So what's a typical grant allocation once you get it from your desk to when it comes before the council?
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, I'm curious about the urgency of this particular project. Yeah, absolutely. And ask that we lay this on the table for one week and get a response back. Two weeks, because you're right, we won't be meeting next week. And get a response back from the MWA on the urgency of this project. And to Councilor Abeas, what exactly is the project they're doing? Mr. President, and then we can make an informed decision based on our residents and based on the fact that this will be during winter time and a huge inconvenience.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Locks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Council President Falco for bringing this very important issue forward tonight. I know my council colleagues asked a lot of questions. I do want to say on the lines of Councilor Bears that if we do indeed leave money on the table, that would be a complete disgrace to leave any money on the table. Knowing what we know now, Dave, I know you've just been around for a little period of time, but I have a tough time believing over the years that we have not identified through our building grounds and maintenance the need to make updates to exhaust fans, ventilation, HVAC, and so forth. These issues, issues that have been recognized over the previous years,
[Michael Marks]: Right, so what I'm hearing tonight is that the school district has been aware for many years that they've had some non-instructional reasons that there may be concerns with portions of our buildings, but those particular items have been kick down, push down the list of priorities for other priorities. And I think what we're seeing right now and part of the frustration is, and this is no reflection on you in particular, Dave, or the superintendent, or the school committee. But I think when we look at lack of maintenance within our buildings, and this is not exclusive to the school department because the city side is at fault as well. We've always kicked the can down the street when it comes to building maintenance and upkeep. And I think what we're seeing right now is a system that is plagued with a lot of concerns. And concerns that should have been addressed over the years, now are being addressed because of COVID. So the one thing that we did get out of COVID was the fact that, in my opinion, these building maintenance concerns, which get brought up every year, and why we don't allocate a certain amount of money to address these needs, because it gets pushed off. I think this was, if anything, a great learning experience. And I hope it doesn't become any other experience other than a learning experience at this point. But the question I have, Dave, is do we anticipate, and this may be a question for Alicia, and I know it's tough to tell, do we anticipate any additional funding, knowing that some of the money's going to dry up at the end of this month, and then we heard at the end of December, do we anticipate any additional funding to address the air quality concerns that are being addressed now?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And are we able to tap into any of this particular CARES Act money or stimulus money that may be available to address this capital plan that the school committee and the administration is looking at?
[Michael Marks]: Right, no, I understand. And I understand this is new to everyone, believe me. This is an emergency that we've never seen the likes of before, so I understand that. Relating to Council President Falco's question regarding that we knew that COVID-19 was airborne and we knew about this in early March, April. And I am very concerned why it took so long for the school administration and the school committee to act on moving forward on some of these needs that we have regarding air quality, exhaust fans, and so forth. And it's pretty troubling to me that we let a fair amount of time go by, and in doing so, potentially a fair amount of money be left on the table, which is very concerning in these troubling times to leave any type of money on the table. And that really bothers me that there wasn't more of an emphasis on finding out air quality, which is a major concern. Now to that point, Have we reached out to the EPA? Have we exhausted all the rules and regulations and standards from Mass DEP or the Clean Air, Mass Clean Air Act? And are we required as a school system to look at air quality? And if so, what, how often are we required to do so?
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, Mr. President, if I could, I asked the question, maybe it's a question for Dave Murphy, but what MAS DP rules or regulations or standards or MAS Clean Air Act or the EPA are we bound by as a school system? And how often, if any, are we required to do air quality testing?
[Michael Marks]: And if I could, and maybe this is a question for you, Dave, would this money also be available to do improvements such as relating to air quality, such as windows and so forth?
[Michael Marks]: The CARES money in particular.
[Michael Marks]: So just moving forward, Dave, what did we learn about the lack of building maintenance? Have we learned anything from this?
[Michael Marks]: And just my last point, and I know we talk about school buildings, a lot of people don't envision the vocational school. But let me tell you, we do have a very well functioning vocational school that's been recognized over the years and there's been a lot of improvements. And it's very troubling to me, as a former graduate of the vocational school, to hear that we have shops that have poor air quality. And knowing what takes place in a vocational shop, which is welding, which is automotive, things that emit toxic fumes, knowing that our students are being subjected in these shops to a poor air quality. really raises a red flag to me. And I've yet to hear anything really about the vocational school, but it's a major, major concern. And I think it's something that needs to be addressed immediately. I know Dave, you mentioned that it's an area that's being looked at, but With the nature of our shops and the work that's taking place, it's unacceptable to have poor air quality in those particular shops. And I hope that that's something that's on the radar. And moving forward, it's something that's reviewed not on an annual basis, but maybe a monthly basis in these shops. We probably have the same filters in some of those shops when I attended some 40 years ago. And that's not a joke because of the lack of maintenance and the lack of upkeep. So I would hope that this special attention paid to our vocational school in those particular shops.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. So from my understanding on Councilor Morell's question, they have spent $84,000. Is that not correct? Not $102,000. So only $84,000 has been expended.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but that's not money that's been expended. So out of the 35 method applicants, all 35 were accepted, or were there more method applicants?
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, just if I could. So the report that we have in front of us tonight says 26 applicants, and it says 67,423. And then there were nine applicants that are waiting to be finalized and require additional documentation at a request of 35,881. So now we're being asked or stated that it's no longer 35, it's 51. So out of the 51, what percent or how many are applications that have already received assistance, compared to those that are currently in process?
[Michael Marks]: And I thought you said that was $84,000. That is $84,000.
[Michael Marks]: So currently we have then, not nine, we have 16 applicants that are waiting to be finalized or require additional documentation.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And all 51 Method residents.
[Michael Marks]: And how many total applications did we receive from Method residents?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so I assume the 16 that didn't get anything because they didn't meet the eligibility requirements.
[Michael Marks]: And so the number I come up with is, I know Councilor Morell just gave a ballpark, but it's 103,304. That means we have roughly $22,000 or $21,700 left in the account. And your average is $2,000 per person, so that would lead me to believe there's about 11 or more residents that we can get on this. And how many applications do we have in the bucket right now? Not including the 51.
[Michael Marks]: You have nine. So you have ample money in there right now to address the needs that you currently have. Yes. OK. And I think one of the issues that this council was concerned about, and that's why we didn't move forward, although you run a great program and I thank you for all your efforts, that we didn't want to allocate all the money because we didn't know the demand on this program and so forth. And I'm glad to see there is a demand. Not glad to see there's a demand, I'm glad to see we're able to meet the demand. It's unfortunate that there's a demand, but I don't know if my colleagues want to appropriate the full 125,000, or should we take a portion of that knowing that we already have money in the account, $21,000 in the account, and we can accommodate everyone that's in the queue right now. Do we want to give half of the 125 and then revisit it in another few months when you need it? I mean, that seems to be the, I don't know the oversight that I think we should have as a body. I'm open to any of my suggestions from my colleagues. So I would just put that out on the floor. I wouldn't be opposed to allocating half of the 125 at this point, knowing that we have enough for an additional 11, and there's only eight or nine in the queue, I think was just mentioned. So I would oppose that to my colleagues.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, in my opinion, clearly the process that we laid out is working. We allocated $125,000. ABCD is coming back to us now. They have a total of 21,696 that they still haven't expended. And now they're asking for more money, because the need's there, which is great. But we are in the process of giving them more money. So I don't see a lag here. I don't see a reason why not for us to oversee the taxpayers' money. This is not money we pulled off the tree in the back of our house. This is taxpayers' money, and I think us as an oversight body is important, Mr. President. And it doesn't take much to present a paper to us like they are here tonight presenting a paper. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that we release $62,500 of the $125,000. And if need be, they can come back before us once that's expended and we can reallocate some more money.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not sure. What's the difference?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So in my opinion, and I could appreciate that, I as one member of the council, I'm not going to withhold one nickel from them if they're able to spend it. And I think my fellow colleagues feel the same way. So I'm not sure why we wouldn't, I don't know why we'd want to give up our responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers to oversee this money and make sure it's judiciously spent. And I think that's a responsibility of us as the governing body.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so right now if we approve this 625, they would have 84,196 at their disposal. I don't know, I think that's appropriate, Mr. President, and I do believe that we should have the oversight. And I'm glad at the beginning that we, as Councilor Knight mentioned, said that this can only go to Method residents. Because as you can see, this money would have been spent elsewhere. not our residents, and that we withheld half of it originally to take a look how this is going. And it's going well, and that's why we're releasing more money. So I'm comfortable with what we're doing tonight, Mr. President. And I don't think anyone behind this reeling wants to withhold money, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Remember, Mr. President, that this program has been in effect since June. So it's been almost five months, Mr. President, and they still haven't expended the original amount we gave them. So they haven't still gone through the original amount. So I think this is being very careful and cautious with our money, Mr. President, taxpayer money. And as everyone behind this reel has stated, no one's going to hold back one nickel, Mr. President. So I think we're doing our due diligence here. That's all we're asking.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, also, if we could get a report back from the tree board. regarding if an inventory was done on trees within Oak Grove over the last decade.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if we can get a report back from tree wanted, whether or not there's been an inventory on trees at Oak Grove Summer Park.
[Michael Marks]: I remember a study done and I thought an inventory done, I don't know if it was in the last 10 years, but maybe Aggie would know.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Do you know who marked the trees? The type of tree? There was little markings put on each tree and the type of tree? Was that done by the cemetery?
[Michael Marks]: There's small metal tags on the trees telling the type of tree it is, if it's from China or, you know, the type of tree. And that was done to a number of trees in the cemetery.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. Now, I didn't know if that had anything to do with the previous inventory. That's why I was asking.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my two colleagues for putting this on. The Tonello family is synonymous with community and civic duty in this community for many, many decades. And from what I hear, I didn't know Lucille, but from what I hear, she was a true family person, loved to be around family and friends. And I want to thank her for her many years of dedicated service on behalf of the children in our community. And she will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I put this motion on this resolution tonight. It's that time of the year. We're required every year to elect a president and vice president of the Medford City Council. So tonight I offer that we meet Tuesday, October 27th, which is next Tuesday at 6.30 for the purpose of electing a president and vice president for calendar year 21. Second, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Do we have the city engineer on?
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, if I could, just because this has been a longstanding issue with this council, it predates Todd. But Todd, many years back, this council voted to implement a pilot program for raised crosswalks. And at the time, three of them were recognized by the city under a previous administration. One out of the three was initiated on Winthrop Street, Central Ave, and Harvard Street have yet to get their raised crosswalk. Is that something that's being looked at or can we assume now that it's been several years that that is not being reviewed and no longer is part of the commitment that was made by a previous administration?
[Michael Marks]: Right, and I realize when city administrations change, there may be a different direction in communities. However, when residents are promised certain items to happen, especially with traffic coming in their neighborhoods, they don't look at it and say, now we have a new mayor, there's a new direction, and we're not going to get the raised crosswalk we were promised under the last mayor. because now there's a different direction. I don't think residents see it that way. They would hope that commitments are kept from administration to administration. And when you have a pilot program, at some point, a pilot program is supposed to have an end date. So you're supposed to review how successful the pilot was and either decide to move on with other race crosswalks or decide that they're not useful and don't provide the safety that we need in the community. But either way, at some point, I think we have to put this issue to rest. And now you're the traffic engineer, and if indeed these other two areas, Central Ave, I get calls all the time about speeding cars. I think all my colleagues can attest to that. This was an ideal place for a raised crosswalk. I can appreciate the expense. I remember on Ring Road when they put that blinking crosswalk that looked like airplane traffic lights. on ring road, that cost about $46,000 to put that on ring road. And I would say within the first six months, it stopped working and it hasn't worked since. So talk about putting good money after bad money into something that is no longer even in effect. At least the winter street race crosswalk is still serving a purpose. I would respectfully ask as part of this paper, and I have no problem supporting this paper, that the city administration respond back, Mr. President, on where do we stand with the raised crosswalks on Central Ave and Harvard Street, the commitment that was made several years back. And if it's no longer a commitment, I'm a big boy, just let me know. And I'll fight for something else, or I'll fight to see if we can get those once again to become a commitment. But just to leave them hanging, leave residents hanging that were promised. These were promised, these were articles in the paper, discussion among the council. These were things that were open and notorious, and then just to forget about them like nothing's going on, doesn't, in disservice to this community and the residents. And that's what gives government a bad name, Mr. President, when things get forgotten about. And I'm not going to forget about these, Mr. President. So if it's no longer a commitment of this administration, just let us know. So Todd, if you can take that back to the city administration, and if it's not a commitment, then just let us know. But if it is a commitment, then these two are a priority. Residents have been waiting four to five years on these, and we have to come out whether or not the pilot program is successful or not. And my idea, This is not something novel. This is being done in many other communities. A raised crosswalk puts you at a higher height, at a level with oncoming traffic. They're very, From a distance you can see them, they're very visually pleasing from a distance. And they do provide safety in areas that we know are highly traveled and high rates of speed on those streets. And if it provides safety for the community, whether it's $5 or $50,000, we just talked about shoveling sidewalks and creating a new ordinance. It's worth every penny, in my opinion. I know we want to make it look like we're everywhere in the community and putting these blinking signs up, which I may add, Mr. President, go by any blinking light. And let me tell you, half the side's not blinking. Some of it's blinking. Some of it's not. But these are pretty new. And I don't know if the city goes around. A lot of them are malfunctioning. Or they're not working. Or they're cheaper ones. I don't know. But they're not working. They're not serving their intended purpose. So I would ask that the And this is no reflection, again, on the city and traffic engineer. I think he's doing a tremendous job. But there has to be more follow-up in this community, Mr. President. So I would ask, in the form of a motion, that we get an update on the two crosswalks, Central Ave and Harvard Street, whether there's still a commitment in the time frame, and that the other blinking lights that are throughout the community that were recently put in, that the city go around and audit them to see why a lot of them are malfunctioning.
[Michael Marks]: If we could just add language on the commitment for raised crosswalks. I know I said a lot of stuff, but that's important because that was a commitment made by a previous administration, and that should be honored.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you. Just a quick question to the clerk. Uh, Mr. Clerk, isn't it true that all, uh, political mail, uh, goes out automatically first class through the post office?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so if that's the case, then maybe in line with Councilor Knight's stating, wouldn't it be better off if we did send these out knowing that they're going to go out first class anyways and not pay for the first class postage?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, and I just want to say with all this confusion and the new process that's going on and the number of ballots increasing that we're mailing out now, I just want to say that your staff in the office of, I can't even think of the office's name now. Registrar voters office is doing a tremendous job in aligning everything that needs to be aligned and getting everything out. And I just want to give a personal thanks to them. The staff are doing such a tremendous job.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: While we're under suspension. Yes, please. I have a condolence as well. If I could, Giuseppe Nick Mascarelli just recently passed away, a longtime Method resident. He was the owner of Nick Construction Company for, I think, almost close to four decades within this community. He loved spending time with family and friends, those who knew him. He was an avid wine connoisseur, and during wine season, he'd be growing the grapes in his backyard and sharing his homemade wine. And he will solely be missed, Mr. President. So I would ask that this meeting be adjourned and named after Giuseppe Nick Mascarelli on his recent passing.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, too, while we're under suspension. Back in June during the budget period, I asked Alicia Hunt to give us an update on municipal aggregation. I believe it was in the form of a committee of the whole where we can sit down. We have yet to get any formal response from the city administration, and it's been well over a year with municipal aggregation, and I think it's only fitting that where that was an automatic opt-in program where every resident was opted into the energy aggregation in the community that we receive an update on where we stand on behalf of the residents of this community. So I would ask that we set up a committee of the whole Pretty quickly, it's been several months now, and I would ask that we set up a committee of the whole with Alicia Hunt to get an update on the program.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we're under suspension. Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Ryan is here, he'll be presenting on behalf of Merritt's Wakefield HealthCare.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Ryan and Sue for their detailed presentation. I have a couple of questions, Mr. President. One, if maybe we can get back to that first rendering of the building and the screening that was discussed by Ryan.
[Michael Marks]: The screening itself, so that's the initial concept, right? Yes, sir. And that can't be accomplished because of concerns with the fire department, is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and the second rendering, that one right there. So the unconnected screens, what was the reasoning why this couldn't be accomplished?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so I guess the concerns that I've received, Ryan, just so you know, is that I guess what the hospital's pushing for is to actually just paint the electrical box, is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but clearly there's a huge difference, aesthetically speaking, from your initial proposal to this current rendering here. And I can see why area residents would have some concern with that. Is there any way to make the exterior, I can appreciate the fact that our fire department may need access and so forth. And I don't want to block access or go against their recommendations. But is there any way we can make this more aesthetically pleasing? Because right now it just looks like a giant gray, what I would refer to as icebox. And the exterior of the building looks beautiful, the frontage. And that, in my opinion, sticks out like a sore thumb. So I was hoping that maybe the hospital can circle the wagons back and come out with a couple more renderings on other alternatives to just painting that icebox. that would be aesthetically pleasing for the neighbors and something that I think would fit into the new construction. So if that's something that the hospital can do, can you speak to that?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so why can't we put some type of screening right onto that mechanical box? Something that's aesthetically pleasing like the second proposal or maybe some type of building material that could be affixed to the box itself rather than just painting it. because your initial plan, I'm sure, was costing tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover that up. I'm not sure why we can't take a look at putting something else there that would be pleasing to the neighbors and Director Butters. So I would ask that that be taken into consideration and that you provide a couple of more proposals other than just the painting of the electrical box itself.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, I'd appreciate it if you can work on that with the CAG group, as well as area residents. My second question is regarding the exterior of the building, and in particular, the bottom lower part of the building itself. Do you have any renderings of that?
[Michael Marks]: So the front of the building there, Well, now the other rendering, the other construction. Is that a wood slat there, or is that brick?
[Michael Marks]: So is it like a brick master, like a terracotta that's carved in? Is that what that is?
[Michael Marks]: You said it was a terracotta. I was wondering if it's similar to like a simulated brick master where they put a layer of cement down and then carve the design that they want to carve into the terracotta or cement, whatever the substance is.
[Michael Marks]: Is the intent to look like brick? Is that the intent?
[Michael Marks]: OK. Okay, it doesn't blend in much to me, but if that's what you guys arrived at, that's fine. My other point I have is regarding, as you know, Ryan, you've been involved with this since day one. A lot of the direct abutters going up Governor's Ave, there was a lot of discussion in the back of your parking lot, the second lot, regarding fencing, shrubbery, trees. I know that was part of your presentation. The home at 216 Governor's Ave has completely no barrier at all from your parking lot. And I was originally under the impression when we were looking at providing a barrier between the neighbors, whether it was plantings or fencing, that that was part of the project. Are they not going to put fencing next to 216 Governor's Ave, which would separate your parking lot, a very busy parking lot, from the residents.
[Michael Marks]: OK. I would ask respectfully, Lawrence Memorial has been great during this process. We've come a long way. And I would ask in the interest of being a good neighbor that I believe it's roughly 100 feet of fence. that Lawrence Memorial make a commitment to extend that fence so we don't have a neighbor that's completely open to headlights and noise and everything else that's going to be associated with the parking lot. And I would ask that Lawrence Memorial make a commitment to work with the neighbor at 216 to put up a fence, a barrier, in the interest of being a good neighbor.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so I take that that sounds like that you will put a fence up.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, I appreciate that. And just my last point, I know my colleagues have questions also. During this entire process, some of the concerns within the neighborhood and the direct abutters was speeding cars, additional signage, pedestrian crossings. And I know much of which involves city input, the traffic commission, the police department. Has there been any steps with Lawrence Memorial Hospital and the Method Police Department or Traffic Commission to work on some of these concerns regarding speeding and pedestrian safety?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and do you have anything you could publicly share with us at a later date on what's being proposed and what's being worked on?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: I just would like to put my three recommendations in the form of a motion. The first one would be that two additional renderings of the electrical box and other alternatives aesthetically pleasing would be provided to the CAG group and to the city council, as well as neighbors and direct abutters, and that a fence be installed between the properties, between the parking lot and 216 Governor's Ave, a full fence, and that as soon as the discussions had with the police department and the traffic commission regarding public safety, pedestrian safety, and speeding, as well as signage, that those discussions be presented to the council. So those three in the form of a motion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Marianne for her commitment to this city over the last seven months. It's been very trying, and she's been a leader in this community. I appreciate that. Marianne, have you had any involvement with the outside rentals of our school buildings?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so what type of contact tracing is being done by the city or what systems are in place to monitor the size of the groups and the purpose of which they're using our buildings? Is that being done by your office or is that being done, it is?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Is there any actual testing COVID testing being required?
[Michael Marks]: So we don't know if we're welcoming anyone from an outside group into our buildings that may be infected.
[Michael Marks]: Right. What about a temperature test? taking someone's temperature.
[Michael Marks]: So as the health director, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, and if you don't want to answer, you don't have to, but what's your personal thought about entertaining activities in a building we're trying to lock down for safety reasons, inviting people from the public into these buildings? What's your personal thought on that?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So Mary, just so I understand, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but if we had an issue of a student contracting COVID that we know was, or a teacher, or faculty, whoever it might be, that was in the Marsha Karen Little Theater. And the previous day, there was, or the day after, there was 75 people from an outside organization using the Marsha Karen Theater. contact every person that we have on record that was in that particular part of the building.
[Michael Marks]: Well, what about in a particular area?
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate that. So that doesn't make you eligible for contact tracing, although it could make you eligible for getting the COVID virus, correct?
[Michael Marks]: So you wouldn't be concerned the following day that students may be using that exact room?
[Michael Marks]: Just one last follow up to Mary Ann. Maybe if Mary Ann can provide us over the next week or so, Mr. President, just the number of organizations, what building they're using, the capacity of the numbers that they have. And I don't need to see names, but I would like to see how many people use in the buildings. And I would like to see what the protocol is for these groups, Mr. President, regarding the contact tracing, the availability of information. And as I stated in the past, Mr. President, during COVID, to me, doesn't make any sense at all to invite people that would never typically be in that building. into a building that we're trying to secure for our faculty and our teachers and our students, that we're trying to safeguard and secure, Mr. President. It makes no sense why you would want to invite that at that particular time, Mr. President. I realize it's a revenue generator, but safety should come first, as the Board of Health Director mentioned, and that doesn't seem like safety first to me. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Marks. If I'm not mistaken, the first amendment shows the exact ordinance that states the two different historic districts, Hillside Ave and Myram Simmons Historic District. And the amendment two, which we would be voting on, is the addition of foster court. So I'm not quite sure why you would sever it. I don't think it matters, to be quite honest with you. I don't think it has any bearing on the discussion. I'd rather, Mr. President, hear about the meeting that was held last night and find out the great news about moving forward on the proposal that we put forward, Mr. President, with the owner of the property and the historical district commission regarding an agreement, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: For point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just past practice, Mr. President, any paper that has been submitted by any mayor previously, we never had the authority to amend or change, Mr. President. So I'm not sure why this would be any different. So I don't think we have the authority to change a paper submitted from the administration.
[Michael Marks]: On countless issues, whether it's monetary or not, Mr. President, we've never had the ability to change the mayor's papers.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, do we have any of the property owner or the- We do, we do. Members of the Historical District Commission on it?
[Michael Marks]: Whichever way you choose, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President, just if I could. Yes, Mr. Bader, one minute. Point of information, Councilor Larkins. Not to interrupt, Mr. President, but I really want to understand this because the way I understood it was we were looking at saving the facade of the structure. And there was some discussion whether or not it was going to be to the roof line or not. And the renderings that I saw gave two different versions, one to the roof ridge and the other one just below the roof ridge. And so I'm kind of not sure what Mr. Bader is talking about, unless he can give me some more information about why it wasn't acceptable. Because we were all there at the meeting. And we thought we were moving forward on an issue. And now to hear that it's not acceptable is a little troubling, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, based on the discussions that we had, the initial discussions, I was wondering if Mr. Bader can get into more detail from what we spoke about originally as an agreement to what the disapproval is now. And I understand he's saying it's based on architects and other people, but Did the petitioner not present in those renderings? If I could just finish. If I could just finish. Mr. Bader, Mr. Bader, one minute, Councilor Locke has the floor. If I could just finish, Mr. Bader. No, that's all right, thank you. I just want to understand this because we put a lot of time and effort into coming to what I thought was an agreement to save a piece of historical property and also, Mr. President, move forward. on creating what I would consider additional housing in the area, which was a win-win situation. So I am extremely disappointed to hear if that doesn't come to fruition tonight, Mr. President. But I would like to hear more about why the two renderings that were presented, which to me address the exact issue that we were talking about. I remember Mr. Hayward at the meeting, I asked him point blank, about the windows on either side of the roof line. I asked him about the chimney, and at the point, he said they didn't have, and I won't speak for him, but there was no real historical significance, and he didn't even see a reason to save the chimney and the two windows on either side. So I really would like to know a little more why this is not acceptable, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Mr. Bader, please continue.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Stewart,
[Michael Marks]: So why the vote last night then?
[Michael Marks]: So was there a previous vote on this back in September to create this historic? There was. There was? There was.
[Michael Marks]: What was the vote at that point?
[Michael Marks]: From what I recall, Mr. President, as part of the discussions that took place at the site, in addition, Mr. President, to agreeing that the owner of the property would come back with a couple of schematics of potential designs to save the front facade. It was also mentioned at that meeting, Mr. President, that there would be no pursuit of the creation of a local historic district. And that was part of the discussion. Now, I know Ryan Haywood is on the phone, and I know he doesn't speak for the Historical District Commission, but I think the Historic District Commission should realize what was proposed at that particular meeting. And it wasn't horse trading that took place, Mr. President. This was an open public meeting that anyone was welcome to attend. And I'm really surprised that some members of the Historical District Commission only found their way to this particular property within the last few days after this being around for 18 months, Mr. President. And that's even more alarming to me. Secondly, Mr. President, from what we heard tonight, the Historical District Commission has no say, Mr. President, in whether or not they like the rendering or not. They have no say in that, Mr. President. That's what we heard tonight. So the vote that they took Monday night, I'm confused. Was that a vote against the rendering or was that a vote to accept the mayor's revised ordinance? I'm a little confused, Mr. President. Chris, could you please clarify for Councilor Marks?
[Michael Marks]: So, Chris, just so I understand, what was the actual vote last night then?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so I was under the impression that there was a vote taken not to accept the two renderings from the petitioner. So, at this particular point, Mr. President, I'd like to hear from Ryan Haywood from the historic commission, and then also hear from the petitioner once again, Mr. President, because I know he had additional information to present.
[Michael Marks]: My question was, Ryan was present during this entire process. And I didn't know if he had any interaction the day after that we spoke about this. Did he have any interactions with any members of the Historical District Commission in regards to what was presented and somewhat agreed upon at the time? I know he had no authority to agree on behalf of another group, but I'd like to know a little more, Mr. President, about what took place on this, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Ryan, if I could, was there not mentioned at the Committee of the Whole site review that if the renderings were acceptable, that there wouldn't be a pursuit of the creation of a local historic district?
[Michael Marks]: OK. Now, did you just say Historic Commission?
[Michael Marks]: So when did the Historic Commission meet to review the drawings?
[Michael Marks]: And that was the opinion of the historic commission, correct?
[Michael Marks]: OK.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if we could hear from the petitioner and whatever he'd like to present as well. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? No.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know contracts and negotiations between the administration and the unions. I would just ask if we can get an update on any current outstanding unsettled contracts within the city of Medford.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for co-sponsoring this. We actually both offered this, it was probably a little over a year ago. DPW was kind enough to go up to Winslow Ave and fill some of the many, many potholes that are lined in that stretch between 69 and 77 Winslow. However, Mr. President, I think we're at a time where we probably could use some curb-to-curb paving, even though one side of the street I don't believe has curbing. I would say, Mr. President, at this particular point, it's a small stretch. It's near Carpac. It's a very heavy traveled area, as you know, Mr. President. So I would ask in the interest of public safety that that area be ground down between 69 and 77 Winslow Ave and repave curb-to-curb in the interest of public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Bears for bringing this up. There are many good aspects to this particular ordinance. With that being said, there are very many aspects of this ordinance that need to be revamped, Mr. President. And I just would like to bring up a few because I think we all are concerned about public safety. But we also don't want to be punitive in regards to getting something accomplished as well. This particular ordinance would differ from the current ordinance because right now homeowners wouldn't be responsible for clearing out pedestrian crossings. So if you happen to live at an intersection or if you live at a corner house, you would be responsible for shoveling the pedestrian pathway leading across the street. So you'd be responsible for clearing out the corner. Those of us who own homes and have shoveled for decades in this community realize that the city, and I hope this doesn't reflect poorly, but the city does a poor job cleaning corners up. And there is no snow removal, there's only snow piling on city corners and intersections. And I can just attest, Mr. President, moving five to six feet of packed snow from a snow plow would be an insurmountable task for residents to go through. And especially if you have, like we did a few years ago, snowstorm after snowstorm after snowstorm. So that would be the first concern I have, Mr. President. I believe it's important to create the connectivity for pedestrian paths. I'm not quite sure that this alleviates that by making homeowners responsible for that, Mr. President. Also, this ordinance states, failure to comply within 24 hours of receiving a notice, the city may remove the snow and ice and charge the owner for the removal as a lien on the owner's property. That currently does not exist right now. So this is saying if you don't remove it within 24 hours, the city has the ability to come in and put a lien on your tax bill. I'm not sure if that's legally binding, Mr. President. And I guess when we get subcommittee, we can have that discussion. Also, Mr. President, it doesn't state at what expense. So if I happen to be, just say I'm a snowbird and I'm in Florida for three or four days, and I realize that's my property and I'm responsible. But if I don't attend to a particular storm, Mr. President, the city may hire someone. There's no set fee in this. And you can bet your bottom dollar the city doesn't have the resources to go out and shovel. So they would be hiring someone. That could be at a great expense to residents, to hire someone for $300, $400, $500 to shovel, depending on the amount and so forth, and to put sand and salt down. So this doesn't make any mention about the cost to homeowners if the city does opt to go out at their homeowner's expense. So that's a concern I have, Mr. President, because I'm very mindful regarding people in our community, in particular seniors that are struggling on fixed incomes. And every little increase, Mr. President, as we know, is a matter of if someone can stay in their home or not. And I would hate to create an ordinance that may put someone in jeopardy of losing their home, Mr. President. The escalating fines. The current ordinance doesn't call for escalating fines. So the first offense for noncompliance is a $50 a day fine. And then for each subsequent offense, within 12 months, so that covers the full snow time, within 12 months, the fine or charge shall double. That's not in the existing ordinance to double fines. So let's take an example. Let's look at the first offense, $50 a day, you go out there and shovel immediately so you only get charged for one day. The second time it happens, which could be the next day, the following day, the following week within a snow period, who knows, Mr. President. That fine then goes, if you don't shovel, to $100 a day. Say you're that unfortunate that it happened to you three times. Just say you were in the hospital, Mr. President. And the third time, the fine is $200 a day for homeowners. And if you were really unfortunate, the next subsequent fine would be $400 a day. So if you didn't get out there for five days, the homeowner would get a $2,000 bill, according to this ordinance, because they didn't shovel. Excessive? I would say so, Mr. President. So that's another concern I have with these subsequent offenses and the doubling of fines, Mr. President. We all want to keep our sidewalks clear, but I think there's a way to do it, Mr. President, when we're not putting a stranglehold on residents. There are no provisions, as Councilor Bears mentioned, to, and I'm glad he did, to assist seniors or disabled. I have a senior mother that lives alone. I can tell you firsthand, Mr. President, over the last several years, and I try to be a good son, but I can't get out there all the time, it is next to impossible to find someone to come out and shovel. The days of people like we used to do when we were younger, going out, knocking the door, you don't find that anymore, Mr. President. It doesn't happen, Mr. President. So it's not as readily available. I know the senior center has a list of people, and I tapped into that list, and it just wasn't consistent enough, to be quite frank with you. It was great they offered, but it wasn't enough in the case for my mother. And I know there's a lot of my mothers out there in this community, and there's a lot of disabled people, Mr. President, that would have to rely on this as well. The ordinance also states, and this is both ordinances, the old and the new, whenever snow or ice accumulates on the sidewalk. No mention the amount of ice. How many times, Mr. President, do you look outside and say, is that an inch? Is that a half an inch? Do I need to go out there and shovel? Do I not need to shovel? How many times does that happen? Should I put down ice? Should I not? How many times does that happen? No mention at all, Mr. President. So it's very possible you could be debating with your wife whether you should be out there shoveling or not. There's no mention what the accumulation is, and the city defines it as, you know what, we believe you should have shoveled. It doesn't say one inch, two inch, three inch, like I believe it should say, Mr. President. And then you may get a fine based on that. So that's another issue in here, Mr. President, that needs to be addressed. About a year ago, Mr. President, I asked the previous administration. I did a lot of research into this. And other states, I didn't find many communities around here, but I'm sure it's done, create what they call a priority street sidewalk listing. And they put funds aside, and many of them have to hire private contractors. But they put funds aside for every snowstorm greater than three inches. The city sits down with the DPW and residents and stakeholders and say, this is our ten miles of priority sidewalk in the community. And most of the time, it's the major federal fears. And what that does is create a connection, a linkage, In the community, Mr. President. So you would go down High Street would be done, Main Street would be done, Salem Street would be done, Fulton Street would be done. All riverside out. The major areas, Mr. President, I throw ten miles out there because that's probably reasonable. It may take more, it may take less. But I asked the administration back a year ago to look at that. Because if we really want to provide safety in this community, for kids that are walking to school, right now there may not be many kids walking to school. But for seniors, for people with disabilities, for anyone in general, Mr. President, what better to know and be reassured that every fall of snow that's greater than a certain amount, whether it's two or three inches, that those priority sidewalks will be done by a bombardier. And if the city can't handle it, which I don't think we have the ability to right now, we would subcontract for it, Mr. President. Some of the figures I looked at in some communities were upwards of $160,000, $170,000. But if we're going to prioritize the importance, Mr. President, of doing the shoveling, opening up our sidewalks, making sure they're safe, making sure people don't walk in the streets, that's a small price to pay, Mr. President. So I would ask that in the form of a motion once again, because it fell on deaf ears in the last administration. It's a great concept. I didn't create this. This is being done in a lot of communities around the country. The second thing, Mr. President, would be on the lines of Councilor Bears, to have more of a full-fledged program where we deal with seniors and people with disability. That way, Mr. President, we're not leaving this up to chance. We're not leaving it up to whether or not someone can afford it. Because this is an affordability issue too, Mr. President. And I would ask in the form of a motion that the city also create, and I'm not sure if we could do it by ordinance or policy, create a program where we assist. If we're going to implement ordinances that create escalating fines and doubling fines and shoving corners and so forth, that we assist the neediest in our community. which are the seniors in our disabled population. Also, Mr. President, I would also ask that if we're going to make it the responsibility of residents to clean corners, clean hydrants out, the fire department has a great program. They have a volunteer program, if you go on the firefighters website, where they go on and ask if people want to assist in clearing out hydrants. And the firefighters do a tremendous job, let me tell you. They're out there in every snowstorm cleaning out hydrants. This ordinance requires residents to do it. I'm not opposed to that, Mr. President. But what I'm saying is, if we're going to require residents now to be responsible for a public sidewalk, A public sidewalk, you don't own that sidewalk. You can't do any alterations to that sidewalk. And now we're requesting that you keep it a certain distance wide open. We're requesting during certain hours of daylight that you have to shovel. If not, you get fined. I think at the very least, Mr. President, the city should have some responsibility for cutting away snow at intersections and corners of streets where they intersect. The complaints I receive constantly, more than complaints of someone just not shoveling, are the ability for people to cross from street to street. That seems to be the major concern. And we have to create some systematic approach in the community where we don't just pile, we remove. And that's going to be a large endeavor with seven square miles. This is a big city, this. I would venture to say thousands of corners. But we have to have a better way of addressing this than saying, sorry homeowner, you're responsible for every pedestrian crossing and every intersection of streets and every corner. Now you're responsible. Sounds good in theory? It doesn't work, Mr. President. And if we truly want to put something together, that addresses the issue, those are the discussions we have to have. And I'm willing to have them, Mr. President. I like the fact that this makes homeowners responsible and not tenants. I agree, chasing after a tenant, many days now you have two, three, four, five people living in there. No one's going to claim responsibility. They're all paying a certain amount. It would be a nightmare. So I agree with aspects of this, Mr. President. But I also want to make sure we put something that makes sense. And something that's not punitive, Mr. President, to homeowners. And some of this in here, I believe, is punitive. And I think we can address it, but I want to make sure, whatever discussions I had, that these three items, and I offer them in the form of a motion, that the city expand, the last one, the city expand their plowing to include snow and ice removal on all pedestrian crossings along with corners and intersections.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: With shoveling services, correct.
[Michael Marks]: All pedestrian crossings, corners, and intersections, correct. Okay?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so the first one would be the city create a priority sidewalks listing of responsible sidewalks for plowing. And I put of snow greater than three inches, but that could be up for deliberation. That was just for discussion purpose. So the city create a priority sidewalk listing where they shovel, plow all the major sidewalk, dental affairs.
[Michael Marks]: Within the community. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: It doesn't matter, whatever.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of information, what subcommittee is that, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: And we have one in public safety?
[Michael Marks]: And you have full body of the membership too. Maybe worthwhile.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for co-sponsoring this. Everyone behind this railing has supported one way or another that particular intersection in improving the pedestrian safety there. This is the first encouraging news since I've been on this council regarding that intersection. So I'm going to take it at face value, Mr. President. If they're adding it to their list, I'm encouraged by that. I look forward to working with DOT in rectifying that whole length of stretch of road to increase safety, Mr. President. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I did sit on a call last night with Eversource, and they discussed the Eversource project on South Street. And Main Street in particular, they discussed that one of their major concerns with doing the excavating and so forth, was that no matter what they tried to do to slow down traffic on South, that they were unable to do so. And it was actually very enlightening to hear, Mr. President, that what we've been talking about for so many years in residents and abutters, we're hearing from a construction company saying, hey, this is a dangerous stretch of road. And indeed, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, they approached the Chief of Police and the Traffic Commission. And they saw fit to put some temporary speed bumps in order to slow down traffic, which we've been asking for, I can't tell you how long. And we were told, you can't impede the flow of traffic, you can't do this, you can't do that. It's amazing what can take place, Mr. President. But this is tremendous news and I would like to actually maybe as a council through the administration just follow up to make sure we can secure this commitment. And maybe that may be from a motion from this council asking what we can do as a community to get this ball rolling. put that in the form of a motion that the city administration as well as the chief of police and The city engineer and the council send a letter to do. Yep.
[Michael Marks]: Do you want to do it now or? No, that's fine.
[Michael Marks]: Please. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Council Vice President Caraviello for co-sponsoring this. I'd like to ask several questions, Mr. President. I know we're going to request a committee of the whole meeting, but I'd like to know what potential disclosure of information was contained and what personal information. I'd like to know why no police report was issued. The city stated they took all available steps to prevent further disclosure and fully investigated this matter. I'd like to know, Mr. President, what steps were taken by the city to prevent further disclosure? And what came out of the investigation? And Mr. President, just as a note, the President of the Teachers Union filed a green sheet which seeks legal advice on the breach of personal information by school employees. So I think that shows you how serious the nature is, Mr. President. And I think it deserves and warrants more than just an email to us saying that the city looked into this and took steps to prevent further disclosure. So I would hope that we get more information, Mr. President, on behalf of city employees in this community to make sure their valuable personal information is not compromised. If I can, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is on the border of the Arlington Method Line. And from what I'm being told, it's been a very dangerous intersection for pedestrians, bikers for a number of years. So I would ask in the interest of public safety, where we're looking at snow ordinance for sidewalk and other traffic calming initiatives, that DCR also look at traffic calming initiatives for pedestrian crossings at that intersection. intersection as well as bike-friendly crossings, Mr. President. That's a very difficult road that takes in three or four different avenues and is extremely dangerous for people that are using the Mystic Lakes or walking in the area. and for passive use, and I would ask that we meet with our state delegation or presenters to the state delegation so they can present it to DCR to look for some traffic calming initiatives.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Anyone that knew Joanne Caputo, she was a sweetheart of a woman, Mr. President. She was known as the mayor of 99 and 101 Riverside Ave to many of her fellow residents in those two buildings. She was just a spitfire of a person. She was very active in our community. She cared an awful lot for the seniors in those two buildings. And she watched over them, Mr. President, and just had a real guiding effect on many of the seniors in that building. You couldn't go to an event, whether it was the meat bingo or whatever else they were doing in that building. She was always part of what took place, she was always in the center of things, and she was always looking out for the residents of that 99 and 101 Riverside Ave. And I would ask Mr. President that this meeting be dedicated in her memory, Mr. President. She will be sorely missed.
[Michael Marks]: So what we're doing is asking that the building department notify residents once they have the review back from the historical commission. That they notify residents within 72 hours, is that how I'm reading this?
[Michael Marks]: I am, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President, this may seem like a trivial issue, but this is the second time I've offered this on the agenda, and neighbors up on Mangels Street are worried enough to bring it to my attention again. I requested that National Grid go up and take a look at it and report back. I'm not a structural engineer, but my eyes don't deceive me. Mr. President. And it's quite dangerous. And this is a poll that carries electrical wires as well. And neighbors are very concerned, Mr. President. So, I, as one member of the council, if I don't get a response, I will not be supporting any issues that come before us with National Grid requests, Mr. President, until they adhere to our request. And that's true with double polls as well. If you go around the city now, you're going to see more and more double polls creeping up around this community. And unless we fight back, they're going to say, you know what? You can get away with it in the city of Medford. And so I would ask, Mr. President, that our head of wires, Steve Rendazzo, who does a tremendous job, reach out to National Grid and get a response immediately regarding pole 4354 on Mangles Street in the interest of public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. that I bring this up tonight. Louise was a dear, close friend to not only myself, but many, many people in the community. Louise served her distinction with the Method Arts Council. Incorporated for many, many years, many of the projects that you've seen around the city. Louise Musto Cho was very involved, Mr. President. She was a sweetheart of a woman. She was dedicated to her family, her friends, and her arts, Mr. President. If you know Louise, she was a jewelry designer. She did tapestry, canvas prints, artwork. She was a very creative person, Mr. President, and was always looking to put the city first. Over the past few years, I had the opportunity to serve on a citizen-initiated arts center committee, which she was kind enough to let us use her building. a group of people to use their building in the community room to meet and gather and discuss a potential art center for the entire community at the Heckner Center. And the loss of Louise is truly devastating for this community.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I just could, I omitted, I put Councilor Caraviello's name on the, we had a discussion. I put his name on the email that I sent to the city clerk. I may have spelled his name wrong, but I did put, and I just want to recognize Councilor Caraviello offered that with me as well, Mr. President. So I apologize for the omission.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: I reviewed the records, find them to be in order, and I do move approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Happy Wednesday.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, want to reiterate my support for Post 45. They've been longstanding members of this community, very active and involved in this community, and good neighbors for many, many years. And I stand here tonight, Mr. President, to support them as they've supported members of this community for the last several decades, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, does the owner of the property have plans to turn the sign off after hours? Mr. Parris, can you comment on that?
[Michael Marks]: I would state, Mr. President, to be consistent, and I've voted like this in the past, that the sign be turned off when the business is not in operation. Okay, are you writing that as an amendment to the- I would like to hear what my other council colleagues would like to say on that, and I would have that as an amendment, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So I would ask with consistency, Mr. President, that the light be turned off. If the audience is 10, that's fine.
[Michael Marks]: I don't want to come across- I just want to be consistent, because I know when station landing came aboard, we spent a lot of time working on the signage to make sure that it was aesthetically pleasing, because there are a number of residents that live in station landing.
[Michael Marks]: And we have to be mindful of that as well.
[Michael Marks]: I would say that it conforms with the existing sign ordinance, which I believe Councilman Knight is correct, that 10 a.m. the sign be turned off. 10 p.m. 10 p.m. 10 p.m.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I happen to frequent this car wash where I live right up the street. And let me tell you, there's no mistaking that there's free vacuum at that particular car wash. There is banners on the fence, there are signs everywhere saying free car wash. You can't help but drive by, I mean a free vacuum, and notice that there's free vacuuming there. I would also state that these particular awnings, according to the letter we received that Councilor Knight just read, state that the awnings come off the building two feet. So to state that this would be comfortable vacuuming their vehicles under the shade and shelter of the awning, I don't know how you create shade and shelter of a two foot awning coming off the side of the building. Because the vacuum is in front of the car, which is a pretty big, piece of equipment, there's no way that provides shelter for anyone that's vacuuming, Mr. President. I think the awnings may be a nice addition to the building without signage. So if the gentleman wanted to put 12 awnings and maybe one or two free vacuum, or maybe even three depending on the wish of the council, I would be amendable to that. Because I think the building could use, it's just a squared off building. Aesthetically speaking, it's not that pleasing. Maybe these awnings will make it look more pleasing, but to have it on each awning, Mr. President, is overkill. And it doesn't serve the purpose of shade or shelter. And so I would put in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that out of the request for 13 canvas awnings, that we allow 13 awnings, but only three with signage that states free vacuum.
[Michael Marks]: Also, if I could, and I realize the banners are probably up temporarily because it doesn't really, other than the banners, there's nothing else that says free vacuum. I would hope as soon as the awnings go up that those temporary banners come off that are on the fence and around the property, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: This may be a question for the building commissioner in his office, but I believe any banners in the city, Mr. President, have to be permitted and approved for businesses. And I believe it's on a temporary basis. I'm not sure if these banners are approved or if they, I don't know. But I would ask as part of this paper that they be taken down as soon as the awnings go up.
[Michael Marks]: Right, I'm not sure if he has current approval. Maybe the owner of the property can state whether or not he got approval for the bayonets.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, so we can leave that language in. He's committing to the language anyway, so we can leave that language in. The banners come down as soon as the signage goes up.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, does the petitioner have any plans for a freestanding sign as well?
[Michael Marks]: I'll accept that answer, Mr. President, and if they do come back, I may not be supportive of an additional freestanding sign. So as long as the petitioner knows that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Are they able to control the lumens on the signage itself?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So we're all on the same page. If we put a 30 or 60 day review, And after 30 or 60 days, this council sees fit that we received a certain number of complaints. I'm sure the hotel wouldn't want to remove a $50,000, $60,000 sign based on that. So I would ask that as part of this, Mr. President, that they put up a sign that they can control the Lumens. And that way, if there is a concern, we may be able to go back to the owner of the property and state that the brightness is bothering people or whatever it might be, and have some flexibility. And that's the only reason why I bring it up, Mr. President, because once the sign goes up, And if we do vote at a later date to take it down, that would be of great hardship, I'm sure, to the petitioner, and I wouldn't want to put them in that position. So maybe if they can look at a sign that they can control the lumens, we'll be able to address any issues, because that would be my issue, the brightness of the sign. I understand the petitioner saying they're not that bright, but if they're able to get a sign where they can control that one in particular, not all of them, that one in particular I think would be helpful for not only them, but for us as a council.
[Michael Marks]: So I'd ask that that be part of the recommendation, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: An amendment that the sign contain a dimming aspect on the north, facing the north side. So I'd ask Councilor Knight to amend his motion.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank members of the historic commission that were present there last night. I want to thank the property owner and, Mr. President, I do want to thank this Medford City Council that took the time, Mr. President, when it didn't look that anything was going to result in this property. And I think we're that much closer to coming to a win-win situation on both sides, Mr. President. And I want to thank the members of this council that stood up to say, you know what, we'd like to go on a site visit. We'd like to hear from the property owner. We'd like to come to a resolve, because we all support the same issues behind this rail, Mr. President. Don't let anyone kid you otherwise. We all support it, Mr. President. And it was because of the due diligence of this council standing up and saying that we believe we can make a difference, that I hope this comes to fruition, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate both sides on this, believe me. But after last night's meeting, I think we'd be doing this whole process an injustice to keep on moving the goal pole. If we keep on moving it, we got a commitment last night to move forward based on what was stated last night. And that was clear to me, what was stated last night, that we were going to work to maintain the front facade. And we were not going to move forward. This is right out of Ryan Hayward's mouth. And I think I asked him the question. And he said, absolutely, we would wait. He said, we may do it at a later date. I remember him saying that. We may do it down the line. I can't promise you we won't revisit it again. But at this point, if we're able to move this forward, like we did last night, that we weren't going to move that issue forward. So now we're hearing that you want to move it. Because even though it's the first reading, it's still moving the issue forward, right? However you slice that pie, it's still moving it forward, and that flies in the face of what we agreed upon in good faith last night. So I don't think we can keep on moving the goal post here and think we're going to come out with a resolve if we're going to change the game as this goes on. That's all I say, and I don't think that represents either side. I think that's just common sense in negotiations. If you don't stick by a negotiation, it's not going to end up working.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not saying it has anything to do with you. But what I'm saying is I don't think we should change it at this particular point.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Knight, for his comments. This indeed is a very difficult time to move forward on such a large endeavor. However, It was back in February of 2016 when I offered the original home rule petition, which I believe some members of the council were on. It reads a little different from what the mayor is offering. At the time, we were looking at a seven member commission. We also outlined when a final report would be back with recommendations, which at the time we thought was key component to moving this along, because if you leave it open ended, the process inherently is a long process to start off with. When we reviewed this back in 2016, February 2016, we were looking at potential ballot questions in 2019 or 2020. So that shows you it's at least a two to three year process. Built into that number is at the time what we established was an 18 month review process. So once you establish a commission, then they had roughly 18 months to go through a charter that hasn't been reviewed in 34 years. A charter that's only been changed over the last 34 years, ironically, to give increases to the mayor's salary, which is under the city charter. And that's the only really review that's been looked at when it comes to charter review in this community. The charter is the constitution that governs our community. It's a vital document that I'd say most people in the community are unaware of because, let's be quite frank, we haven't reviewed it in 34 years. There hasn't been much discussion and people are just not aware of what the charter defines. And there's a number of issues within the charter or responsibilities and powers that define how government operates, the length of terms, the duties and powers and responsibilities. And it is extremely vital, even during a pandemic, that we focus on a charter review. And I, as one member of the council, think there's no better time than the present to start the ball rolling and take a look at what we need to do. And this is not putting a stamp of approval saying that things will be changed in the charter. We're asking for a charter commission. The commission may sit down and look at the charter and say, wow, you guys created a perfect charter 34 years ago, and we don't think anything needs to be done to this charter. I don't think that's going to be the case. But that could happen. So this is not saying the charter's going to be changed in any way. It's just saying, let's create a review process. Many charters that, if you look at cities and towns, they have a built-in periodic review of the charter. When ours was created some 34 years ago, there was no built-in review. Hence why we're at a point now that the charter's never been reviewed. So when I offered the resolution back in 2016, the home rule petition, one of the recommendations that was part of that petition was that at a minimum, an amendment be present in the city charter instituting an appointed committee to conduct a periodic review of the charter. So at a minimum, whatever happened, if there were no change at all, then at least we know going forward, and I agree with this 1,000%, I don't know where my colleagues stand, that this charter should be reviewed every so often. Whether it's yearly, whether it's every few years, whatever it might be, it needs to be reviewed. If you had a business plan from 35 years ago, you would be out of business right now. And the charter is no different, it's a business plan how we operate a community and how we run a community. And so I think it's very important that we move forward tonight. If it does calling for a refiling next year, then so be it. So be it, we refile it again. When we filed this back in 2016, it was a four to three vote. It passed four to three. We sent it to the state legislature. Many of us that were supportive of this back in 2016 followed through the process. Unfortunately, the process did not exist. The chairman of the committee, and his name escapes me right now, decided on his own, Mr. President, because I talked to him back in 2016, decided on his own not to give this a hearing. And I asked, why would you not give a petition that's before you, a home rule petition that's crafted by a city saying the city wants it, the representatives, the forefathers of the city said, we want this. And his answer to me, Mr. President, was that I don't believe that the four to three vote was a majority of the council. It didn't represent a majority of the council. And I question saying a four to three vote is a majority of the council. And it's no difference when you vote as a state legislator that a majority wins, a majority rules. And at the time, he just disagreed and didn't give it the proper hearing that it should have received, Mr. President. So I'm hoping this time, and I know there's some members that are hesitant with this, Mr. President, but I would respectfully ask my colleagues. that allow this to move forward. This is the first step in many steps. This is a two to three year process. This is not going to happen overnight. And I'm hoping as we move forward, Mr. President, that the pandemic will be behind us. That's how long this process is going to take, and I'm hoping that's behind us. So regarding the signatures that are required, I believe it's 15% of the number of registered voters that you have in the community to put it on the ballot. We've had people of the community for the last several years, some good people that have walked around, knocked doors, stood in front of stores, got thousands of signatures, still fell short of the mark of the 15% that's required, Mr. President, but did yeoman's work. And I believe there's enough support out there in the community to move this forward. Why not assist, if we can, As legislators for this city, why not assist in moving the process forward? Not disregarding a process, the signatures is one process. A home rule petition is another process. There's more ways than one to skin a cat. We're skinning a cat a different way. We're going to the legislative home rule petition. It's long overdue, Mr. President. I appreciate there's a lot of opinions on this, and it hasn't been looked at. And some people may see this as a struggle for power, some people may see it all different ways. I see it, Mr. President, as good government in reviewing a document that really requires review in this day and age. The city has changed in the last 35 years. And we should change with the times as well. So I respectfully ask my colleagues to take a long look at this tonight. I will be supporting this tonight, Mr. President. Like I said, to move the first step forward. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, there you go. Thank you, Mr. President, and I don't like to dwell on the past, but knowing what happened in 2016, And I'm not sure if that representative is still even the chairman of that committee. I don't know if it was the committee on local affairs. I can't even remember the name. Maybe election laws. John Rogers, is that something? Maybe it was Representative Rogers. I can't recall, Mr. President. I got a lot of. Useful information stuck in my head. Useless information stuck in my head, but that's not one of it. But I would just ask, Mr. President, respectfully that I would hate to pass something that is going to be on the same wave as we did in 2016 and then only go up to the State House and them say that it doesn't have the support of the city because of the vote. or the sheer number of votes. So I can see what my colleagues are stating, that this may not be the best time, but if we looked at maybe the beginning of the next fiscal year, January, does that sound like a time that would be amendable to other members of the council. I don't know if it's strictly just the time. They may have other philosophical differences with charter review and so forth. But if that's the case, I wouldn't mind holding off until January, Mr. President. Especially if this did happen to go down tonight, we couldn't bring it up again for what, 90 days? So you're looking at that time frame anyways. I'm prepared to vote on it tonight, but I just would hate to see this go down the same way, because I really believe in it strongly. So I just want to throw that out to my colleagues. If there is support, maybe not this particular second, but maybe in January, is that workable? Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Councilman. I just want to clarify that the gentleman said regarding what representation and how we elect the city council. There's also an elected board called the school committee, and they are elected the same way as well. So I think when we talk about charter review, we have to be careful not to just isolate certain groups, Mr. President. Thank you. You are correct, Councilman. Matt, please continue.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and the letter we received from the Community Development Board with their recommendation, I thought was already part of our brewery ordinance when we talked about the serving of food And the ability to produce on site or bring in food from off site. And also have food trucks on private property. I thought that was language we had. If it's not in there for some reason, I know this went back and forth with attorneys and Back and forth with the council, I strongly support adding the language that was recommended by the Community Development Board after the definition of brewery that states the facility may also provide food that is produced on site, produced off site, or produced with food trucks that are located on site. So I would ask that that be part of the ordinance, Mr. President. Second.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. So we do have an established look at commission, and I would think they would be the appropriate body to- Right, right, right, to be the enforcement authority. But I agree, and we have a fishing industry, and you can only catch a certain number of fish. We don't have state or federal officials on the boats. They have a quota that they're allowed to get, and it's on an honor system, and they keep track of it and so forth. And I would see this as no difference. If there is a limitation on what can be produced or the size or whatever it is, that would be the case in this as well, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Include the language from the CD board as recommended.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd be remiss if I did not thank the subcommittee for their work on this ordinance. This was countless meetings over a long period of time, and a lot of time and effort. went into this ordinance. I realize that many other communities have come out with their ordinance. But let me tell you, this was crafted in a way that I feel comfortable and residents of this community should feel comfortable that there are many safeguards in place. in this ordinance, Mr. President, that protects neighborhoods, protects residents of this community. It was a thoughtful ordinance that was put together, and I want to thank Chairman Knight and Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Caraviello for their countless hours on putting this together, Mr. President. This doesn't happen by chance. This happens by work, and I appreciate my colleagues' work on this.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my council colleague for bringing this up. I just want to make sure we have the correct terminology because I'm not sure if that system tracks items that are resolved. It may or may not, I think it will state whether they're closed or not, which doesn't necessarily reflect whether they're resolved or not. So maybe Jackie can expound on that, but I want to make sure if we're comparing apples to apples that, because I think it is a vital tool, as Councilor Knight mentioned, that this C-Click fix should be used during a budgetary process. So we can see the number one request and see what's happening in the community and use that as a budget tool. So I agree with that. I just want to make sure we're able to extract what we're looking for. So maybe it would be helpful to find out what the terminology is.
[Michael Marks]: Thoughts on the marks? So just to follow up, Jackie, what are the reported items that you can currently draw from now?
[Michael Marks]: So just if I could, I don't want to belabor the point, but maybe if I pose it a different way. Currently right now, are you able to see within C-Click Fix, as Councilor Knight mentioned in his report, are you able to see if things are resolved? Or if they're just closed out?
[Michael Marks]: Maybe if we can get an update from the city administration, I thought they did hire an assistant city treasurer. I thought that position was filled. But if we can get an update on that, there's been some transition in the building. And to be quite frank, we haven't received any correspondence on things that are going on within the building. There's been people that have left positions and we haven't received any formal communication. We can ask, Jackie should know that, but I thought they did bring on an assistant treasurer collector.
[Michael Marks]: What about regarding the assistant treasurer-collector? Has that position been filled?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could? Yes, Councilor Marks. That particular office, in my opinion, is in good hands. We have an acting treasurer-collector who was the former treasurer-collector for many, many years in this community and ran that office with the utmost respect and confidence and accounting methods. And I'm not sure what The need is to have a city auditor audit the treasurer collector's office, unless there's an issue of concern, because there is a yearly audit that does take place. And maybe we should be asking what the results were of the previous audit. But I'm not sure what this would, we have a great staff down there. They work very hard, and I'm not quite sure what this would accomplish, Mr. President. So I will not be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: So it's my understanding the independent audit that we hired, independent outside audit, comes in and audits City Hall yearly, so once a year. So that would be an independent audit. The auditor from the city does a monthly audit. So I just want to make sure whatever we're requesting is what we want. Do we want the independent audit that's done on a yearly basis, three years worth of that? Or do we want to look at three years worth of a monthly audit that's done internally? So I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
[Michael Marks]: From the independent audit? The independent audit, not the internal audit, yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Your microphone is now on. And we all received an email, I think it was about a week, week and a half ago, from a resident that was very concerned about his automobile excise tax. And he stated at the time that he usually gets a bill in the mail for his auto excise tax. This year he did not get the bill in the mail for his excise tax and therefore forgot to pay it and he got a surcharge. In addition to that surcharge, his wife, who the city goes into her account and automatically withdraws the excise, didn't go in. Supposedly, according to this resident, didn't go in and withdraw the amount for the excise tax from her account and it went in. they again charged a surcharge that wasn't her fault because the city was supposed to go in and remove the amount. I think I'm explaining the email correctly. So I think some of that issue, Mr. President, I'm hoping maybe we can resolve by asking maybe the acting treasurer collector regarding that particular incident. And if that's, because the email we got made it sound like it was a systemic problem throughout the community. And this was happening to lots of people throughout the community, and not an isolated incident. So I think that's important. Maybe as part of this paper, if Councilor Knight doesn't mind, we can ask that question directly to the Treasurer-Collector's Office.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so that's an amendment from Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: That the treasurer collect a report back to the Medford City Council regarding a concern of excise tax in the community. Okay. And then I can elaborate more on, that's the general gist.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Marks. Thank you, and I want to thank my colleagues, Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Knight, for putting this on. You couldn't ask for a better person. I grew up with Rich Razzo in West Medford. We were very close friends for a lot of years. And he is a great business owner, a great family man, a great son, and just a good friend, Mr. President. And he runs his business the same way. It's like going to Cheers when you go into Razzles. You know everyone, he employs a lot of local kids from this community. He assists, as my council colleagues mentioned, on a number of activities that go on. He's the first to donate. If you ever look at donation list, Razzles is always on there giving of not only his food and his expertise, but his time as well, Mr. President. I wish him well, and as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I wish him another 15 years, at the very least. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilor Knight and Councilor Caraviello for putting this on tonight. Teresa was a true Methodite. As was mentioned, John was a staple and a household name, her husband for many years in this community. And she was always the foundation of that relationship. And I just want to thank her for her many years of committed service to this community. She was a terrific mother, wife, grandmother, and she will be sorely missed. And if my colleague wouldn't mind, I think it's only appropriate that we dedicate this meeting in Teresa Galoni's name.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, this was an issue that the council spoke about several weeks back regarding the need for additional assistance within the registrar voters office. I have yet to see a response. that addresses the council concern, Mr. President. And this is not just the council concern, this is concern of many, many residents, if not thousands of residents, Mr. President, that just went through a primary election and some of the concerns that were associated with a new COVID type system. with mail-in ballots and so forth of the likes that we've never seen in this community before. The reason why I bring this up, Mr. President, is that we have an election, a very important election coming up in November. We have a presidential election coming up. And it's vital as a community that we have the resources to handle the election, Mr. President. Interesting fact that I just found out, since 2010, in this community, the number of voters went up by 55% compared to 2010. I've been telling people over the last several years, when they ask me how many voters we have in the community, I was rattling out a figure that I recall it was about 35,000 registered voters. Unbeknownst, Mr. President, we're up over 40,000 registered voters. So I was about 5,000 voters off from the last figure I had, Mr. President. This is only to show that the number of voters in this community has increased. The capacity in that office has not increased over the years, Mr. President. And it's about time that we hire someone to assist the city clerk who wears many hats in his role. And it's about time that we hire an election coordinator, someone that can go into the office, Mr. President, and run the registrar of voters office. Now election coordinator would not be just a figurehead. An election coordinator would address personnel needs, address issues of concern at all the polling locations, especially in a time of COVID. We're talking about increased safety for polling workers. We're talking about plexiglass. We're talking about masks. We're talking about sanitizing after someone goes into a polling booth. There's a lot more responsibility and things associated in this new COVID era that we're experiencing right now. The election coordinator would also be involved with the training of wardens, clerks, and inspectors for the elections. The election coordinator would be responsible for the maintaining and date working knowledge of election law as set forth by the Secretary of State's office. They would oversee the distribution of the absentee and no excuse mail-in ballots. They would follow and maintain all mandated deadlines, create all tally sheets for the clerk's folio, audit the folio at the close of the polls, ensure calculations are correct. Set up and maintain all tasks, including staff, instruction, training, poll pads, working with DPW for the setup of the polls. Process on a daily basis all ballots cast during early voting through the VRIS state system. Organize early tabulation and central tabulation. Create spreadsheets and certification tabulation of elections. You could see the importance, Mr. President, of having someone that would oversee this process. And I think asking the city clerk, who already has a full plate, just from being city clerk and dealing with the council, to then also say, you're also in charge every year. This is not every couple of years, every other year. Every year to run a major election in a city of our size, Mr. President, I think is asking for too much. Most surrounding communities have an election coordinator, they have someone that's in charge of the election process, and it is not the city clerk. It is an additional role. And I would ask Mr. President, in the interest of maintaining what I would say is fair elections in this community, maintaining a system that I think we all feel comfortable knowing that our system is a good system in the city of Medford. Does it need improvements? Absolutely. Does it require additional staff like a coordinator? Definitely. And we want to maintain the integrity of what we have, Mr. President, in our community. And I think that will go a long way to ensuring residents that in this new day and age, with probably the expansion of moving forward with voting, early voting, and voting by mail and so forth, it's only going to expand. that we really need to make sure we have a state-of-the-art register of voters office. We have great workers in there. We have great women that have been in there for a number of years. They do terrific work. But I think it's time, Mr. President, that we connect everything together now and really go into the 21st century and provide the tools that we need for that office. So again, I ask that the administration, Mr. President, because this was sent to the mayor, The administration reflect upon this and the integrity of our elections. And we have previous experience from the primary of what can potentially go wrong in an election. And the fact that we need this assistance. This is not City Councilor Michael Mark saying it. This is residents throughout the community. This is the city clerk himself. And I think it's about time that we get a commitment from this administration. Mr. President, to put this position in the budget. Whatever it takes to fund it, let's do it, let's move forward, and let's make sure we maintain the integrity of our electoral process in the city of Medford. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Vice President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And even though it's late at night, I have the energy to be angry about this. Let me tell you. It was great on September 10th, Mr. President, when I put on the local news and I saw the governor, the lieutenant governor, Secretary of Transportation Pollack, all in Bistro 5 in West Method. The governor was there to talk about his daily or weekly COVID report. And then they also found time, Mr. President, to discuss the outdoor dining, which I support 1,000%. And also as part of this, Mr. President, Secretary Pollack mentioned about several projects that are going on in the community. One being complete streets, how we've received money. And I am thankful for the money, I'm thankful for the projects that have taken place. The other is the recent money we received from MassDOT regarding the shared streets and spaces grants. And that is partly the reason why they were there to show how we're able now to do some outdoor dining and take some of the money to do heating ramps and cement barriers and anything else that would assist local entrepreneurs in the community to have additional seating during this COVID, which I support a thousand percent, Mr. President. The one issue I do have, Mr. President, The one issue I think everyone behind this real should have. And if we had a real media in this community, there was a lot of media there, Mr. President, but they weren't locals. The questions asked weren't locals. If they invited the rest of us, and if the rest of us were able to get into that, meeting as my colleague experienced for himself that attended and wasn't one of the lucky people to be able to attend the meeting and maybe ask a question or partake in the conference that was happening. But Mr. President, what has this council and the residents of this community have talked about and requested from MassDOT, Secretary of Transportation Pollack, for the last 20 years? Although she hasn't been the secretary for that long, but she's been there for several years under this current administration. One of the top three most dangerous intersections in this community. The corner of South Street and Main Street. It's been a bone of contention since I've been on this council. And here we have the Secretary of Transportation coming in and touting complete streets and mass DOT shared streets, which are great programs, Mr. President. But no mention of a major issue, we've sent countless resolutions from this council to DOT. We've sent it to the mayor, we've sent it to our state delegation. Councilor Scapelli has had countless meetings on this, requesting that signalization be placed at that intersection. That some low lying fruit be done, signage, painting of crosswalks. winding of curbs and sidewalks, traffic calming initiatives. And to have the audacity, Mr. President, or maybe this doesn't make it to the secretary's desk when we request things as a city council on behalf of 60,000 people, Mr. President. But I would think an issue of that importance should have been part of the discussion, whether it was during the press conference, before the press conference, on the sidewalk, after the press conference. But at some point, Mr. President, I would hope that this discussion around a two-decade-old public safety concern in this community needed to be addressed. And I can guarantee you it wasn't mentioned. It didn't make the list, Mr. President. They were just here to tell what they want to tell. And not address the issues that we're talking about as a community. And South Street's just one, but it's a major one, Mr. President. So as far as I'm concerned, Next time we invite Secretary of Transportation Paul to the city of Medford, she should come bearing several million dollars to do the signalization we need from Salem Street to Potter High Street to Main Street. To finish off that corridor. That is not, that part of South and Main is not city property. If it was, I'd be barking at the administration, I'd be barking at our traffic commission. We're building a brand new police station across the street. And you have to risk your life to get there. It really is a disgrace, Mr. President. And it bothered me to see Secretary Pollack sit back and take kudos for some other projects that are warranted, and I support Mr. President, but to not address the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room. And if she wasn't advised of the letters we've been sending over the past 20 years, shame on her staff. And shame on who's in charge there. I'd like to send a letter, Mr. President, from this council, and I hope the council will support it, to Secretary Pollack, thanking her for coming to the city of Medford on September 10th. And thanking her for her work on complete streets and the shared streets and spaces grant program. However, Mr. President, I want to know what's happening at the corner of South and Main Street. And I want to know why we haven't received a thorough response from the Department of Transportation that addresses the public safety concerns of this community. You know how many accidents have been there. I brought this up about six, seven, eight weeks ago. I got the statistics from the chief of police. And when I say in the top three accident related and most dangerous intersections, I didn't create that. That was from his data that he presented to me. That was directly from his data. So this is not a pie in the sky or a wish list. This is a public safety concern, and we've all addressed it. We've all addressed it a million times, Mr. President. So I respectfully request that the city clerk draft a letter on behalf of the Medford City Council. requesting that Secretary Pollack address, once again, the request of this council about what are they going to do regarding the intersection, the state road, the intersection of South and Main Street, in the interest of public safety. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was approached by a number of residents in the city of Medford that had concern regarding state regulated and licensed halfway homes within our community. I did a little additional research and some past history I have working with residents regarding a previous halfway house that existed in the Wellington area. I found some information that I think people would be surprised about when the state regulates and licenses halfway homes within the state. There is zero notification to cities and towns, Mr. President. There are zero regulations on our books regarding halfway homes within our community. There are zero zoning ordinances regarding halfway houses in our community. And I put this forward, Mr. President, as chapter 111B of the Mass General Law section 6A that the Board of Health regulates halfway homes within the state. And I put it on that we have a round table discussion with Chief Buckley, with our state delegation, our building commissioner, our city solicitor, to make sure, Mr. President, that we have rules and regulations within our community, Mr. President, that safeguard our residents. And there was an unfortunate incident that took place a few weeks back. Thank God a resident came out of it. All right, Mr. President, but it could have went very different, very, very different. And there was some concern regarding this particular incident and that this particular issue of halfway homes within our community needs to be reviewed. I'm not saying we have to eliminate, which I don't believe we can, Mr. President. But I believe, as Councilman Knight mentioned, knowledge is power. And I think that we should have the knowledge when a halfway home is licensed in our community. And that at the very least, we should be on notice, Mr. President, on how we should protect residents that may be living within proximity of these particular homes, Mr. President. I offer that in a resolution. I would ask, I know you have a million things as committee of the whole, Mr. President, but I would ask at some point we create a committee of the whole meeting to address this very important issue on behalf of the residents of this community. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, I didn't hear anyone say about keeping anyone out of this community. So, you know, if we're going to state things, Mr. President, we should accurately reflect what was stated and no one once said to keep anyone out of this community.
[Michael Marks]: Says who?
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the superintendent for being on the call tonight and the administrative staff. The email we received today talks about WB engineering report and that the amount to look at ventilation air quality, air exchange would significantly exceed $200,000. I was just wondering, regarding the 200,000, is that particularly to the high school or is that in general across the board?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so Madam Superintendent, you mentioned the roof fans. At Medford High School, I guess roughly 100 roof fans at an estimated cost of $125,000. Is that part of this $200,000 that's listed as WB engineering report?
[Michael Marks]: My question is regarding the $200,000 that was mentioned within the email we got today and also a previous email we received from the mayor. It mentioned that each classroom needed these filters at $1,500 a piece, but it didn't mention how many classrooms and if it was just the high school or if it was classrooms across the entire city.
[Michael Marks]: So through you, Mr. President, when was the WB engineering study commissioned by the school department and voted on by the school committee?
[Michael Marks]: Is there a particular reason why the school district waited so long to commission an air quality study?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And when did we find out there's hot evidence now that says the quality of air is fine?
[Michael Marks]: Right. Right, so I'm just wondering why for the past six months, the school administration, knowing that eventually we're going to have faculty, students, staff back within our public schools. Over the last six months, didn't realize that a first step would have been to do an air quality test within the schools. And I'm not sure why it took so long to do that. But putting that aside, Mr. President, this was tabled two weeks ago. And one of the motions made by the council was to ask the administration and the school committee for a list of their priorities. Because at the time we heard of a number of priorities. One being ventilation, air quality, air exchange in order to provide a healthy and safe building. But we also heard about handicapped ramps accessibility. We also heard about the condition of our restrooms within the school department and a number of other concerns as well, Mr. President. We just recently received an email from the mayor stating that if we could release the funds, they're also looking to use some of the funds for beautification purposes in the main entrance. which I know firsthand that that is something that's needed, Mr. President. I was part of the crew that painted that several months back under the leadership of Bill Carr Jr. and a number of volunteers, so I know that's needed. But I believe, and I can't speak for my colleagues, Why we asked for a priority list was to make sure that we had a reasonable assessment, Mr. President, on what are we going to do to get our children, and our teachers, and our faculty, and our staff back into a safe building. And to me, beautification of a front entrance is probably at the bottom of the list. And air quality, and air exchange, and ventilation, and other priorities, Mr. President, would be at the top of the list. And that's what I was hoping to receive from the administration and the school committee. And to be quite frank, I am very disappointed that we didn't even get a response, Mr. President, from the council motion that was two weeks ago. That was from August 25th. Unless I'm mistaken, I have yet to receive anything, Mr. President. That's not to say that I realize that work needs to be done in that building. But it would be helpful, Mr. President, if we're going to work in cooperation with the school side, that if we have requests, that they recognize and honor our request, Mr. President, as well. I have no problem allotting money, Mr. President, but I'd like to know what it's going to go towards. Now, if we free up $800,000 tonight to go into this fund, there's no saying that they won't end up doing beautification over ventilation. I would hope that's not the case, Mr. President. And clearly, if there are 100 fans that are currently not working on the roof, you can almost bet your bottom dollar the air quality and circulation in that building is not good, Mr. President. So this is not rocket science. They're already coming out saying they have to can't change out all the filters, the fans on the roof aren't working, over 100 fans. That's what circulates air within a building. That's what provides proper air quality and air exchange and ventilation. So those are the concerns I have, Mr. President. And maybe if the superintendent or someone else from the administration can assure us that if we do release money tonight, that the priority is to get people back into the building. And to make sure that the air quality and the safety of our students, and our teachers, and our staff, and our faculty is the number one priority, Mr. President. And then we can look at other needs. My other point, Mr. President, is two weeks ago, Aleesha Nunley represented to us when we took the vote that there was other money available. I believe I asked the question, because it was led to believe that if we didn't vote two weeks ago, that we were stalling students from getting back into the building. And I asked Aleesha Nunley that question, and she said, there are CARES Act money available, and there's COVID-19 funds. that are available to work with the air quality and safety concerns. So that's why I voted the way I did, Mr. President, knowing that there's other additional funds out there. And that the fact that I want to make sure as one member that if we're going to allot money, that it go into the safety of our faculty, students, and kids, Mr. President. And I'm sure the school committee and the administration share the concerns, but if we're going to be responsible for allocating this money, like every other paper, Mr. President, it'd be nice to have a paper in front of us. And I received an email today that I just happened to be able to take a look at just briefly, but I still haven't seen anything that prioritizes work. And I realize the testing is still underway and current, but that's why I felt that if this happened two, three, four months ago, Don't forget the money that was in this account from the science labs, the 700,000, that's been sitting in the account for five years, Mr. President. Think about it. We could have moved that money in for restrooms in the high school for the past five years, for working water bubblers. You name it, Mr. President, what's needed in that high school. So this is money that could have been used over the past five years. So those are the concerns I have, Mr. President. If the superintendent can assure me tonight that this money will be prioritized for the reopening and the ventilation and air quality and air exchange and safety concerns over aesthetics and beautification at this particular stage, I will give it a vote tonight. If not, Mr. President, I will not move forward. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if we, I asked the question earlier, I'm not sure if I got an answer. If the school administration knows how much, or maybe Mr. Rodriguez, how much money is available in the CARES Act and also the COVID funds for safety purposes within our public schools?
[Michael Marks]: And Mr. President, I have a question for the superintendent of schools regarding what is the current school policy on the rental of our buildings?
[Michael Marks]: So Madam Superintendent, I am astonished. We're talking about safety and health of our students, our faculty, our teachers, staff within our schools. Why we would introduce hundreds of people that wouldn't necessarily be in our buildings into our buildings through the rental of our buildings.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I was just trying to finish my thought, and I appreciate the superintendent's response. However, Mr. President, when I say hundreds, I said hundreds, and it's really thousands because it's not the one Saturday or Sunday they're in our building. It's over a course of time. So to sit back and say it's only a couple of hundred, That may be true for one given weekend, Mr. President, or two, but not over the course of the year. It's thousands of people being introduced into our schools. And why subject students, staff, Mr. President, to the additional people coming into the building? And I understand and appreciate there's protocols and procedures, and they have to get signed off from the Board of Health. And I can appreciate that, Mr. President. But in my opinion, when you have people from outside that are coming into the buildings, you're not sure what precautions they may be taking. They may sign a paper, Mr. President, but when they're in that building, what type of supervision is there? What type of protocols are being put in place to make sure, Mr. President, that our kids, our staff, our teachers are being safe when they enter the building the next day? Why risk it, Mr. President? They're using our buildings, Mr. President. They're using classrooms. They're using cafeterias. They're using gymnasiums. They're using restrooms. They're using auditoriums. Now, you're telling me, Mr. President, that our staff, who are very capable at the high school, are going to make sure that every inch of the high school or the McGlynn School or any other school is sanitized, every inch of the building. I have a tough time believing that, Mr. President. In the interest of safety that we're talking about and health, I would respectfully ask that the school committee look back at their policy and stop the policy of renting the buildings, Mr. President, until we're able to get this situation under hand. I realize it's a revenue source for the schools. I understand that, Mr. President, that we count on. But safety should come first. I've heard from a number of parents, a number of faculty members that are concerned about going back into the buildings because of the rentals. So I would respectfully ask the superintendent and the school committee, along with the administration, revisit the policy on renting the buildings, Mr. President, until we can get a better handle on our children going back. The issues that we're going to be confronting, not only with the rentals, Mr. President, but just going back to school in general under a COVID new society. Why compound it with the rentals of the building? It makes zero sense to me. And no one's going to tell me otherwise, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would respectfully ask if the superintendent, I know she was trying to answer my questions and comments, if she can finish with her statement.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just want to go on record that I disagree 100% with the rental of our buildings during this particular phase of COVID-19 based on the health and safety of our students, our faculties, our administrators, our teachers, and everyone else within our buildings, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Council Bears.
[Michael Marks]: I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on. Those who knew Ed knew he was a great person and good person to be around and he will sorely be missed, Mr. President. I also would like to mention we lost a resident just recently, Giovanni Puccio. On his recent passing, Mr. President, he was a tremendous father, husband, family man, and just a terrific guy. And he will be solely missed, Mr. President, as well. So I'd ask if my council colleague wouldn't mind putting that on as well, Mr. President. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If my council colleague wouldn't mind adding my paper on to this, paper 20-542, where they are similar in nature. Sure. Would you like to make a motion to join the papers? Please.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my council colleague, Councilor Knight, for putting this on the agenda as well. For the past several years, Mr. President, I've called for a public safety summit within this community. And to date, I'm not proud to say that we have yet to have a public safety summit. with all the parties to be within this community to discuss these very issues. And Councilor Knight may not say it, but I am going to say it, Mr. President. Violent crime is on the uptick in this community. And you only have to read the paper, watch the local news, and talk to your neighbors. And you'll hear what's happening in this community, Mr. President. From home invasions, to car break-ins, to home break-ins. It's happening all over the community, and I think it's very important. I realize we do have a crime analyst in the community that's gathering crime data. But the data is only as good, Mr. President, when it's being used for. So if it's not being used to update and provide the latest and greatest for our police department, then it's not good data. If it's not used, Mr. President, to get the word out to the community, and that is key. That is key in this community. I've talked to a lot of seniors in this community that are unaware, Mr. President, on what's happening. And I tell people constantly that may leave their front door open or their car unlocked to say, you know what? Those days are behind us. I hate to say it, they're behind us now. And you should always proceed with caution. And I believe you should be locking your front door, even during the day, Mr. President. I believe you should be locking your car. You should be watching out for your neighbors. You should leave a light on. that may deter someone from robbing a house or a car or so forth. But I think the announce of prevention goes a long way, the old saying. And we have to get word out to the community, not to alarm people, but to let them know what's happening. To let them know that they should take extra precaution, Mr. President. And I ask that our police department step up patrol around the community. I ask that we do have this public safety summit to discuss some of the concerns we have. Just recently, Mr. President, and I won't get into the details, we had a home invasion that involved a 92-year-old woman that luckily, Mr. President, was able to escape. because God knows what would have resulted if she was not able to escape, Mr. President. And there's been some scuttlebutt around the community that this person may have been part of. a halfway house in the community, and living in our neighborhood, and living amongst us, Mr. President. And that raises some concern for residents, and rightfully so, Mr. President. So I think as a community, we have to take a step back and look at what's happening in our community, ways we can address issues, ways we can make our residents safer, Mr. President. We have a large percentage of seniors, and seniors are very vulnerable, Mr. President. So that's my concern. I would ask once again that we create a public safety summit. I'm not sure why it's impossible to get a public safety summit together. I think I must have offered it three or four times. And I've yet to get any buy-in from the former chief or this chief or anyone else, Mr. President, administration or anyone else to sit down and discuss these issues. Because this is hitting home now. It's not somewhere you're saying, well, this happens here or there. It's happening in our neighborhoods. It's happening to our neighbors. And it's concerning, Mr. President. So I just want to put that out there, that once again I ask for a public safety summit where we can sit down around the table and discuss some of the concerns we have. If it's funding, then as Councilor Knight mentioned, then the council should be aware of that. If it's additional manpower, if it's additional tools that the police department needs to get the job done. If it's additional outreach, community outreach, then so be it to make sure that residents are aware of what's happening. I've asked in the past to use the reverse 911. You know, it's great to get when there's a road race in the city and you get a reverse 9-1-1, but 9-1-1 is for emergency. What better emergency than if there are home invasions and people being attacked in our community, Mr. President? You know, and how blatant when someone's sitting there and someone jumps through a picture window, a glass picture window, with the person sitting right there. They weren't trying to avoid detection. They weren't trying to avoid the person. These are very serious incidences, Mr. President, and they need to be discussed and addressed. And I realize the police are probably working on their own, and things that they can't relay to the public, and I realize that. But I also believe the public should be well aware of what's going on, and we should be open and notorious when it comes to alerting residents of this community. And I want to thank my colleague for putting this on.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Morell for bringing this up. There's a pattern here. Over the last two years, mostly two years, the MBTA has tried to cut a number of bus routes. over and over again, Mr. President, and residents have to stand up and fight and contact the T and contact the state delegation and the mayor and the city council. And it's pretty disturbing that an MBTA, that their chief mission is to provide access of transportation, and they're constantly looking to cut back. transportation in surrounding communities. So that's number one, Mr. President. For full disclosure, I do, for the past four years, I've taken both the 325 and the 326. So some of this is from my own selfish standpoint, someone that takes that bus and has been on the bus with many, many other people that rely on that bus for transportation to and from work, Mr. President. Councilor Knight hit the nail on the head. And I've been talking about this literally for, I hate to say it, probably close to 20 years. Let me tell you. The MBTA has over $66 million in tax-exempt property in this community. Tax-exempt, Mr. President. $66 million that they don't pay the city of Medford one nickel for. Their assessment to us for providing T services as of 2017 was about $3.7 million. So that's what they charge us over and above when you pay a fare, when you get your T-card, when you pay 20% of the 5% sales tax. That's over and above we pay as a community, as Councilor Knight mentioned, for this particular service. So when we have an express bus, we have additional routes, people say, wow, Method has great access. We pay for it, Mr. President, in many surrounding communities. Winchester, Arlington, you name it. They come to Method to jump on the express bus, or to get on the train in West Method, or to go to Wellington. They come into our community. We're paying a heavy assessment. And he's absolutely right. Back some years ago, I offered a motion, which was passed and sent to our state delegation many years ago, that we offset the T assessment. based on the tax-exempt property they have in our community. So if it's 3.7 million that they come and take from us to operate services, they owe us 66 million for having tax exempt property in the community. So that's how we offset it. Needless to say, it never went anywhere in the state legislature. But that's a whole other story for another time. Method has the sixth highest assessment out of the 175 communities that use the local assistance fund. We have the sixth highest assessment. So when it's mentioned, like Councilman Wright mentioned that, you know what, if they're going to take service away, why wouldn't you cut the assessment? Why wouldn't you cut that assessment? We're paying for it. It's not something we're getting for free. We're paying for it through many different streams. It comes right off our charity sheet. So whatever local aid we get from the state, they look at it and say, okay, you're going to get 15 million. We're taking 3.7 million from the T assessment. So we're paying, Mr. President. And I think the T should answer to this. They really need to answer. So I support what Councilor Knight offered. I'd also like to know, Mr. President, How are they going to start to pay us back for the $66 million in tax-exempt property they have in this community? Between Wellington Station, the car bonds on Salem Street. So I appreciate my colleague putting this on there, and I'd like to hear back from the MBTA to find out exactly, Mr. President. If this is a temporary cut or reduction in service, that's one thing. That's not the impression I'm getting. Once they make the cut, it's going to be very difficult to get it back. You remember the days, Mr. President, that we had a fight because there were so many people standing on the 325 and 326. It became a safety concern. You are correct. It was over the capacity. And we asked them to put on additional buses because the 325 and 326 couldn't accommodate the needs of our community. And they never did so, Mr. President. I think they may have put on a route here and there, and then they ended up, yeah, I think they ended up putting one route on, and then they ended up canceling that. But that shows you the need in the community. I realize COVID has decreased the need, but it's gonna come back. Everything's gonna come back, and that's gonna come back. And I don't wanna be behind the eight ball, Mr. President, when residents are looking for the 325 and 326. So I would ask that you give us a commitment in the form of a motion, Mr. President. That this is just a temporary reduction in what their plans are for future service for the express bus. They want to keep people off the roads, they want to keep cars from going into Boston. Why would you eliminate express bus? We have an express lane. What's that used for if there's no express bus?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Biaz for putting this on tonight. If we recall when we were deliberating the budget, it was mentioned, I know I brought it up. The city clerk did request for an additional position within the registrar voters office. It never found its way into the budget, but there was a request. So at the time, the city clerk realized that due to the upcoming election, the nature of the election, what's going to be requested of his office, the amount of votes that will be potentially early voting, mail-in and so forth, that it required someone from the Registrar of Voters Office to coordinate these efforts. which currently doesn't exist right now. As my colleague mentioned, you have Mrs. Joyce, you have Mrs. Lamoni in there, you have Sandy that does a great job on, I believe, a part-time basis. You have a number of other staff people, Mr. President. They did the best they could. But clearly, the clerk who is also the chief election officer of the community felt fit that it would require additional personnel. And I think the time to stand up was during the budget, now it's after the fact. And I think we're all looking back saying, in retrospect, we probably should have asked for that position, even though it wasn't part of the budget, but was requested as, if you want to call it a wish list. And that would have been an important position, Mr. President, in my opinion, to make sure that our elections are on the up and up and the integrity of our elections, which should be of the utmost importance. us as elected officials and as a community, Mr. President. So I just want to put that out there that I don't think it's too late now if we do need it, Mr. President, that we as a council can ask that the city administration, which I'm going to do in the form of a motion, that the city administration put into language that would put forth the position of a coordinator in the registrar or voter's office. And I know the city clerk has the exact title and what the job description would be, Mr. President. And I would ask that he supply that on this resolution back to the city administration because we know it's going to be needed. It's not, as my council colleagues mentioned, this is not going to get any easier. in November or next year or the following election. And the position is needed, and it's a long time coming in this community, Mr. President. We're able to get through elections for many years, but I think now's the time we have to, as a community, step up our game and ensure the integrity of our elections. And in doing so, hire the appropriate personnel to make sure that happens. Second, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's a wrong motion.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, did you not meet or was the Board of Health Director not in this chamber and gave approval to this set up, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Can you not go to a restaurant, indoor or outdoor, and sit six feet from someone else without plexiglass, Mr. President? Have we not been told, Mr. President, that we can't exceed 25 people in this chamber, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Do we exceed those numbers, Mr. President? Have we adhered to all the rules and regulations, Mr. President? If my colleague wants to stick his head in the sand, but meanwhile attend every rally possible, Everywhere, we've got hundreds of people gliding in and shaking hands. Then so be it, Mr. President. It is the height of hypocrisy, Mr. President, to stand there and say that someone would be in danger attending this meeting, Mr. President. Shame on whoever's spreading that around, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: And you also endorsed candidates that you were passing off ballots to. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, several months back I put on the agenda that we asked that a crosswalk be painted at the intersection of Everett Street and Salem Street. Can we please get an update from DPW or the Traffic Commission regarding the crosswalk at Everett and Salem?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, Mr. President, I call for suspension of the rules to take a paper out of order.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I ask that we take paper 20-521 out of order. 20-521.
[Michael Marks]: Thank You mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for taking this out of order We have a number of residents from Dutton Circle Underneath a blue tent tonight on their front lawn as we can see them all waving And I'd like to speak on their behalf. Mr. President regarding an issue that took place back in 2017 when residents woke up to a national grid cutting down two trees apparently that were interfering with high tension wires on the street. Shortly after that, Mr. President, the city came by and ripped out two stumps and then set forms to pour new cement sidewalks because the city ripped up about 150 feet of sidewalk along Dutton Circle. And this was not at the request of the residents. It was because of the work done by National Grid, the safety work that was done by National Grid. Fast forward almost three years later, the residents are still waiting to get the sidewalk poured in cement. The farms are still there on the street from 2017. There are raised water shutoff valves that are causing a trip and fall hazard. And Mr. President, I received a call about It's probably about three hours ago from Commissioner Kerins and Highway Director Steve Tanaglia. And they assured me tonight, Mr. President, and they were out there today mocking off the sidewalk, that the residents on Dutton Circle, the long-awaited three years for these sidewalks that they were promised by the previous administration, will now be poured very shortly, Mr. President. And I want to thank the residents of Dutton Circle for their patience on this. I want to thank the city administration for moving in a quick manner on this administration, moving in a quick manner. And I want to thank Commissioner Kearns and Steve Tanaglia for their due diligence on this. I think there are a few residents, Mr. President, I know Emily's on, that would probably just like to speak briefly to the council, if you would indulge. Okay, thank you, Councilor Marks. Emily, would you like to speak?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And I want to thank my other colleagues for putting this on tonight. You know, this has been, I probably put this on the agenda for the last four years. And it's been a major issue in our community. Originally, it started out in South Method on the Somerville Method line. Then the Heights received a large amount of infestation. The Wellington area, which I live in, was recently baited and trapped. put down. And I think as part of an ordinance, you know, I like this ordinance. I think it needs to be properly vetted. I agree with Councilor Knight. However, we do have to look at enforcement, Mr. President. Many residents in this community are complaining about people leaving trash outside food in the backyard, leaving open invitation for these vermins to come in and feed and feast. And that's why they're hanging around. Another issue, Mr. President, is, in my opinion, the lack of baiting and trapping in the community. We're not as aggressive as I believe we should be. And that's, I think, a discussion we need to have with the city administration when we start vetting out the ordinance itself. The last point, Mr. President, I have is regarding private property. I've heard all too many times when the city goes out and they start doing their baiting and trapping that they've witnessed Borrowing and nest on private property and I can understand the city can't be the gatekeeper for everyone's property however, if there's a nuisance of a property that's in a particular neighborhood and the city's aware they can see that there's nest and infiltration and and so forth. I think more needs to be done, Mr. President, to work with homeowners and maybe work with absentee landlords that may not give a damn, that don't live in the area, to be quite honest. And I think we have to do more as a community to safeguard the neighborhoods. And if we do locate these nests that are borrowed into private property, I think the concern should be with the residents as well as the city, Mr. President. And I think that'll go a long way to curbing the rat problem that we've had in the community for many, many years. This is not a recent issue. It's not because of just recent construction. This has been ongoing for many, many years in the community. And I look forward to having a dialogue, Mr. President, where we can address this by city ordinance and also by enforcement and outreach, which needs to happen as well in the community. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor? Just if I could, as we all know, we also have many state roads and state parcels of land in the community, which the city is not responsible for. And I need to say that I did reach out immediately to Representative Donato because it was the Wellington area. And he was quick to respond, Mr. President, regarding concerns and quick to address it on the state level as well. And I just want to thank Representative Donato for his work.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank, uh, my colleague Councilor Knight for bringing this up. Uh, Councilor Caraviello, I have two kids I can drop off tomorrow, if that's all right. Um, Mr. President, um, you know, for many years in this community, We've had accessory dwelling units, however, they're just not permitted or authorized. And those, what I refer to, are illegal basement apartments, illegal attic apartments, and a number of other illegal attachments to homes, Mr. President. And this has been an issue of contention for a lot of years in neighborhoods. especially thickly settled neighborhoods, because you'll see an influx of cars, you'll see an influx of residents. However, these particular illegal units currently are not being permitted by the city. So there's number one, there's a safety concern with electrical, plumbing, heating, you name it, there's a safety concern, Mr. President. And also taxes, Mr. President. Many of these illegal apartments that currently exist now don't pay taxes to the community. So this discussion is well warranted in the community, and it's something that I agree with. And at the very least, we should be looking at in-law apartments, because I agree with my colleagues to allow residents that are at a certain age to stay in their units or their houses, I think makes a lot of sense. We also have to be mindful of the flip side, that once we bring this above board, that we will have an influx into our neighborhoods. And if you think parking is a concern right now, it's going to become even more of a concern. And then we have to look at resident permit parking, potentially citywide permit parking, like they do in Cambridge and Somerville and other surrounding communities. So this actually is probably a great issue to bring up because it's going to bring everything that's currently happening, happening illegal in the community above board right now. And we could take a good hard look at how we want to approach this issue, but also be mindful that we don't want our neighborhoods to turn into an area where there's going to be a mass exodus because there are so many units in an area that it becomes unlivable for residents as well. So I think there's a happy median here that we have to find, but the issue definitely needs to be broached. And I look forward to having that discussion.
[Michael Marks]: Not to cut you off, Kelly, and I appreciate what you said, but remember that not all streets are permit parking. And it's great to say we have permits, but that's not the case on many, many streets in this community. So in order to implement what you're talking about, we'd have to do some type of permit citywide parking.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to touch upon what Councilor Scott probably mentioned regarding the ventilation. Alicia, do you know if we're looking at ventilation upgrades to all the schools throughout the system?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, the reason why I ask is that during the budget, the school committee came out with a laundry list of priorities and recommendations if they had additional money. Have they put anything in priority for this additional funding? I mean, they're well, we haven't approved it, but they're well aware there's money out there now. Have they put anything in writing to what they're looking at?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but we're being asked to appropriate money.
[Michael Marks]: Well, my recommendation would be similar to what I think Councilor Scarpelli was alluding to, that whatever is done with this particular money, that it go towards the eventual reopening of the schools regarding ventilation, safety needs, PPE, whatever else is needed in order and when it's safe to get back into school.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, well, we'll take out the supply stuff, but anything regarding the cost to reopen our schools eventually, I think would be an important expenditure at this particular stage. We've been talking about restrooms, the bubblers, water bubblers in the high school for many, many years. And I think that's warranted. I'd like to see as a part of a contingent, a part of the approval of this council, that we receive an update immediately from the school committee when they do get together and meet to see what their priorities are and what they plan on spending this money for.
[Michael Marks]: And that we put a priority, Mr. Clerk, that we put a priority on any expenditures for the eventual reopening of public schools regarding safety, i.e. the ventilation system, security, whatever else needs to be in place in order for us, our teachers, our staff, and our children to safely go back to school. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Order of information, Mr. President. Order of information, Council of Arts. I thought we were just told by Alicia that there was funding available for the HVAC and ventilation, other than this money.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so we wouldn't be holding any money back regarding ventilation or the needs at the high school at this particular point. What we would be doing, and I agree with some of my colleagues, is stating before we give out any money that we should be asking, what are the projects? which makes sense to me at this particular stage. So at this particular point, Mr. President, I would offer a motion that the council hold back on giving out this particular funding until we do receive a communication from the school committee on what their priorities are and what they intend to spend the, what is it, $815,000 combined? Is that what it is, Alicia?
[Michael Marks]: So I would ask, Mr. President, knowing that the CARES Act funding and other additional funding is there to address some of the immediate needs, that this particular money, where we are the appropriating body for this, that we ask that the school committee come back and give us a list of what their priorities and needs are. And at that point, I don't think there's anyone opposed to addressing the concerns of the school department. So I'd put that in the form of a motion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So what is the actual cost to repair and update the HVA system at the high school? We don't know, Mr. President. We don't know. This is all conjecture, Mr. President. We have no idea what the actual cost is. Mr. President, and to just go through something blindly, because even if we appropriate this money and we still need millions of dollars, where are we then, Mr. President? So we should be getting a report from the school side telling us exactly what the cost is, what they're going to do, and what monies are needed, Mr. President. Point of information, Mr. President. I don't know how you operate government not knowing that information.
[Michael Marks]: Surprise, surprise.
[Michael Marks]: Motion is to table, Mr. President, until we get a correspondence back from the school committee regarding what their priorities are. And if it's the HVA system, Mr. President, we should know how they're going to spend it and what it's going to cost before we allocate money.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for putting this on tonight. Clearly, Mr. President, we can't circumvent any collective bargaining issues or concerns. So if that indeed is the case, then this will be ironed out in that particular realm. Mr. President, what Councilor Caraviello just alluded to is a serious public safety concern in our community. We roughly have 35 details per week that go unfilled. That means that when an outside entity, utility company that wants to do business in the community reaches out to the Medford Police Department, they can't find anyone on the police department to fill these particular public safety concerns. And that is very concerning to me, Mr. President, as one member of the council. Additionally, Mr. President, as Councilor Caraviello alluded to, the city gets an administrative fee on every detail, whether it's someone from the city of Medford doing the detail, or if it's someone from the Somerville Police Department that's filling in, or the Everett Police Department. We get a 15% administrative fee. If you add up the number of details that go unfilled in the course of the year, we're talking roughly $100,000 that the city of Medford is leaving on the table, Mr. President. We just went through a budget crisis. We just talked about laying teachers off. We just talked about not rehiring police and fire. And here we are leaving $100,000 on the table, Mr. President. which is a financial concern as well as a public safety concern, Mr. President. We also had, if people recall back some years ago, we had a fatality at one of these work sites, Mr. President, on Salt Street. So this is of grave concern in our community, Mr. President. for our offices as well as public safety. And I agree with Councilor Caraviello that indeed, if we can get retired police officers that are willing to do this particular work, Mr. President, and work it out with the unions and work it out with collective bargaining, this is a win-win for the community. So I support this wholeheartedly, Mr. President, and I look forward to hearing from, I believe, The union rep is also on, and I look forward to hearing his comments as well, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I too would like to thank Council Vice President Caraviello. As I stated in the past, he was the first person actually to bring up the fact that there was funding available through the state. And that was back so many years ago. And I think some people looked at him like he had three heads. And now we're seeing that his one head worked very well for the community. And we appreciate that. Mr. President, I appreciate the Bloomberg donation. However, we can't lose sight that the original intent of this was to privately raise the full amount of the funds that we got from the state, which was about $11 million. And we have fallen short of that mark. So this is great that we got some money, but we're still looking for about $6 or $7 million in private funds so the taxpayers won't have to bear the burden because that was the original intent, Mr. President. So, you know, let's get out there and let's find some other rich donors in this community and move forward.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate my colleague, Councilor Morell, for bringing this up. I happen to have attended the June 17th co-sponsored meeting between the City of Medford and the Medford Human Rights Commission. And the conversation was around racism. and ways that we can work together as a community to stamp out racism. I know we broke into a number of working groups and I believe there were a number of recommendations made. There were over 250 residents that attended the Zoom call. uh for participation and like I said we broke into different breakout groups and I think that was one way of getting some community input. Yes indeed we do have to get community input on a much wider scale. I would just ask that we don't recreate the wheel and that whatever we do that we move in unison as a community so we don't have all these different groups often their own, Mr. President, and never really amount to anything. So I know July 8th, the Human Rights Commission invited public participation once again at their regularly scheduled meeting to discuss next steps for addressing racism as a public health crisis. And I think getting these organizations all together, Mr. President, if we do have a subcommittee meeting, I think that's a great idea. But I would also ask that the Human Rights Commission and any other board of commission that may be able to assist, we can have Neil Osborne, the Director of Human Diversity, attend as well, Mr. President. And I think this is going to take the old saying, it's going to take a village, Mr. President. And indeed, we have to get a wide range of community members and involvement to move forward on the next steps. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, have you set up a follow-up meeting with the marijuana ordinance? I have reached out to Jonathan.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we are in the process, as many residents know, we hired an attorney to help us with our review of our zoning ordinances that haven't been reviewed in over 30 years. I think many people in this community realize that there are many changes that need to happen, many updates. And I would agree with some of the previous speakers that we really do need to look at a comprehensive amendment. And I appreciate the fact that the mayor is trying to put forward what she believes is in the best interest of the community. However, I'd like to look at a total picture when I arrive at a decision, and I don't believe this arrives at that. There is an issue, Mr. President, I've raised on many times. before the council and regarding zoning is the fact that we're seeing many buildings pop up that have very little community feel and community impact other than providing additional housing. And I've always stated, Mr. President, that we have to make sure that we're not just creating big blocks residential places that really have no community feel. So whatever I do as a member of the council, I'm going to be cognizant of the fact that I will be mindful of adding a component, like we mentioned about mixed use and so forth, and whatever votes I take, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. I would also ask that KP Law be invited for advice as well as the acting city solicitor. Absolutely. They've both been instrumental in- Councilor Marks, is that an amendment? If you want that in the form of amendment, that's fine. I'll use it as an amendment.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I would ask that the city of Medford and Tufts University put together a list of contacts for area residents, a clerk of the work that would be responsible for the project, and any questions that residents may have.
[Michael Marks]: A list of project contact names and numbers, as well as the city of Medford to have a clerk of the works that is responsible for the project. And I know Mr. DeRico said he has a list of abutters and so forth. I'm sure he can disseminate some information that way and the city can also add it to its city website and local community access as well. So residents know that they have a place and a person to talk to if need be.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Councilor Marks? Mr. President, as many residents are aware, we're undergoing a major infrastructure project going on right now with Eversource that's coming down Winthrop Street. And there's going to be much disruption to the area, as well as South Street and Mystic Ave. And I did have a couple of questions. using the existing trenches that will be dug by Eversource? Or will they be creating their own trenches? They also mentioned underground laterals and cables and wires. Is that going to be part of the extensive digging and trenching that Eversource is going to do for their electrical transmission? So I have a number of questions, Mr. President. I'm not sure if, you know, we don't meet until the end of August. So I'm not sure if time is of the essence. I don't know if we have our city engineer on tonight as well. I thought I may have seen his name. Mr. Clark, do you know if he's on?
[Michael Marks]: Why don't we just move it to the end of the meeting? And then if they don't show up, Mr. President, I would agree with Councilor Knight. Because there's already a major project going on there, and I'm not sure the extent of this project. We don't know the hours of operation. We don't know if they're going to be working in conjunction with National Grid and Eversource. I really don't know anything about the project. So that's what I would ask, that we move this to the end of the agenda calendar.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Second, Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would move that we suspend the reading of the remaining remainder in that this be placed and tabled with is not a representative from National Grid, that it be placed at the end of the agenda as well. Okay, on the motion of Council... Was there another comment?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I would ask that if the council is all right with that, that we amended to allow for any correspondence from Tufts University to be passed off to us as well.
[Michael Marks]: A B paper is fine, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's accurate.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on the agenda. You couldn't meet a kinder, gentler woman. She was truly what represented this community in everything she did, Mr. President. And she was a loving wife. mother, grandmother, sister, and just a truly great woman, as was mentioned by my colleagues, that raised a tremendous family that still continues to give back to this community, and she will be sorely missed. If I could, Mr. President, I'd like to have this meeting named in her honor, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Yes. I motion that we waive the remainder of the reading and have the petition to give us a brief synopsis of the work that will take place.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Councilor Marks? Will there be any disruption to the flow of traffic in roughly how long will this project take?
[Michael Marks]: And when will most of the work be done? During the day or at night?
[Michael Marks]: I will leave that call, Mr. President, up to the city engineer and the city administration. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I believe there may be one or two residents from the area on with us tonight that would also want to speak. So I just want to let that be known. I received a number of phone calls and emails, Mr. President, from area residents in the Washington Street, Spring Street, Bradshaw Street area regarding speeding traffic. This is not common to this particular area. We receive calls constantly throughout the community. And one issue that I've brought up over many years was instituting traffic calming initiatives like they do in many other communities. I've been on the city of Cambridge website, the city of Somerville, and we don't have to recreate the wheel, many of the initiatives are out there and things that we can take advantage of. One, Mr. President, that I believe our city has fallen short on the mark is the raised crosswalks that I've mentioned for the last at least 10 years. Back several years ago, Mayor McGlynn offered to do a pilot program with three raised crosswalks. And to date, we have only implemented one of the three that was studied and approved. And that is on Winthrop Street. I would ask Mr. President in the interest of public safety, in the interest of taking our roads back from speeding traffic, that this particular area of Washington, Bradshaw, Spring Street, receive a traffic study, a formal traffic study on speeding cars, as well as the need for additional signage, Mr. President, in the area. And the day after, I believe it was, that I received one of the emails, I got a follow-up email from the same gentleman that said he witnessed a young boy get hit in the street by a car, Mr. President. I don't think it was very serious, but it was enough, Mr. President, to alarm residents of what is taking place in their neighborhood. So I would ask Mr. President, in the interest of public safety, that our Traffic Commission quickly move forward on the creation of a traffic study in this area, the implementation of traffic calming initiatives, whether it's widening sidewalks, whether it's putting road markings, whether it's a raised crosswalk, blinking lights, whatever it might be, Mr. President, to increase safety in the area, I think would go a long way. We've, as a council, have mentioned this ad nauseum regarding many other streets in the community. And I really believe, and this is no reflection on any current administration, but we really do a poor job when it comes to controlling the speed within our community. And when people don't feel safe taking their dog for a walk or taking their child for a walk or going for a jog, you know there's a concern in the community. And many of our secondary roads are becoming cut-through roads with all the Waze applications and other applications people are using, and drivers are finding any which way to get through our neighborhoods. And that's creating much of the chaos we're hearing about on our streets. So I would put that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that that be sent to the Traffic Commission, and they look at additional signage on those streets. and the commission of a traffic study for implementation of some traffic calming initiatives. And I believe we have Ed Serino from the area and maybe Tony Mosca, I believe also may be on the Zoom meeting tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Correct. And any other traffic calming initiatives that the city can think of?
[Michael Marks]: I agree with the previous speaker, and I would ask that Todd Blake, our traffic engineer, look at a citywide approach. This council has been requesting that for many years, and we tend to take things up piecemeal, like we did on Salt Street and many other streets, because there hasn't been a formalized approach to look at the entire city. So I am in full support of looking at the entire city, but as I get calls and emails I react to those calls, Mr. President, and I would ask that Todd Blake be as part of my motion that he look at a citywide approach to traffic calming issues as was mentioned by the previous speaker. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: If we could, Mr. President, thank you. I've got it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Commissioner Mulkey, for being on tonight. When you mentioned some projects, that the historic commission wanted to see come before them. Does that include porches?
[Michael Marks]: OK. And would that also include vinyl siding?
[Michael Marks]: And prior to the meeting that you held with the city administration, What items were you actually sending? Was it just demolition to the historic commission or was it these generalized construction like replacement windows and porches and roof lines and everything else that's involved?
[Michael Marks]: And you're saying the language that states demolition delay or parts thereof, the or parts thereof is the issue that they're hanging their hat on saying, well, this involves more than the demolition of a building.
[Michael Marks]: It absolutely is a vague term. And I would ask, Mr. President, if we could, when the Commissioner Mochi does arrive at whatever the standards are going to be that he shared with the council, Because I, as one member of the council, never envisioned to have residents that may want to, under this demolition delay, may want to do some work on their property and have them run into a financial cost or say, you know what, it's not worth doing this additional work because I don't feel like waiting or going through another process. So I, as one member of the council, am extremely interested in seeing what you come up with, Commissioner Mulkey. And if that's the case, I would move forward on redrafting our ordinance to exclude that language of all parts thereof to make sure that we're not putting an undue burden. I think we all want to save historic property. But I'd venture to say 70 or 80% of our homes are greater than 75 years old. And I don't see how logistically, we already have an overburdened historic commission, an overburdened building commission department. And to create another layer that may discourage residents from doing work on their personal property, and then maybe an additional expense is not something that I signed up for. And I'll make sure that that doesn't come to fruition. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could quickly, I know a lot of people want to speak. Absolutely. If I'm not mistaken, Council Vice President Caraviello said to meet with the historic commission. I have no problem doing that, but it's my understanding this was a directive from the administration. And I think the best person to have in the room would probably be the city administration as well. Agreed. We're going to get to the bottom of this, Mr. President. We'll have all the so-called players in the room. Sounds good.
[Michael Marks]: Whoever the city administration would like to send.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Councilor Marks? Thank you, Mr. President. And I, too, have a statement tonight that I'd like to read. I first heard the phrase Black Lives Matter back in 2012, when Trayvon Martin was shot to death. After that, Michael Brown, a young African-American, was shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Then another African-American, Eric Gander, died after being put in a chokehold by the New York City police officer. These incidences and many others leading up to George Floyd's murder this year have led me to understand how the seeds of slavery, discrimination, and prejudice continue to threaten the ability of black Americans and others to equally enjoy the freedoms that we profess as a country. So I am proud to join with so many others and state that black lives matter. I do so with the desire that in making this statement, it will facilitate the clear acknowledgement of the destructive effect that discrimination and prejudice has had and continues to have in our country. And my hope will encourage all Americans to work to erase inequality. But as we consider this resolution, I have an important question for the mayor about hanging banners on public buildings such as City Hall. My question is directed at the mayor because she has full authority over this building. My question is this, what standards or procedures does the mayor use in deciding what signs or messages will be placed on City Hall? The reason that I ask this question is because the right to use a government building to display a message is not unlimited. This is especially true if the building is a public forum like City Hall. If the mayor is going to allow City Hall to be used to display various messages, then the First Amendment requires that the city not discriminate among various messages or points of view. Any standard applied by the city must be content neutral. An example would be if a pro-life group wanted to hang a banner on City Hall. The city could not prohibit that, and nor could it prohibit a pro-choice group from also having its banner placed. So you can see that we should receive from the mayor a description of what the standards she applies in hanging banners. Otherwise, we could be at risk of turning City Hall building into a billboard battle zone of conflicting and possibly polarizing messages. In Method, we have experienced the impact that banners and signs have on our rights. It was just two years ago when this council voted to stop using the VFW building on Mystic Ave as a voting location because some voters stated they were less inclined to vote because of a sign displayed on the building. I mention this because City Hall itself is used as a voting location. So before we vote on a resolution, I am simply asking my council colleagues that we request that the mayor give us a full description of the standards or procedures she uses in determining what banners or signs will be allowed to be placed on City Hall. Having the mayor respond is a prudent and reasonable step to take when First Amendment and other rights are involved. So at this point, Mr. President, I would offer a motion to receive and place on file the original resolution of paper 20-497. And I offer a motion requesting that the mayor provide the council with the full description of the standards or procedures the mayor uses in determining what banners or signs will be allowed to be placed on City Hall. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Not at all. Thank you. So it would be a motion requesting that the mayor provide the council with a full description of the standards or procedures the mayor uses in determining what banners or signs will be allowed to be placed on city hall. So the first motion was to receive and place on file the original resolution, which is paper 20-497. And then the motion was what I just offered, Mr. Clerk. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate Councilor Bears bringing that up. I just want to draw the light, Mr. President. There was a recent court case just entered in the U.S. District Court on July 1st, 2020. And it's the case of Judicial Watch versus the mayor of D.C. And on June 5th of this year, Mr. President, artists, demonstrators, residents, and employees of D.C. painted Black Lives Matter on 16th Street in Washington, D.C. The next day, June 6th, protesters painted Defund the Police next to Black Lives Matter. The mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, supported the painting on the street, but there was no permit or approval process. Judicial Watch then wrote to Mayor Bowser and asked that their model, because no one is above the law, be painted on another street of the similar size. In its letter to the mayor, Judicial Watch said it has tried to find procedures for getting approval for painting a message on a street near its offices, but could not find any procedures or permit process. The deputy mayor then wrote back to Judicial Watch and said that it should apply for a permit. Judicial Watch then checked out the District of Columbia's website, but could not find a permit process to paint on a street. And when it contacted the Public Works Department, it was told, we never heard of that permit. Judicial Watch then entered the lawsuit alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights. The basis for its claim is the mayor favors one message over another, and that the city does not have any standards or procedures in place. So I just want to make it be known, Mr. President, I think it's prudent that this council move forward to find out what are the standards and what are the procedures, Mr. President, because clearly anything could be challenged. And clearly that if we do open up messaging on City Hall, it will open up other First Amendment rights and other concerns. And I think it's only prudent that we move forward as a community and make sure that if the mayor decides, and I agree with Councilor Knight, this is totally under the mayor's purview. This has nothing to do with the council. And if Councilor Bears wanted to move this forward, for the past six months, he could have approached the mayor at any given time and had that discussion with the mayor. He opted to come before a body that has no input, and that's his prerogative. But unless he already approached the mayor, and the mayor denied him of the sign, which I'm not sure. But clearly, the city administration has control, as well as the building commissioner of the buildings, and it's not the city council. But I'm willing, Mr. President, to find out what the rules and regulations are and move that forward.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I did have a resident reach out to me that is employed with the City of Boston. And they did mention to me that when the City of Boston has a policy in place, that when they put banners up, it's usually a message from the mayor. And that's how they've been able to work it. So they put out a message from mayor, whatever it is, and then the message. And that may be something that could be in a policy. I don't think anyone's saying no. I think what we're saying is we'd like to see what the policy is. And I would disagree with my council colleague if he doesn't think a permit or policy should be in place. City Hall is one building. Are we going to do it on the school buildings? Are we going to do it on the police building? Are we going to do it in our fire stations, our library? I mean, we can go through the list of buildings in the city. So I think it is only prudent to be careful as we move forward, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears?
[Michael Marks]: I don't know anyone that said that this is controversial, Mr. President. We're asking that we find out what the policies and procedures as an elected body, Mr. President, it's up to us to do our homework and our due diligence. And before we just vote on something to vote on it, we should find out what the policies and procedures are. That's how elected officials act in their course of duty. So no one is dismissing anything and no one is saying there's no value or merit to this. We're saying we have to do our due diligence.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Mr. President. Councilor Morell. If I'm not mistaken, my emotion, Mr. President was offered first and it was seconded first. So I'm not sure why you would take up that first, Mr. President. I would challenge the ruling of the chair.
[Michael Marks]: The first first person to speak might have been the first person to speak. I don't remember emotion.
[Michael Marks]: If I could just clarify the first motion, Mr. Clerk also mentioned paper 20-497, which was Councilor Bears' original resolution. So move to place 2497 on file? Right. Motion to receive and place on file the original resolution of paper 20-497.
[Michael Marks]: I prefer we go what we have, Mr. President. That's what was seconded, and that's what I prefer we go with.
[Michael Marks]: This is on the first one. Hang on a second. There's two separate motions. This is the first motion to receive the paper in place on file. And the second motion is the request to the mayor.
[Michael Marks]: No, we still have the second part of this vote.
[Michael Marks]: It is a part two minutes.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? Council Marks? I disagree with my colleague, Councilor Knight. I believe that this is an appropriate time. The paper is currently before the council, and if we want to get it properly vetted through the Community Development Board, which would be a public hearing through the Community Development Board, I think this would be an ideal time, actually, to get this particular language vetted. And then it has to come back to us, and we can have our legal counsel, Kim Scanlon and KP Law, take a look at the language to make sure it's appropriate. I'm under the impression that the city of Boston has a similar language, if not exact language, that mirrors this. And I believe it spells out a concern that we have for clarification that a brew pub would be listed as a restaurant, and that's based on the sale of 25% or more of its beer on site. And I think that's a great distinction and something that's needed in our community. And so I would support moving this forward tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Marks. I thought what was mentioned at the outset that we have to go through this process all over again anyways, because we didn't make the time constraints that were imposed on this council. So this is nothing more than adding a definition to the current brewing ordinance that we have that's going to probably be vetted once again. And if anything, Mr. President, this is merely stating that Food will be 75% of what's sold in the establishment, which would make it a restaurant. And only 25% can be of a brewing nature. So it's actually very different than the other definitions, where it heavily relies on the brewing and not the food. And so this is more food-related than it is brewing. And I think it fits well into this, because it gives people an option, Mr. President. So I think it will probably be vetted out as we go along. So I will support it tonight. knowing that we still have many meetings in front of us, Mr. President, to go forward with this.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could add, we were fortunate enough, and I appreciate all the work Council and I did on this, believe me, and other members of the council, we put a lot of time and effort into this, as well as Mark Rumley, former city solicitor, who actually got this ball rolling as well, Mr. President. But we were fortunate enough to have a couple of Method residents, that are in the brewing business to assist us and help us along in crafting this ordinance to make it work for the city of Medford. So I only see that as a positive that we had the ability to have someone there give us some guidance and there was many times that we asked for guidance to make sure we crafted something that wasn't a Somerville ordinance or Cambridge or Boston but a Method ordinance to see how it worked for us. And so I continue to look for advice and assistance and any other assistance I can get from the people that have the expertise. Because I'm not a brewing expert, I don't know the number of barrels, I don't know anything that... what I have to do my homework and research. And from what I see with this, Mr. President, it will be properly vetted. We're not asking that this be voted on tonight and then become an ordinance, ordained ordinance, in the next several weeks. We're saying that this has to go through the entire process again. Unfortunately, we have to do it. We have to go through the entire process and have another public hearing and so forth. Even though much of the language has been vetted out, So I hear what Councilor Knight's saying, but I think we should at least give this the opportunity to be added and then properly vetted.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, were you on the the National Grid one? You are correct. This is 20-479. Okay. I do have a question. Yes, absolutely. Regarding the Eversource, how much of your project is related to the Eversource project? And if so, what is being done that both of you are working on?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So when you talk about underground laterals, cables, and wires, is that happening?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so this is not going to be, is it going to be coordinated with Eversource? Oh, of course, of course. Yes, of course. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: What's the expected time this will take?
[Michael Marks]: That's all the questions I have, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: He was drinking water. He couldn't have seconded.
[Michael Marks]: He was a ventriloquist. He definitely didn't second it.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Not to interrupt you, but it's always been the intention of, I believe, all seven councilors to have Zoom part of any process.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could finish my point of information. Okay, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, with all due respect. Over the last several days, I've received a number of emails, which I welcome, much of which spoke about us as a council not wanting to have Zoom as an option. which is the furthest from the truth, Mr. President. So I just want to let it be known that I as one member of the council, my council colleagues will speak for themselves, never once mentioned to stop council meetings on Zoom, stop budget meetings, it was to provide an additional avenue to our meetings. So even if we did hold in-council meetings with department heads, those meetings would have been televised. They would have been available to Zoom for comments. They would have been available to Zoom for email. They would have been all open access, Mr. President, as council members. And if I can also mention, Mr. President, this is my 25th budget. That means 25 years. I take my job very serious, Mr. President. And I don't take it lightly. I've never missed a budget in 25 years, Mr. President. And what happened recently, Mr. President, I think was unfortunate. And my concern right now, Mr. President, is moving forward, getting past this, Mr. President, and offering people no one wants to do a wayward zone. Anyone that's telling you that hasn't been true to you. We are not doing a wayward zone. There are, as many business people know, and other people that are in the business world and so forth, there's a lot of complexity to putting together a budget, especially a budget that's 183 million, that deals with potentially hundreds of layoffs. And to work that type of budget over a Zoom meeting, for us to be present with each other- Mr. President, would be-
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, please continue. Mr. President, this was a point of information, but what I'm saying, Mr. President, there's a lot of things that go on in a budget. There's sidebar conversations that we've had in the council when we discuss issues. There's a lot of things when we sit down and talk to department heads. Now, Mr. President, if one minute someone felt the department head that they were unsafe, Those are the things we'd have to address, Mr. President. And maybe having a meeting is not the greatest idea in public. But I can tell you in the town of Canton and the town of Abington, they just recently, within the last couple of days, have held meetings with their town councils. And they address situations of social distancing, of providing masks, sanitary gloves, and so forth, whatever they needed to do to address. And all I'm saying is, I think we could have tried to accomplish that in the city of Medford, and also keeping Zoom and every other realm of communication. If there's another one out there, that's you, Mr. President. You yourself know we've opened up. We've never had our budget meetings, since I've been on in 24 years, open other than arriving to City Hall. And I realize this is a different time, arriving to City Hall and have people participate in person. Now for the first time, we have cameras in our council room that can capture these meetings. There is no way members of the council want to hide anything from the public, exclude the public, Mr. President. So I just want to put that out there. I know there's been a lot of information back and forth, and it makes for a good story. Certain people don't want to attend meetings. But I can tell you, Mr. President, that's not the case. It's not the case with me, Mr. President. I look forward to moving forward. And as I've told people that contacted me, you can rest assured we're going to have a signed budget. We're going to have open debate, open dialogue, open comments, and we're going to have a signed budget, Mr. President. Thank you for indulging me for those few minutes. I appreciate it. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Board of Information Counsel Marks. Thank you. And I know my two colleagues have expressed themselves many times on social media and Twitter and so forth. However, Mr. President, this is the Medford City Council meeting. And I think at the very least, it deserves the opportunity, Mr. President, to explore, which we asked for well over a month ago, to explore what options are out there. And all I'm saying is we need the time to explore it, Mr. President. The mayor has already come out asking us, saying if we're unable to get together on this, she's going to have to do a 1-12 budget. That would be her wishes, not my wish. I think we can resolve this, Mr. President. I think we can get together. And according to what Councilor Knight mentioned, that we're willing to stand by whatever the recommendation is. And that includes the Mayor's recommendation, her Board of Health, the President of the Council, the gentleman from Local Access, and the Vice President. So whatever the recommendations are, Mr. President, that's what we're gonna stand by. And if it includes not having the public meeting at City Hall, then as far as I'm concerned, so be it, Mr. President. So I don't see how this is going to wait another week, Mr. President. And if anything, maybe these public meetings should have been called one after another because you have a 48-hour wait period. So maybe these meetings should have been called so we do have meetings scheduled for the next couple of days. And I would ask, Mr. President, that maybe that's something you look at so we do have meetings set up. Thank you very much.
[Michael Marks]: I need to say, Mr. President, I remember a day when there used to be some disagreements and Councilors would argue about issues. But what I have to say, Mr. President, is this council is going in a very different direction. It's a little troubling when a member of the council offers a resolution and other Councilors prior to it even being discussed on the agenda, start bashing a member of the council for offering a resolution. Not even listening, like they'll talk a big game saying, I want to hear what people have to say, but they start bashing someone before you have to hear what they say. Point of information got somewhere else.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not referring to the resolution, but thank you for your comment. Mr. President, so what I'm saying, Mr. President, is very troubling. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But to start this back and forth, Mr. President, without listening, God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason, Mr. President. And without listening to see what someone else has to say, we're never going to move forward, Mr. President, because we can't debate stuff on Twitter and email and all those other services, Mr. President. That's not how we operate. And I realize these are two new councils, and they're not privy to how maybe the council operates. but just for future, Mr. President, moving forward, have respect for other people. You may not agree what they have to say. You may hate their resolution. You may despise what they're saying, but give them the opportunity to say it and then have your say. That's all I'm saying this morning.
[Michael Marks]: 100%, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would respectfully ask that this be combined with the other paper. They're of similar subject matter, and I feel to do that at the beginning and ask that this be combined to the other paper.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just for the interest of transparency, if you wanna read it, so people know what the resolution was.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, yes. I'm sitting on a low chair today, so. Mr. President, if we could have direct, not only just, maybe I missed it, what the balance is in the account after the 1.5 million is used?
[Michael Marks]: The reason why I bring this up, Mr. President, and this may be a discussion we can have during budget debates, is that the mayor already committed, I believe it was a little over $5 million in free cash towards offsetting our deficit here in the community. And I would respectfully request that in addition to the $5 million, that we also look at the water and sewer enterprise account. And I realize under state statute, it only allows us to use that money for certain purposes, and one being to offset a budget deficit. And in the past, I've been on the council for a number of years, we have dipped into that money to use to offset our snow and ice account in the city budget. The reason why I state this, Mr. President, is it's very likely, even with the free cash, that there still is going to be some layoffs, in particular in the school side and some within police and fire and DPW, Mr. President. And I would ask that, respectfully, the city administration look at filing a home rule petition to tap into some of the additional 4 million plus that Director Nunley just mentioned that possibly is available that will keep us still maintaining the money for infrastructure and other emergency purposes, but also making sure, Mr. President, that we as a community don't have to experience the loss of teachers, guidance Councilors, police, fire, and other essential services within our community. So I would just offer that as a B paper, Mr. President, that the city administration explore the option of filing a home rule petition. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Is that correct, Councilor? If I could just clarify. To look at the Water and Sewer Enterprise account and file a home rule petition and potentially offset any budget deficits that we may have with the Water and Sewer Enterprise account. The remaining, I believe, was $400, $4 million and somewhat change that Director Nunley mentioned. OK. Thank you. Thanks.
[Michael Marks]: We like I said, I just want to make sure that also, Mr. President, there are people that have been waiting to speak. And we have people that have spoken twice. Everyone gets a fair chance to speak Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, interesting. What a conspiracy. What a conspiracy. Please.
[Michael Marks]: What a conspiracy. Correct.
[Michael Marks]: All right.
[Michael Marks]: Are we debating the budget tonight, mr. President, mr. President Time to debate the budget this is not a night to debate the budget.
[Michael Marks]: I just wanted to personally thank Malik for his comments. And to me, a comment like that goes a long way in putting the divide down and moving forward. And I think that's what we all want right now. And I really appreciate those comments. Absolutely. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, point of information. I think what Councilor Caraviello said was he was gonna wait till the regular agenda when we get back to the regular agenda to participate. I won't speak for him. But he also mentioned he's having problems with his- Right.
[Michael Marks]: For your information, Councilor Marks. Just for the edification of the gentlemen, the city council does not decide the money that's given to the school committee. Just to, you know, if we're gonna talk facts, let's talk facts.
[Michael Marks]: That's right, you don't have to approve our budget. That's right. You don't approve- That's not what you said, Paul. Let's get the facts, what you're saying, Paul. Facts matter, Paul. You can't just speak and not- One at a time. Councilor Marks has the floor. Councilor Marks has the floor. Mr. President, facts speak for themselves, Mr. President. The gentleman can't accept that that is not the process, Mr. President. And he's been saying a lot of things that aren't processed over the last couple of weeks. He should know what the process is, Mr. President. You are correct.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, is she unmuted?
[Michael Marks]: Council Marks. Mr. President, I know there's a few people waiting because I received a text, but I'll be brief also in the interest of everyone's time. Regarding the council, I feel like I have a good working relationship with all the council. Do we need to approve upon things? Absolutely, Mr. President. I agree with what was mentioned by my colleagues. I think in the first six months of this year, this has been one of the most productive councils I've ever worked with. The pieces of legislation that we've put forward are amazing. The marijuana ordinance and the list goes on and on, Mr. President. You know, over the last couple of days, when I had people call me up and said, geez, Mike, what the heck's happening? And I say, oh, about the budget? They said, no, you and Adam Knight are voting on the same issue and you're in the same stance together. So, you know, these are things, Mr. President, that we as a council, you know, we work through, we'll get through it, Mr. President, and I look forward to a productive remaining of the year. And I think it's important regarding our own diversity, and so forth, that you always keep an open mind, Mr. President. I approach everything with an open mind. And I always say, as my mother taught me, treat people as you would like to be treated. And that's what I walk through in life. And I try to do the best. I think we all have inherent prejudice that are built into us. And I try to check myself every day regarding that. Am I perfect? No, but it's a work in progress, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll? Yes, Councilor Marks. I believe there were a number of letters submitted to the council on the public participation as well. And I would ask that they be received and placed on file, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I put together an hour presentation for this. So I hope you guys would indulge me.
[Michael Marks]: That was a joke. That was a joke. Mr. President, as we know, over the last month or so, that outdoor dining has opened up in this community. And there's been a lot of interest and suggestions how to use some of our major thoroughfares to assist local businesses and restaurants in using up some of the space in order to put outside dining. The Mass Department of Transportation just released their Shared Streets and Spaces grant. And it's a $300,000, up to $300,000 available. And the COVID-19 has highlighted some existing mobility needs, as well as the need for meaningful commerce to now be safely conducted on sidewalks and streets. The improvements include streets, curbs, sidewalks, on-street parking spaces, and off-street parking lots. Improvements can be intentionally temporary or pilots of potentially permanent change. uh applications and the reason why I brought this up tonight Mr. President applications are being accepted as of June 22nd on a first come first serve basis to September 29th. I would ask Mr. President that we take a vote to ask the city administration to expedite and apply for this particular grant for Shared Streets and Spaces Grant, Mr. President, in the interest of outdoor dining, and also in the interest, Mr. President, in assisting those small establishments that may not have the capacity, Mr. President, to make outdoor dining a reality, and this would definitely help out. Thank you, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I hate to say during this night that I shirked my duties on these particular records, and I would ask for one more week for review, Mr. President. Motion to table. On the motion to table the records. Second.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, also to clarify, the 6 point whatever it was, 2 or 3 million that the mayor did say she was going to take out of free cash does not change any of the circumstances which are currently taking place right now, which are the cuts within the city. and the school side. So anything else that happens would be in addition to that. So I think we've got to be mindful that six million brings us to where we are right now. And many of us want to go further than that. But, you know, we're going to have to wait and see. I think it is a wait and see game right now. And I've been saying that for the last month and a half regarding local receipts and regarding, you know, hopefully some type of bailout and so forth. So that's my hope, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. If I could, Mr. President, I know where Councilor Caraviello, Vice President Caraviello is coming from with this. We were told a couple of weeks ago that the mayor was committing, I think it was 6.2 or 6.5 million from free cash. So I'm not quite sure what this resolution does. Only the mayor can appropriate The council could not appropriate we can make recommendations So i'm not quite sure if this is just a feel-good type thing Um, and even then it doesn't feel good because the cuts are still taking place. Um, so I'm not i'm not quite sure what this actually does.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just so you know, to some of us, Thursday afternoon is the same as Thursday night. That happened to be working. So it's not much of a difference to me. That's still late in the game. I appreciate you've been, of all people, you've been pushing for this for so long, but it really gives us very little time and such a pressing budget to take a look at it Thursday night and then Saturday morning, early Saturday morning.
[Michael Marks]: So when will the budget book be available for the general public? That's another good question. I assume when we get it on Thursday, that an electronic copy would go as well. If it's not the case, Mr. President, it's incumbent upon us not to have the meeting on Saturday because I don't think it's fair if we're the only ones that have access to a budget book and then we're inviting the general public to participate and they have no access to the budget. So that's not fair either. So I would say this should be a wait and see, Mr. President, before we set up the date, because that budget book has to be available to everyone in the community, as well as the council.
[Michael Marks]: Second. Question, Mr. President? Yes, Councilor Marks. This is kind of new to me. Have we done this in the past?
[Michael Marks]: So it does sound unique, and that's why, because it was never presented to us.
[Michael Marks]: Before we do that, Mr. President. That's all, Marks. Thank you, Mr. Pruitt. While we're under suspension, I just want to give my colleagues an update. About four or five weeks ago, I presented to the council, which was unanimously supported regarding the intersection of Salton Main Street. And during my presentation, I mentioned that I was waiting to get feedback from Chief Buckley regarding the number of accidents at that location. And if you would indulge me for about 30 seconds, I just want to give you the update to the members of the council. Chief Buckley looked at two areas of significance that was shown on the accident map, one being Maine and Salt Street. and the other being the surrounding area around Wellington Circle. Between the year of 2017 and 2020, there were 139 accidents reported at the area of Main and Salt Street. And at Wellington Circle, between that same period, there were 202 accidents, Mr. President. Um, and as you can imagine wellington has many feeder roads that go into wellington circle as well as several routes that run through wellington circle And if you notice the number of accidents, uh, very close in nature, mr President and I think it uh speaks volumes to what we need to do at the corner of salt and maine um, and I just wanted to Uh present that information to my colleagues and I appreciate for you indulging me
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on. What Councilor Knight just mentioned about Brian sums it up. He kept our infrastructure going. Think about it, a system that's 150 years old with pipes that are actually made out of wood, some of our old water pipes, Mr. President. He was a man that kept the infrastructure going, never questioned his job. When there was a leak at two in the morning, three in the You'd see Brian Rabbit's head hanging out of the hole in the middle of the street, Mr. President. That was the type of dedication he had. And then, Mr. President, you had someone that fought an illness, a devastating illness, for many years and never said, woe is me, always had a smile, a good word to say, and he will be sorely missed, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues for putting this on. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if we could dedicate this meeting in the memory of Brian Rabbit. Absolutely. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: He's gone from the chat, hang on. Can we table it until he comes back, Mr. President? I mean- He's in the waiting room.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just to follow up, I want to thank President Falco for putting this on. I just want to reiterate, Mr. President, there is $50,000 currently available in a city account. for each business district. The only business district that has gotten together and put together a full plan and is now realizing some of the benefits to the 50,000 is the West Medford Business Association. So I would ask Mr. President that all the other business associations get together, put together a plan, and Mayor Lungo-Koehn wants to make sure that this money that's been available for, I think, close to four years now, gets dispersed so we can do some of the improvements that President Falco just spoke about.
[Michael Marks]: I've been told otherwise. That may have been part of it, but I've been told that they used their portion of their money from the parking program.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank President Falco. He did an excellent job explaining that. I, too, want to thank Representative Donato, who immediately got on the phone and talked to representatives of the MBTA, who did assure him, I was told, within the next two or three weeks that it would be fully reinstalled, the bus routes. As President Falco mentioned, that has been a bone of contention with area residents that take the express bus, Mr. President, into town. And I think we all can remember when they try to cut back a few of the routes and the bus was filled to capacity, over which is a requirement that the MBTA has for safety concerns, and they still allowed it to exist until the members of the Medford City Council got involved, Mr. President, and we were able to reinstitute some of the cut routes for the 325 and 326. So I'm hoping within the next two or three weeks, according to Rep Donato, this will be reinstituted. because there's a need, Mr. President. And it clearly shows that there is a need in this community to use both the 325 and the 326. And I want to thank President Falco for offering this as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Bax.
[Michael Marks]: Motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank the previous speaker for coming and giving his opinion. Mr. President, I think as I stated, I think it was last week, we have more in common than we do when it comes to what we believe needs to be done in regards to police reform. I've had the opportunity over the last two weeks, actually, maybe even longer, to speak with some of the police officers. And a few things that they mentioned to me, I think most people may even find a little surprising. I think there's a lot of support among police officers regarding civilian review boards, Mr. President. And with the one caveat that if you do set up a board that it be manned with people that have a working knowledge of how a police department operates, the role of a police department. So they are open to that, Mr. President. The union, according to Harold McGillivray, has met with the administration and wants to implement cameras. for not only the safety of the general public, but for the safety of the officers. So that's another thing, Mr. President, I think that if we start talking reform, that I think we have more in common, Mr. President. The last point I'd like to make, and I said this last week, and I think there's a lot of support for it. We rely on our police department for almost everything. You know, they're the only department open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. So when something happens in the community, Mr. President, you know, and it's after five o'clock, we just don't say, well, you know what, we'll handle it tomorrow. It's the police department that responds. And we're asking the men and women of our police department, Mr. President, to respond to issues of domestic violence. We're asking them to respond to drug issues and people that are ODing. We're asking them to respond to mental health issues. We're asking them to respond to social issues, Mr. President. And in my opinion, we're asking them to do a lot in addition to what their main responsibility is, is to keep public order and to prevent crimes and to protect the life and liberty of property. They have a lot on their plate, Mr. President. And from what I'm hearing from people when they talk about cutting the police department or defunding the police department, I think it has very many meanings. And from what I'm hearing from a lot of people is they don't necessarily want to cut the police. They want to give the assistance they believe the police officers should have. So if there's a call, Mr. President, regarding domestic violence, Why not have someone that's a domestic violence specialist, Mr. President, on hand that can go to calls, Mr. President, that can attend calls, that can assist? Why not have someone that's a social worker that can attend calls, Mr. President, that may require that? Or someone that has a mental health background if the issue requires mental health, Mr. President. There's a lot of ways we can assist the police department, Mr. President, and provide the safety, which I agree. You know, we may have issues that are happening in the community that require other expertise. And why not have the availability, Mr. President, and the availability to de-escalate situations? And so I think there's a lot more in common than we realize I think there would be a lot more support out there, Mr. President, once these discussions are had. And I think we're going to move towards police reform that's going to be acceptable to everyone, Mr. President. It'll be a win-win. And I think that will not only improve communications within our community, but it'll also assist the brave men and women in our police department, Mr. President, to do their very taxing job. And, you know, I think we all want to arrive at the same results, Mr. President, and that is to provide a safe community. That's the number one job of the Medford City Council, is to provide a safe community, Mr. President. And without public safety, we have nothing else in the community. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I didn't have a chance to review. I would ask that they lay on the table.
[Michael Marks]: Topic is not something we cannot run from. It's something we need to address and embrace. And you have our commitment to do so. Respectfully signed by Councilors, Caraviello, Councilor Knight, Councilor Scarpelli, and Councilor Marks. Thank you. Thank you Councilor for your comments.
[Michael Marks]: I'm also going to suspend the remainder of the reading and have the petitioner give a brief synopsis, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Any other questions from the council? Thank you, Mr. President. This is more of a general statement and no reflection on National Grid, although they sometimes are part of the problem in the community, Mr. President. But of recent, I've been receiving a number of complaints regarding utility work on our streets. Just recently, Park Street had some utility work and a giant trench was dug the length of Park Street, and the work to put back the tar was less than shoddy, Mr. President. and poses a safety concern for area residents. I would ask, Mr. President, at some point, I know we have a lot on our plate, but at some point that we set up a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss utility work in the community so we can address and make sure that when utility companies come in, that they restore our streets better than they were, Mr. President, and that no safety concerns exist while work takes place.
[Michael Marks]: I don't want to do it on their petition, so I would just put in a request to the Council President to kindly set up a meeting regarding utility work in this community. Thank you for clarifying, Councilor. I appreciate it.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So, Mr. President. Councilor. I just want to concur with my colleague, Councilor Knight, that that is a great suggestion and much of the work involves trenching and digging in our community and sweeping up after, I think should be a standard part of the job. So I support that in future requests, Mr. President, as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. The question I had was regarding how would you treat medical waste?
[Michael Marks]: So at no time would you be using the local trash for needles or blood or any other type of medical waste?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, my good luck of being on the council for a number of years gives me some wisdom. And back so many years ago, we had a tattoo pile that tried to come onto Forest Street across from the Boys and Girls Club. It was called Lucky Tattoos. And at the time, Mr. President, the petitioners had, in my opinion, a lengthy record about border health issues and so forth and raised some concern. And I Voted against the petition based on concerns. I had with lucky tattoo. This has nothing to do with this petitioner and We mr. President ended up getting sued by lucky tattoo and they ended up winning a suit of I believe it was 25 to $30,000 against the city of method because we denied their special permit and and apparently we were being arbitrary and capricious, even though I felt we had valid concerns of this opening. On this particular petitioner, Mr. President, I don't have those concerns. It is signed off by the Board of Health. The Method Police has issued a statement saying that they have no public safety concerns. The petitioner seems to be a good business person, and I wish him well, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Council Marks. I would also ask similar to many other special permit requests that we put a six month review on this special permit, Mr. President. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just a point of information. Is it possible to table this till the end of the meeting?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Just a point of information. I think the paper was offered under suspension. I still think we have to do something with it. Right, whether we receive it on file or do something. Motion to table. Motion to table. Rule the paper out of order.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Council of Affairs. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I think if we all recall, this may have gave us a commitment that we were going to get the budget in April. That would have been the earliest budget, Mr. President, I've been on 20 years on the council, that this council has ever received a budget. And then we had what we all know COVID-19 came into effect, Mr. President, and threw a monkey wrench into that. So the commitment was out there, Mr. President, to get us an early budget. And we're faced now with a $10 million deficit. And although some would like to see a budget immediately, I think it's only prudent that the mayor take the time, Mr. President, to wait to see the local aid, what we're going to receive, to see what local receipts may be coming in. We also waited, Mr. President, which we all know, because they extended the period to pay your taxes. So we wanted to see what revenue we had in order to put together a budget. So I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have concern, but I can tell you from experience, Mr. President, I remember getting the budget with one night to work on it. And I remember, Mr. President, in the past, there wasn't much outcry for many years, Mr. President. And now all of a sudden, in the middle of COVID-19, there's an outcry to get the budget, which we never got this early, Mr. President. So it's great people want to see the budget. I'm eager to see the budget. We need to move forward, Mr. President. But by no stretch of the imagination is this city administration holding anything back. They're trying to put together a budget that will provide city services, that will keep people employed, Mr. President. The last thing we want to do is send out a budget to alarm people that they may be losing their job, and then we get a federal stimulus. or we get a bailout. And guess what? When you were worried about your job for the last three weeks, you don't have to worry. The last thing we do is want to worry people, Mr. President. We're all going to have ample time to meet with the department heads. We're going to have ample time to go over the budget, Mr. President. And we're going to have ample time to make sure we have input. So don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The process has worked this way, Mr. President. And I feel comfortable that we're moving forward with a realistic budget. I don't want to see a budget that's not realistic, because I've dealt with one for the last 20 years. I want to see a realistic budget. And I think that's what this current administration is working on, Mr. President, in a time of emergency, in a time of a pandemic, and a lot more happening, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, that was a preliminary budget that every mayor for the last 30 years works on, Mr. President. And if someone wants to create the budget, maybe they should run for mayor. Because it's the mayor's responsibility to create the budget and then pass it on to the council, Mr. President. So I don't know why we're putting the cop before the horse, Mr. President. It's never happened in previous years, and there was never anyone outspoken in previous years. But now, I guess in COVID-19, we have different expectations, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to state because, you know, I'm actually here tonight to listen more than I do speak. But I think this is far too important of an issue to not attack it on many fronts. So I'm not opposed to putting out a statement. I'm not opposed to getting together, as Councilor Scarpelli said, in trying to move issue items forward. I think we have to attack this head on, Mr. President. As we heard, this systemic racism has existed for decades. So don't believe for one second we can take one approach to solve this. We have to take many different approaches, Mr. President. And I, as one member of the council, am willing to do that, Mr. President. So tonight, because I'm not saying a lot, I wanted to listen, Mr. President. I think it's important to listen to the community. I attended the rally, Mr. President. And as my council colleagues state, I realize there's a lot of anger out there. But you have to remember, I represent this whole city. When someone reaches out to me with a concern, I don't ask them what their ethnicity is. I don't ask them what their religion is. I help everyone, Mr. President. So I would hope that members of the general public realize that we're here to assist, we're here to help, and I don't think there's anyone behind the reel, the seven of us, that don't want to see change in this community, Mr. President. And I, for one, agree with my colleagues. I like to see action. And I'm not saying a statement's not bad. I agree with the statement that was made by both Councilor Bears and Morell. I agree with that. But I also like to see action. I want to see action happen in this community, Mr. President. You know, this is a long point of information, but I'll wait, Mr. President. But I did want to mention, because I'd say 90% of the emails I got were relative to defunding the police department. And I think at some point, no one wants to talk about it, but at some point that discussion needs to be had, Mr. President, because I've talked to members of the general public. I've talked to members of the police department. And I, you know, in my opinion, I think the general public and the police department share a lot of common concerns and a lot of issues that I hear people raise about maybe the police department has too much on their plate. Maybe the police department shouldn't be domestic violence specialists. Maybe they shouldn't be drug Councilors. Maybe they should be mental health Councilors, social workers. Um, and those are the issues I think, you know, that we can have common ground and say, you know what? Maybe we have to look at funding stuff outside of the police budget to assist with issues, Mr. President, that we're hearing. I think there's a lot of common ground. I really do. But I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of us against them. And, you know, I, you know, I ran for office to help Mr. President. And if people see otherwise, so be it. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But I think all of us have the same intent, Mr. President. We want to move this forward. And I think getting back and forth with semantics and so forth, I think it doesn't do the conversation just, Mr. President. So I just want to add that, Mr. President. I'm here for the long run. I'm here to assist and help out. But I'm also here to listen. God gave me two ears and one mouth for a reason. Do twice as much listening, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's going to be a separate resolution.
[Michael Marks]: I believe Councilor Scott Peli alluded to it, but I just want to confirm. This meeting is also going to be a meeting open to the general public, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Any comments? Any comments? Mr. President, if we could, we have Alicia with us. If she could just give a short presentation on it, Mr. President. Absolutely. Alicia.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, does this include repeaters and other issues that the fire department had concerns about communication citywide?
[Michael Marks]: So, do you know, Alicia, and you may not know, but do you know where we stand with the repeaters? Because that was a major issue. You know, we can have all the updates to radios, but without the repeaters that actually forwards the message, communications fail in the community, which is a public safety concern. So I want to make sure that that's addressed as well.
[Michael Marks]: If, if I'm going to support the paper tonight, but if you could just double check with the chief regarding the repeaters, a longstanding issue for a number of years. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the council?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I think Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's all right. I think it just came up again. I see it at the bottom. Here we go.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. I didn't get that. Can you repeat that, please? What part? The whole thing, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, Mr. President, if we can refer to KP before our second reading KP law.
[Michael Marks]: So we can make the change after that, then.
[Michael Marks]: No. Motion to adjourn, Mr. President. There is a meeting to adjourn. This one.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Alicia and Mr. Kerens for being on the call tonight. These are all, in my opinion, very worthy projects. Anyone that's been on the council for a number of years knows Bowen Ave in that area has been a real concern for flooding over many years. When there's heavy rains, you better take your canoe out to traverse some of those streets. That's how bad it gets. That's no exaggeration. And the homeowners have been putting up with this for a number of years. And I hope this study leads to improvements to drainage and other infrastructure improvements in that particular area. The water meters. My question, I was on the council when we voted for water meters back in 2005. So I remember the nightmare prior to 2005 when we had a system that we used to estimate probably half the city. And as you know, when you get an estimated bill, it's not a true rendering of what you use for water. And you can imagine people paying bills for consumption that they didn't use. So it was a nightmare. There were a lot of abatements going on at the time. And it was just a real bad time for the city. Brian, what is the life expectancy of the current meters that were put in 2005?
[Michael Marks]: Right. This may not, this may be a question for Ron in the water department, but I'm going to ask it anyways. What, what percent right now are we estimating, if any?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And the plan for this money is not to start going around and systematically replace everyone's meter, which they're now 15 years old. It's just to have them. So if a meter does start to malfunction, you're going to have the ability to replace the head or replace the entire meter.
[Michael Marks]: So, uh, Mr. President, if I could, uh, just, um, uh, amend this if I could, or, uh, have a request to the city administration that we get an update on, uh, the, uh, re-metering. We're 15 years into a life expectancy of roughly 10 to 11 years. And we definitely don't want to go back to the days where we were estimating half our city. It created a lot of problems. There were residents that were over and underpaying. There were residents that were getting catch up bills. If councilors remember of two, three, four, $5,000, a catch up bill that the city finally figured out that the resident wasn't paying enough over the last several years. And we definitely don't want to go back to that period of time. So I would ask that we look at the remediary of the city, Mr. President, which is a larger endeavor, but I think something we should be proactive about. And my last question to Mr. Cairns is, I think all these particular uses, hydrant and so forth, are great. I have to put in a plug for catch basins. I still see, Brian, I don't have to tell you this, I don't preach it to the choir, there are still hundreds of catch basins around the city that are sunken in and pose a danger to residents and also are not serving as the function that they're supposed to, to cut off rain, runoff water, because they're sunk in and they're not doing their purpose. They're not capturing this water and cutting it out to the Mystic River. So I need to put a plug in for some additional funding for catch basin maintenance, repair, and replacement, as well as this paper, Mr. President. So I would offer those two suggestions that the administration report back on a meter replacement plan, and also what the plan is for repairing or replacing our catch basins that currently exist are ones that are broken and caving in throughout the community.
[Michael Marks]: Excellent. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Excuse me?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is great news. Finally, I think we see some positive results from many thousands of complaints filed by Medford residents regarding airplane noise that started back in 2013. when Massport implemented a flight patent that unfairly and disproportionately pushed and exposed Method residents to noise from runway 33L. And that's been a bone of contention, not just with the city of Medford, but many surrounding communities. And it was over the last couple of years that I believe Medford took some great steps under the leadership of former Mayor Burke. There was efforts to join with surrounding communities, of which we joined with Arlington, Somerville, Belmont, Watertown, requesting the FAA study, the changes that were identified in the MIT study that was commissioned. And I know under the leadership now of current mayor, Lungo-Koehn, we are seeing results, Mr. President. The FAA recently said that they will look at the MIT study. And it'll take about two to three months. And they will make recommendations based on the study of the MIT, and they are committed to looking and making changes on behalf of the city of Medford. I personally want to thank Mr. President again, because I've been around, I remember the days that we didn't have a representative that sat on this advisory commission. So when they were making decisions back in 2013, and even prior to that, Method was not at the table to stand up and say, wait a minute, you're using Method as a dumping ground. And I'm proud to say, Mr. President, I raised the red flag and I got a copy of the minutes back some eight years ago, and I showed the general public how we had no one representing our city. And I have to say it was Mayor McGlynn at the time, chose to put two representatives on the board. It was Peter Houck and Luke Presner, and they've done yeoman's work. in representing our community. If you've ever been to one of their presentations, they are extremely knowledgeable. I have people from surrounding communities that would like to steal them and say, how can we get them to represent our community? That's how great they are. I would only ask, Mr. President, that we be kept up to date on this June meeting that's going to take place with Massport Community Advisory Committee members, as well as the FAA. and that they appear at a future council meeting to give us an update to what direction we are going to move in as a community and if any resources or other things are needed that they'd be able to present that to the council, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Vice President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up. He brings a lot of valid points up regarding much-needed affordable housing, which I think we all can agree upon, additional revenue from building permits and so forth, which I think we all agree upon. I think the one issue, Mr. President, we do have to look at is that the fact that this law has been around for five decades. And if you look at the statistics, 80% of the communities in Massachusetts fall below the 10% threshold. So even though this law has been out there for five decades, it's done very little to add affordable housing. And I agree with my colleagues, I agree with Councilor Knight said, I think a friendly 40B is something we should be looking at as a community. I also think there are housing production plans that, within the last two years, 150 cities and towns have taken advantage of, which is a way of creating a blueprint in a community that allows you to move forward on these larger projects that have affordability components. And those are less contentious. They're good ways of moving forward with developers and suiting the needs of a community, but also not rolling over either, Mr. President. Because, you know, if we talk about fairness, let's face it, these particular projects, a thousand units are within a square mile of each other. They're not spread around the community, Mr. President. I could just tell you, Mr. President, in my neighborhood alone, they've added hundreds, if not thousands of units in the last year and a half in one neighborhood, Mr. President. So I think when we have to take a look at this, and maybe when we start looking at zoning, this will be an issue we do take a look at, Mr. President. But we have to make sure that if we're going to create these projects, especially these larger projects, that they're created fairly and evenly distributed around the community, Mr. President. I think that's vital. And those are things that I think we have to look at. So I don't fault the administration for standing up on behalf of the community and saying, these are mitigating factors we're going to be looking for. These are things that we want to safeguard neighborhoods. These are issues that we're concerned about. I don't fault them for that. But I would like to see a collaborative effort when the developers do come in so we can work on this and not waste money with attorneys. Because the only one that gains are the attorneys making money. And so I'd like to see a collaborative effort. when this happens, and I'd like to see a little more thought, Mr. President, to make sure that these projects are equally dispersed. Why should one neighborhood experience thousands of more traffic trips and thousands of more cars on the street while other neighborhoods don't see anything at all, Mr. President? So, you know, if we're going to stand up and talk about fairness, we have to have the discussion, although it may be painful because people don't want to talk about it, Mr. President, but it's something that we need to discuss as a council. And I thank my colleagues for bringing this up. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Peers.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this up. It's my understanding that this would only apply during the COVID emergency. And once that's lifted, this would no longer apply. So I just want to make sure that's on record and my colleagues are aware of that. And secondly, Mr. President, what actually troubles me more than the exorbitant fees that they're charging, to be quite honest with you, is the fact that many of these small business owners have opted to offer discounts if you call them directly. And because Grubhub and DoorDash and Uber Eats has such a market power, that they're able to prevent the restaurants from offering their own incentive for people to call them directly. and at a discount. So they really have cornered the market, Mr. President, especially now with COVID and the need for delivery and so forth. And I think anything we can do to help the small business at least get through this timeframe, I think is warranted. So I will support this tonight, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: No, Mr. President, if I could. Oh, yes. Mr. President, you know, this has been a long process, you know, and I think we're all proud, I think I speak for everyone, of the end results of many, many months and years of hard work. And I want to personally thank where this all started, which was the Zoning Subcommittee, and it was led by Vice President Caraviello with members Scarpelli and Knight. They did yeoman's work putting together a document that was really complex and a lot of moving parts. And I think we came out with a document that fits this city. This is not a cookie cutter document. This is unique to the city of Medford and how it applies. And I think it works well within our community. It allows establishments to come in. It allows them to flourish. And it also addresses the will of the general public, voted a majority to allow marijuana shops within the city of Medford. So I want to thank your leadership, Mr. President. I know this got a little contentious with some of the issues. You kept us on path, and I think we came out with a document that really I feel very comfortable with. And I just want to thank my colleagues.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, before you call the roll, Before you call the roll, we have a very important meeting this Thursday. And maybe you want to reiterate that to the general public regarding the financial of our community. And we'll be meeting with our outside auditor. Maybe you want to let the general public know that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues. You know, it's almost like the Wizard of Oz that, you know, the department is severely understaffed and there are very few people behind the curtain. But let me tell you, they get the job done on a daily basis. And from the leader, Brian Cairns on down, they do a tremendous work on behalf of the residents of this community. We're very attentive in addressing issues and as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, you know, they're out there in the cold nights and the hot days doing what it takes to keep our city moving forward. And I just want to thank them all personally.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Vice President Caraviello for putting this on. 90 years young, May Makibrek, what an accomplishment. You know, I had the unique opportunity to serve on the Methodist Council, incorporated with May on the board. Talking about someone that's a plugger, a go-getter, never took no for an answer, and truly was unselfish when it came to never wanting the recognition, just wanting to get things done in the community. If it wasn't for May, you could safely say the Boys and Girls Club would not exist. If it wasn't for May, the Friends of Chevalier wouldn't be supporting the Chevalier Auditorium for the many, many years and all the improvements that were done to Chevalier. You know, May has been instrumental in this community and continues to be instrumental in this community. And I just want to personally congratulator and wish her another hundred years of community involvement in this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I rise once again with my fellow colleagues to bring up the concern of public safety, in particular at the corner of Main Street and South Street and along the entirety of South Street. Last we spoke, Mr. President, I think it was a couple of months ago, we brought up this issue regarding some of the traffic calming initiatives that were pushed forward during a public meeting that hundreds of residents in the area attended, and of which many of the initiatives that were sent to the Traffic Commission have yet to be done, Mr. President, which is a little alarming. Also, Mr. President, within the last couple of months, and I have talked to Chief Buckley just recently, and I'm in the process of getting the traffic accidents in that particular area from the chief, an update. There has been several major traffic accidents on that particular corner in the last couple of months. So this is an issue that's not going away. It's existed for, I'd have to say since I've been on the council, So 20 years, Mr. President, we've been asking for some relief. As we all know, that section of the corner of Main and South is a state road, and they have jurisdiction over that particular piece of road that we are discussing. So what I did, Mr. President, I went through some of the studies that were initiated by this community since 2005. And I found it pretty interesting that each study that I looked at all spoke about the need for traffic calming and traffic improvements, safety improvements in the Method Square area. So this has been since 2005, over four reports that I could get my hands on, and I'm sure there were more, Mr. President, all spoke about initiatives that should be done in our community to improve traffic flow, pedestrian, bicycles, and in my opinion, very little has been acted upon. So the most recent report we have was December 2018, which was the Method Square Priority Roadway Improvement Study. And that was done by the Boston Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization. And that was commissioned in December, 2018. Uh, they came out with, uh, I don't know if it was a 40, 50 page report, uh, that talked about, uh, the method square surrounding area and ways to make improvements of which, um, I'd like to go through Mr. President, their recommendations. for the Medford Square area, and I'd like to isolate not on all their recommendations, but the intersection of South Street and Main Street, Mr. President. So I will get into that. The second report that was commissioned by the city was December 2017. So it was a year before the Medford Square Priority Roadway Improvement Plan. And that was the Medford Square Master Plan. And that was done by the Metro Area Planning Council. And that had an associated cost of $90,000. That also got into the improvements and traffic calming improvements that were needed in the Medford Square area. I am not going to get into that, Mr. President, because I think much of that is covered in the Medford Square priority roadway improvement. The report prior to that was in the fall of 2006. It was the Medford Square and Mystic River Reconnection, Revitalization, and Redevelopment Study. And that was done by MIT. And that talked about parking. It talked about improvements to the downtown area. It talked about revitalizing business. That encompassed a lot more than just roadways. However, the roadway in question, Salt Street and Main, was mentioned, Mr. President, and ways to improve that. That was back in 2006. And the last report I could find was the original Medford Square Master Plan, which was done by Sasaki in June of 2005. And that had an associated cost of a little over $100,000. And I don't have the cost of the other studies. So the two that I have, Mr. President, were close to $200,000 in studies with very little in the way of improvements to our roadways, which To me, Mr. President, is alarming when we have to talk about it year after year and know that as time goes by, accidents increase, pedestrian safety is at an all time dangerous rate in that particular area. And that should concern all of us. So December 2018, the Metropolitan Planning Organization conducted this study. As I mentioned, the study is part of the MPO series of ongoing studies that addresses safety, mobility, and access of the Boston region's priority roadways. This report identifies specific issues and concerns in Medford Square study area, presents an in-depth analysis of multiple transportation-related factors, and recommends potential short, long-term solutions to problems, including improvement alternatives. So the study goes on to talk about 2.4 total miles of needed improvements on our roadways at many different sections. I'm just going to focus, Mr. President, on the Main Street, Route 38 from Salem Street to Mystic Ave. And that calls into question, as we all know, the South Street and Main Street connection. So Mr. President, in 2000, 2013, and 2015, mass DOT data shows that the crash clusters that are present throughout the entire study area, which I just alluded to this five different major study areas. They were ranked in the top 5% of crash locations in the Boston region MPO area. So we have five locations in Medford that are in the top 5% of crash clusters. That speaks volumes, Mr. President, and that was indicated within this December 2018 report. It goes on to say, Mr. President, that the Main Street corridor from Craddock Bridge to Mystic Ave, whose two most concerning intersections are Main Street at Route 16 ramps and Main Street at Mystic Ave, which is the area that we're focusing on, Mr. President. The issues of concern I know we're all, some of us, this is old hat. But I think we've got to keep on revisiting this, Mr. President. I had a talk today with Christine Barber, our state representative, who assured me that there's transportation bond bill money that is for the purpose of putting signalization throughout the square, which was a major recommendation. I think there was an estimated cost, which I brought up several months back at, I want to say, $4 to $5 million, which sounds like overkill in my opinion, but that's what they came out with. But according to Representative Barber, that there is money in the transportation bond bill. It just has to be freed up. So, issues of concern, there is considerable traffic on Main Street during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Anyone crossing those streets realize, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, it's a game of chicken or frog. Frogger trying to cross those streets and even just trying to get out onto Main Street is you're taking your life in your hands. The intersection at Main Street Route 16 ramps is currently un-signalized with stop controls at Route 16 westbound off-ramp and South Street joined by Route 16 eastbound off-ramp. During peak traffic periods, the stop control approaches are extremely congested. The intersection of Main Street and Mystic Ave currently operates with flashing yellow on Main Street southbound and Mystic Ave flashing red on Main Street northbound during peak periods. Vehicles on Main Street northbound endure extensive delays and frequently force themselves into the intersection, what causes potential conflicts with prevailing traffic and sometimes gridlock. the intersection. These two intersections have a crash rate much higher than the district floor average of un-signalized sections. So it's ranked in the top 5% and it has a much higher average of crashes than other un-signalized intersections. With no traffic signals, with pedestrian phases, and under heavy traffic, pedestrians usually have a difficult time crossing the two intersections. Pedestrian crosswalk markings on Main Street are faded. That was 2018. They have since painted the crosswalks. There are no sufficient shoulders or clearly marked shared road bicycle accommodations on Main Street and Mystic Ave. So the report went on, Mr. President, and the reason why I bring this up is we don't have to recreate the wheel when it comes to what needs to be done. We have four commission reports by organizations that came in, did a thorough investigation, had community input, public hearings, and made recommendations. And here we are 15 years later, and we're no closer to addressing our concerns. But yet, accidents continue to happen. Very serious accidents, Mr. President. So the proposed short-term improvements, and I'll go over them briefly, regularly maintain the crosswalks. You would think that would be a no-brainer, but in our community, it's something that has to be revisited every year. You know, I asked for thermal plastic crosswalks, which don't need repainting every year. They last five years, they're slip resistant, they're highly reflective, and we still don't incorporate that as a common practice in our community. which it's a little more expensive, but the state uses them and every other large agency and city uses thermoplastic in the use of their pavement markings. Install stripe yield lines in both directions at the crosswalk on Main Street near the police station. Consider removing on-street parking in front of the police station and providing at least five foot shoulders on both sides of Main Street. Install striped sharrows at appropriate locations of both streets south of the intersection of Main Street and Mystic Ave. Support development on South Method Connector, a multi-use path on South Bank of the Mystic River that would connect the Mystic Greenway currently understudied by the City of Method and the Mystic River Watershed Association. long-term improvements. Both the intersection of Main Street at Route 16 ramps and Main Street at Mystic Ave should be signalized and reconstructed. Main Street at Route 16, in summary, this study proposes alternative 1A and 1B for the interchange, long-term improvements. 1A, signalize the two ramp intersections under one controller with three phase traffic operations and concurrent pedestrian phases. Now, Mr. President, I need to add that this does not talk about signalization all the way from Salem Street, which we were originally told by the state would run us anywhere from $3 to $5 million. This is far more of a centralized approach to alleviate the concerns we have on the Main Street, South Street area to Mystic Ave. Alternative B, signalize the two ramp intersections under one controller with four-phase traffic operations and concurrent pedestrian phases. So, Mr. President, I won't get into all the other improvements, but I do have them and I am going to list them, Mr. President. I would ask that as part of this report, the funding that MassDOT says is clearly available for this project. And I would ask any of my colleagues to go on to the FY, the 2018 Medford Square Priority Roadway Improvement Study. And they could see that for themselves that the state is saying funding is available for this particular project. So I don't know why we're in a quandary now, how we're going to pay for this and why we haven't moved forward on this project for at least the last two years since we received this report, Mr. President. So I would ask that through our traffic engineer and through our engineer that we find out about the funding. that DOT admits is available to the city of Medford for the Route 16, Mystic Ave portion of improvements that were mentioned within the Priority Roadway Improvement Study of 2018. I would also ask, Mr. President, once again, I think we did this six months ago, and I don't recall a response. Maybe my colleagues can correct me. but the council recommended during a public meeting with hundreds of residents from the South Street area, some simple low-lying fruit of stop signs, widening sidewalks, raised crosswalks, maybe even a pedestrian crossing light on South Street in general. And there may have been one or two improvements, but largely, Mr. President, many of the recommendations that were forwarded to the traffic commission have not been acted upon yet. And if there's a reason why I, as one member of the council, would like to know, if it's a financial reason, then we should have that discussion with the mayor and try to find out. We're going to be discussing budget shortly, what needs to be done to move these along. Uh, we asked for a meeting with our state delegation, uh, regarding, um, improvements to the state roadway, which is at the corner of Maine and, uh, and South street. Uh, I know we met with DOT sometime back. They really took a hotline stance on, uh, you know, more or less saying that they didn't have the funding to do the full signalization from Salem street on down to Mystic Ave. and put that outrageous cost estimate on getting that done. So I would ask once again, Mr. President, maybe we need a roundtable summit. Maybe we need to bring in someone higher up than the representatives we're seeing from DOT. Maybe we need the commissioner present, Mr. President. Maybe we need the lieutenant governor present. This is, to me, an all-time risk right now we face for our residents, for people driving, for people on bicycles, for pedestrians. And we can no longer sit around, Mr. President. I think we've all issued our concerns. We can no longer sit around and say, you know what, we're waiting for the state to act. I've said it before, many of the state roads in our community, and I feel this strongly, if the state doesn't want to act, we should step forward and act and worry about the ramifications after. Because these are roads in our community. And if the state doesn't want to act upon these or feels that it's too expensive, putting a cost on public safety and lives in our community, then we need to step forward, Mr. President, as a community. And we need to shake the tree. We need to yell from the highest mountain, whatever it's going to take, Mr. President, to get this done. And we also are locating a public safety building across the street. What message does that send to residents that may want to go to the public safety building, that may want to walk there? It sends a lousy message, Mr. President, that you're not welcome unless you drive there. It sends an awful message in our community. So as soon as I get the results, Mr. President, from the number of accidents at that location that Chief Buckley said they're working on, I will also present that to the council. I would ask in the form of a motion that the traffic engineer and our city engineer look at the 2018 report and find out why we have not solicited the funding according to what MassDOT said we're eligible, and also that They look into the traffic calming initiatives that were pushed forward by a unanimous vote of this council back many months ago, and where we stand with that, Mr. President. And I would respectfully ask you, Mr. President, that we set up a roundtable. with our state delegation, with higher ups from DOT, whoever we can get at the meeting, Mr. President, this is vital on behalf of our community. And I thank my colleagues for indulging me with that presentation.
[Michael Marks]: The second one is to play. That was mentioned in the 2018 report as being available.
[Michael Marks]: So just a clarification on the second one. It was at the end. It was South Street and the intersection of South and Main. OK. We made a number of improvements requested on South Street itself. OK. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. I'm sorry, Councilor Marks, did you have your hand up? I may have missed it, but Roberta, did you mention the range of requests for the nine applicants?
[Michael Marks]: So we don't know, you said 45,000 between nine applicants. So what's the most that someone can receive? Do we know that?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Doug, can you point to anything in particular why the costs, uh, were so exorbitant compared to what was originally thought?
[Michael Marks]: So has this passed through the historic commission in the city?
[Michael Marks]: So they have approved it?
[Michael Marks]: If we could just get a notice on that, Mr. President, that this was approved. Is that typical of CPC funds? Is that a requirement before funds are doled out? Or how does it typically work?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but I'm talking about in particular before the CPC grants money. Did you make sure if there's any type of sign off or approval that that's done prior to allocating money?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Councilor Knight, Councilor Marks. Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Um, Ellen, if you could just reiterate, I think you mentioned it, but the $10,000, uh, amount is imposed by the state. Is that, is that what that was?
[Michael Marks]: Right, I agree. And you said there's roughly 1000 businesses that this would apply to?
[Michael Marks]: 600 would qualify. Do you have any indication of how many, uh, of, uh, small businesses would be in the range from, uh, $10,001 to $20,000?
[Michael Marks]: Right. You know, the amount of money, it's really negligible for the amount of money. Um, uh, you know, it's really, in my opinion, not a savings to the business owners. I mean, you're talking very minimal. Um, but, uh, my, my only concern is it's minimal on the other end too, but someone that may have property value that's assessed at $10,050 is going to see an increase. And I don't know how many of those are out there, but it's minimal anyways. So is this something that we anticipate gonna happen every year, or is this a one-time thing we're looking at?
[Michael Marks]: But what I'm saying is, will the city administration come back next year and say we'd like to enact this small business exemption. Is that that's a possibility correct.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, okay. So this is every year now go moving forward.
[Michael Marks]: And I okay. It's so minimal that I don't have a problem with it. But if you could get us the numbers, I'd be curious to see the other 400 businesses where they fall on personal property tax amounts.
[Michael Marks]: Not the total. the dollar amount broken down by percentage. So are you able to tell us what range, how many businesses fall in between 10 to 20,000 or 10 to 50,000? I'd be curious to see what that results are from that. Is that something you can get? Certainly, yes. Okay, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we have the Chief of Staff, if we can get a brief overview of what they're trying to put forth. Sure.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Chief of Staff Rodriguez. It's my understanding, Mr. President, this applies to large-scale projects. So I think anyone that's been on the Council for a number of years can recall the Locust Street project and how members of the Council, when we sat down with the developer, were urging, and I believe Council Vice President Caraviello did the same, we were urging them to add more retail space within the project itself. They were strictly looking to put residential. And we didn't wanna create these giant housing outlets that had no community feel to them. And so I think this is one way of attaching whatever's built. And I don't think this applies to small mom and pop, two or three family homes and so forth. This is large scale projects that they have some type of community feel to it. that, you know, for instance, when we looked at the revitalization of Medford Square, the projects that were sent to us had very little commercial retail space within them. It was all residential. So on the east side of Medford Square near City Hall, it kind of created just an area where there was housing and no reason to go, to be quite honest with you. And that was something that we were looking at as a council saying, you know what, we don't want these large scale projects taking place without that community feeling and without that community input. So I welcome this for anyone to think that because we started this process of recodifying that we shouldn't look at anything else for the next year should have their head examined. Because we should always be looking for low-lying fruit. We should always be looking to take advantage of ways that we may be able to push something forward, Mr. President, and not wait if it's something we can do easily, Mr. President. To me, this is something worth exploring. I think it merits, I will support sending it to the community development. As anyone knows that's familiar with this, this requires public hearings. So to say that there's no public hearings or public input won't take place is not correct, Mr. President. There will be ample time for public input, public hearings, business input, and that's the process that we follow. So I support this, Mr. President. you know, any way we can improve the process in our community. And I think this is one way of keeping our commercial base up. which we know once that dwindles, residential taxpayers are going to feel the burden. They're going to feel the heat on that, Mr. President. And it's up to us to make sure there's a good balance out there. And from what I'm seeing, between 40B projects and a number of other initiatives, that we seem to be losing a lot of our commercial base. And I, as one member of the council, I'm not going to allow that to happen, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It might be appropriate at this point that we have a project update also here, and I appreciate the work Vice President Capiello has done on this. He was one of the leaders in moving this library forward and was the person that came out originally and alarmed the city that there was a potential grant out there some years ago. And I think that's why we're in the situation we are now moving forward on a state-of-the-art library. But I would ask, Mr. President, if we can have a separate meeting, maybe a committee of the whole, where we can have a project update on where we stand with construction and the private foundation, and if we are going to meet our goals.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Second, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. In line with this, which I support this resolution wholeheartedly, if we can get an update from our emergency preparedness office regarding what steps have been taken over the last three months, if any. Councilor Marks, is that an amendment or is it a request? Either way, if the councilor doesn't mind, I'll add it to his request. If not, I'll do it as amendment.
[Michael Marks]: Can I have that language back, please? I didn't get it all down. That we receive an update from the emergency preparedness office. Okay. Regarding what steps, as Councilor Knight mentioned, to safeguard our public safety officials and first responders. Okay. You know, every year, Mr. President, if I could add, We fund the emergency preparedness office in the budget, and it's pitiful of the amount of money that we put in there. I want to say maybe $1,500 for a city this size, maybe $2,000, and I can't remember the exact number. But it's really next to nothing. And in a time of need that we see now, it really makes you think, how are we prepared to handle issues that we confront as a community? And so I think it's important maybe during the budget that we also revisit what's spent for emergency preparedness in our community as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I too want to thank Representative Donato and Nancy White. As a former ward chair of Ward 7, I appreciated all the work that they put in over the many years, Mr. President. When the times were tough in the Democratic Party, they kept the Democratic Party going. and for many years. So I want to thank them for their efforts over the years as the outgoing co-chairs, and I'd like to thank our own Councilor Morell and Henry Millerin as the incoming new Democratic Water and City Committee chairs. So I want to thank them for their interest, and hopefully we can get the party back on its feet again, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Also, if we can add in that the crosswalks be reviewed at Tufts Square, which was just mentioned by Mr. Navarre.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, Mr. President, just if we could, you know, now from what I recall, and I think other Councils offered this, a crosswalk at the intersection of Salem and Everett street. We've been asking for that for probably close to two years now. Another dangerous area on Salem Street, and a crosswalk is warranted in that area as well. So if I can further amend it, that a crosswalk once again be placed at the intersection of Salem and Everett Street.
[Michael Marks]: That's an amendment to the amendment to the amendment.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I have two condolences and a congratulatory statement I'd like to make. If we can take paper 20-316. which is the loan order on the city sidewalks. It's up for a third reading today, Mr. President. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If we can take paper 20-316 up for a third reading tonight. It's the loan order on the city sidewalks. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I do, Mr. President. Irene, a longtime Method resident, Irene Fleming, is turning 80 years young, Mr. President, and is a very active and vibrant member of our community. And I want to wish her a happy 80th birthday and many, many more to come, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Second.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I have, unfortunately, two condolences, Mr. President. We lost two great Method residents recently, Marie DeBenedetto. She is the mother-in-law of former school committee member, Erin DeBenedetto, and her husband, Joe, who we all know, she passed away recently. A loving wife, mother, grandmother, love to cook, very involved with the family, and she will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We also lost Amelia Prestigiovanni, Mr. President. If anyone is familiar with the Prestigiovannis, John and Amelia were a staple in this community for many years, involved in many civic activities, very active in the community. Amelia was very active in the food pantry at St. Francis Church, and also served 30 years in the food service, Mr. President, for the Medford Public Schools. So she had a love of family as well, a loving wife, mother, Grandmother, um, and she will be sorely missed anytime you saw them together in the city It was always amelia and john, mr. President no matter where you saw them. They were a loving couple for many decades And uh, she will be sorely missed. Mr. President. I'd like to also if I could dedicate this meeting After amelia and marie de benedetto, mr. President and their names Thank you very much councillor marx
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I move suspension of the rules to take paper 20-355, which is on the agenda tonight. We have the city engineer here to present regarding safe routes to school project.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And first, I'd like to applaud the Brooks School for, I believe it's been six years for this grant. And many of the improvements, 99% of them of which I agree with, will do tremendous in traffic calming and making a high street or a portion of high street safer to travel. So I do support a big portion of this, Mr. President. Tim, I had a question for you. We talked about easements. Also, there are several properties that are privately owned that have private property on city property. And I was told by yourself that the state was going to put out an agreement that they weren't going to go after property owners that may have encroached on city property. Could you just give us a little update on that?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so just so I understand then regarding this current project of St. Ruth's to school, there will be no property, city resident property that will be taken.
[Michael Marks]: Um, and Mr. President, if I could, I know there, uh, were a number of concerns by, uh, residents, area residents on high street and some of the, uh, budding streets. Um, the traffic commission, uh, had a meeting, uh, several months back regarding, uh, the taking of parking spots along high street. Uh, so this project can move forward. I know many residents voiced their concern, um, naturally. Parking is at a premium, and let's face it, no one wants to lose a parking spot. And we as a council voted unanimously, I believe it was several months back, to ask if DOT and the city could get together and see if they can explore some other options where we may be able to save some parking along High Street. And apparently that didn't bear any fruit, those discussions. However, Mr. President, at the traffic commission meeting, there were several residents that brought up to the traffic commission whether or not they could take a bike lane. And during non-peak time, for instance, 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. at night, have it revert to parking, area parking from 7 p.m., 8 p.m. at night to 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. in the morning. And the traffic commission said they were going to look into it. I had a discussion today with Chief Buckley, and he reiterated his concerns that, first of all, that DOT made it clear that this project had to have a bike lane. And none of us want to jeopardize a million dollars. However, I did ask him if the traffic commission was going to explore possibly turning this bike lane for non-peak hours into parking spots. And he said they are going to explore that. So I did get a reassurance from Chief Buckley today that that was under advisement. The second piece I just want to touch upon, as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, I received a number of emails from people today in support of the project. And like I said, 99% of this project I do support. The one concern I have, Mr. President, which I found a little terrifying in several of the emails I received, is residents saying that they now can have their elementary school child use High Street to bike to school. That really concerns me, Mr. President. I'm not one to put a rubber stamp on anything. And the fact that we may be able to get money for this project is great. And the fact that this project has a big public safety component in it is great. And the traffic calming component is great. The one concern I do have, Mr. President, and I know the city engineer said we have more plans to extend our bike lanes. The reason why we were told at the beginning the bike lane was going to be on that side of High Street was that it's the safest side because when you have bicyclists traveling, for what we were told, you want them, because they're going at a slower speed, to travel uphill rather than downhill. And that made it for a safer area and that's why they decided to make the bike lane go up High Street rather than down High Street. That was my understanding. My concern is, Mr. President, if residents feel comfortable now having their child bike to school, especially elementary kids on a very, very busy road on High Street, we have a four-block bike lane that goes up High Street, which is the slow part when you're riding a bike, and all of a sudden it stops at the top by Hastings Lane. And it goes into the downward slope down High Street and a very winding, dangerous part of High Street, extremely dangerous. And I think we'd all be negligent if we didn't step up and say, you know what? If we're going to do the bike lane, for the very least, we should extend this, whether it's part of this project or part of the city project, whatever it might be. I, in good conscience, have a tough time saying, OK, we'll accept the money, we'll put the bike lane for four blocks, and no one will be the wiser. Because I foresee a problem, Mr. President, especially if residents think now we're creating a safe zone for children to ride their bikes. That is not a safe zone. And the way it breaks off, Mr. President, if anyone's familiar, at the top of Hastings, then it winds down. That is a very dangerous area to all of a sudden have a bike lane stop, especially for young kids. So I'd like, Mr. President, to offer a motion tonight that we as a city, if we're going to move forward with this project,
[Michael Marks]: And I'll leave it up to the city engineer. I'll leave it up to the traffic engineer to decide when to get to Winthrop Circle and so forth and let them decide the logistics of it. But I can't have in my conscience to leave a bike path just because it's getting funded for four blocks. We should turn a blind eye as a city and say, well, that's fine with us. That's great. We're not going to turn down the money. We should step up, Mr. President, to the plate. And if you're talking about spots, there's no loss of parking spots on that point of High Street that winds down. That would be an ideal place to continue the bike lane. And then when we tell parents, we're creating safe routes to school, we're really creating a safe route. Because four blocks that leads to an area that's a dangerous area is not a safe route, Mr. President. And so I'm going to offer that tonight as a motion that, you know, I'm going to support this project, but it has to be, Mr. President, that we have our city engineer and we'll ask the mayor, because the mayor presented this paper to us, to give us a commitment that that bike lane will be extended, Mr. President, not in the future, but now as part of this project. And if the city has to pick up the cost, then so be it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, the reason why I say that, I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm not a parking engineer. But clearly, Mr. President, that is not the right thing to do. And I don't have to be an engineer to make that decision. Leaving it the way it is is not the right thing to do. So that's what we have to do as a community, Mr. President. And if we're going to make it safe, I realize we can't make every road right now. But if we're going to do this project, and call it Safe Routes to School, and I have parents that have sent him emails saying, you know, I live near Medford Square, and thank goodness my son can take his bike now to school. I'm concerned with that, because guess what? I'm putting my stamp of approval on that. And I don't feel safe, Mr. President. And no one's going to tell me otherwise. No one's going to tell me otherwise. Point of information on that big paper?
[Michael Marks]: Is that question for me? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'd like to leave it open ended because, you know, we may be also talking about the other end of high street as well. So, you know, as I stated, I'm not a traffic engineer, but really it doesn't make sense for us to put a stamp of approval on something that I don't, I don't believe is safe in particular for elementary school kids to be riding. So I'm going to leave that open ended. It's not contingent upon approval, but, um, you know, I hope Tim takes this back to the city administration. and let them know that something needs to be done immediately there. Even though there may be long-term plans, something needs to be done immediately with this project.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Mr. President, we may have some, residents that like to speak. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of information. Point of information, Councilor Marks. Can this information be put on the government channel as well as community access, or is it already there?
[Michael Marks]: We have some amendments, move for approval.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I can appreciate the intent of this. However, it's not as clear as what was stated about a longstanding history, because I'd say over the past 20 years, at least 15 or 16 of those years, use variances were not issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals. And it was just really recent, of recent time, that the Zoning Board of Appeals started to flex their muscle and issue use variances. It was also stated that this has never been appealed, or no body or entity has ever appealed this. In 2016, Mr. President, the Method City Council sued our own Zoning Board of Appeals. And one part of the suit was that the voting board gave out too many variances, and also that use variances are not authorized in the city of Medford. That came from a unanimous vote of the Medford City Council. after we hired a zoning attorney to represent us. So as early as 2016, June of 2016, we were on record as a council saying, it's illegal what the zoning board did by giving the use variance. So it's not as clear as was stated. My hope, Mr. President, is that when we start to go through and codify like we just spoke about in the committee of the whole, that we'll address these issues one at a time. Not to rush to judgment now to address this, you know What's being asked is to give the authority to an appointed board to do really what should be set forth in zoning regulations and rules by the Medford City Council and to give the authority to an appointed board to go and potentially two houses down from you, take it from a residential zone to a commercial zone or industrial zone, give them that authority. I don't want to do that, Mr. President. I personally don't want to do that. I think the council should sit down and put together a thoughtful zoning plan, Mr. President. And we should be the ones that dictate, not pass that responsibility off to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So this has indeed been challenged by the Medford City Council. It's not as clear cut as was stated. uh that uh you know the city solicitor came out with an opinion uh which is great uh mr president i've also been told that it was a ballot question back some 18 years ago and that was uh part of the footnote that is currently part of our ordinance that puts a footnote out there and um There's a lot to this, Mr. President. And I personally think we should go through the codification. We should take a look at this and do a thoughtful process, Mr. President, rather than just a knee-jerk reaction at this point. We waited this long, Mr. President. The ambiguity has been around for many, many years, no matter who you talk to, because there's two sections that reflect different language within our zoning. And that's where the problem lies. And does it need to be addressed? Absolutely. Is this the way of addressing it? I don't agree with this, Mr. President. And I personally think the council took a stance back in 2016 for a reason. And one of the reasons was to protect neighborhoods, Mr. President. And we, at that time, felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals didn't have the authority to act and do a use change. And I still feel that way, Mr. President. And eventually, that'll be my vote when it comes time that I will not be supporting giving out that authority to an appointed board where the Medford City Council should be doing that, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, also when the council is bringing this suit against the Zoning Board of Appeals, We were also advised by the city solicitor that he felt that we had standing as a city council. So I mean, you know, if anyone could show me and I've talked to people that have been on the council when this change supposedly took place. And I can't get anyone to verify that this was ever changed. So if anyone could show that to me, and in my research, my personal research, I can't find it anywhere written. I can't find the minutes. I can't find anything that states when this was changed, Mr. President. So it's nice to just put things out there, and the fact that papers were offered before the council is meaningless. Because that doesn't mean anything. People offer papers before the council all the time. I disagree, Mr. President. It actually doesn't mean something. Because it goes to the motivation. Councilman Marks has the floor. Yeah, people offer things, Mr. President. I have the floor.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, people offer things for different motivations. And I don't know when those papers were offered, for what motivation, and so forth. All I can tell you, Mr. President, is that I can't find it anywhere that shows that this was voted on by the Medford City Council. And there's ambiguity in the current zoning. And that's why we challenged it as a city council. And don't forget, when we came back with no standing, we appealed February 1, 2018. The city council unanimously, all seven councilors, voted to appeal the land court decision. And that was after Mark Rumley's decision that was done in July of 2016, stating that there are allowed uses. We still went forward, Mr. President, after the land court. And then for other reasons, it was dropped and so forth. But we still went forward with what was offered, stating that we didn't believe that a use variance could be issued. And that's the exact language by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So we went forward. So who do we believe? Do we believe the two papers that came before us that no one voted on? Do we believe the council that went forward in 2016 and 18 for a lawsuit and land court? I mean, who, I don't know, who do we believe? Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight?
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. I'd question, what is our position on use variances? pursuant to the vote 18376. Mr. President, we have two new councillors. We have two new councillors, Mr. President. I myself am not in support of that. So I don't know what the gentleman's talking about. Maybe he's referring to councillors from 20 years ago where they stood. But let me tell you, that's not where I currently stand.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, correct? If that truly was the case, mr President, why are we as a meffitt city council sending them anything? They're an autonomous body. Mr. President. They don't answer to the meffitt city council So why do we if this is so clear as my council colleague is stating? Why do we have to mention anything to them?
[Michael Marks]: So are they a violation?
[Michael Marks]: Is that what you're saying?
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. What information, Councilor Marks? It's as clear as mud, Mr. President. And for my council colleague just to state that he believed the Zoning Board of Appeals made an error in judgment when they voted on something shows you how unclear this is, Mr. President, because they're all very capable people on that Zoning Board of Appeals. So it's not as clear as stated. This is not something, you know, against a colleague or this or that.
[Michael Marks]: OK, I just want to make sure, Mr. President, that when the Zoning Board of Appeals gets together and discusses an issue, a use variance is probably one of the highest standards of variances. Think about it. You're changing the use of a particular site. You're not doing a setback, or you're not doing something about a height limitation, or whatever, topography. You're talking about changing the use of a property. That is probably the most sacred part of zoning. And to say that our Zoning Board of Appeals doesn't understand that, whether you can give or use variance or not, maybe they shouldn't be on the Zoning Board of Appeals if they don't understand that aspect of the zoning. That's a good point. That's a very good point. But the point is it's not clear. That's the point. So I would caution my colleagues You know, we're in the process of changing things now and finally looking after a couple of decades. Let's do this right. Let's do this right. You know, and some of us may have difference of opinion like I do. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Martz.
[Michael Marks]: It's up to the Zoning Board of Appeals, not us.
[Michael Marks]: There's two conflicting sections in the zoning I think that's what council beers is alluding to right?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think any time you can plan ahead of time is prudent. So I support planning ahead of time. Don't think for a second that the city administration doesn't have a plan A, a plan B, and a plan C that they're currently working on. And as I stated last week when we talked to the independent auditor, I remember years over the last several years of recent that we'd get a budget two or three days before it's due. Now we're a month and a half, and it's like the sky's falling in. I realize that we're facing some tough times, but I think we have to let the process play out. The independent auditor also said over the next two to three weeks that we should get some meaningful answers on revenue projections. And I, as one person, Mr. President, especially now when people are in fear, people are in fear right now, I don't want to put together a worst-case budget just for the sake of putting together a worst-case budget and alarming people because you know what's going to happen, Mr. President. You're going to have to make tough decisions, as Councilor Knight mentioned. And with those decisions, you're going to have to mention layoffs, potential layoffs and so forth. And if we can avoid that, Mr. President, without alarming people, and get to the numbers we need to get to, why do we have to put together a budget now and alarm people that may potentially lose their jobs? if that's not the case, Mr. President. And regarding a bailout, I mean, you know, it is what it is. I'd ask anyone if they're going to return their stimulus check. That's a bailout. You know, people are going to return your stimulus check again. You know, if the city needs the funds, Mr. President, because revenue projections are down, local aid is going to be down. then so be it, Mr. President. And if that's what we have to wait for, then I'm willing to wait, Mr. President. And, you know, we've waited in the past. I think we should wait now. I think we should stay fast. I think we should see what the administration's working on. You know, in the past, as I mentioned, when you would talk about a 1-12 budget, It was always the city administration, Mr. President, that was against the 112th budget, because they didn't want the council to have the purse strings every month, and they didn't want to be accountable to the council. So every mayor for the past 20 years in this city, when a 112th budget was brought up, they've always rejected it immediately, saying they're not interested. Now it seems to be the wave. Now everyone's looking at a 112 budget. And maybe that's the direction we need to go in. I don't know, Mr. President, but I think we should wait this out a few more weeks to see what a city auditor says, see where the projections come in, see where the revenue. Don't forget we extended the taxes to June 1st. A lot of this is dependent on what tax revenue we experience. And so far, we were told by the auditor that we're higher than expected, the amount of money we received so far. I think we anticipate about $29 or $30 million. I want to say they received $12 or $13 million. The number escapes me, but to date so far. So I think we're looking good with the revenue that we anticipated. Local receipts are down. We have to take our time on this, Mr. President. And I think trying to force the hand we've never gotten it since I've been on the council We've never gotten involved with the city administration when they established their budget never Now we're hearing about I want to see the department head's wish list We've never had access. That's always been between the mayor and the department heads. And when the department heads appear before the Medford City Council, we can ask, why is your budget like this? Do you have a wishlist? We can ask that. But that's always been between the administration and their department heads, not the responsibility of the council. So I can appreciate the fact that we want to try to get ahead of this, but that's not overstep our boundaries. The administration is responsible for the establishment of the budget. And that's their responsibility, Mr. President. So let's let this process play out. However we can assist, I think we're all willing to do that. Let's not overstep our boundary. And let's have a better idea and understanding what revenues we're going to receive before we start alarming police, fire, teachers of layoffs. Because when you create a budget that's $8 million short, you're going to be looking at bodies, Mr. President. I can guarantee you. I've been around for a while. You're going to be looking at bodies. And if we don't need to get into those conversations, why do it? Why alarm people? People have enough on their mind right now with this COVID-19. Why tell them that potentially they could lose their job when it's not even necessary, Mr. President? Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Can we move to second that Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just if I can add because last week when we were talking about creative ideas, I did mention about the water and sewer enterprise account. And we have a history in this community of borrowing from that. And that's at no expense to the ratepayer or taxpayer in this community because It's an over assessment of the water and sewer rates. However, you got to be careful that you don't deplete that because it's for infrastructure improvements, but there's several millions of dollars in that account. that potentially could be used. Also, Mr. President, back some years ago, just in line with Councilor Bears' mentioning, the council entertained looking at a tax amnesty program, where people in this community owed taxes for many years and weren't paying that they weren't subjected to the interest rates. And it was a way of bringing in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, opening up a period of time with his amnesty for people that are taxed delinquent to come and pay their back taxes. And that just may be an option that's explored too. So there are many options out there that can be looked at, Mr. President, in order to potentially have a savings for this community. The last thing I'd like to say, Mr. President, It's great to say, well, let's put together the budget the way it stands now. If it's $8 million in deficit, let's put it together. That's going to be, Mr. President, very alarming to people. And I know my council colleagues don't want to hear that, but it's going to be very alarming to have a public document out there, Mr. President, that's going to show that magnitude of cuts across the board. And I personally don't want to experience that right now. I don't think there's a need. Because I think over the next several weeks, the mayor mentioned to us when we pressured the mayor, and I think we all did, to get a preliminary budget that she was looking at, I believe, Mr. President, you were on board too, the first week in June, I think we got a commitment that she was going to give us a budget. And in my opinion, that gives us ample time to work with it and see if it's realistic or not. And also, in my opinion, it's probably the earliest that we've gotten a budget in the past 20 years, even with all this facing us. So I still think we have enough time, Mr. President, and by then we'll have some of the numbers that the auditor talked about in to give us better projections to see where we stand. And that number, 8 million, may go up, it may go down. We don't know, but time will tell, Mr. President. So I support all these initiatives. Everyone wants additional information. I just think that we should give the administration the ample opportunity to work with the department heads. As Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, he's working with the City of Somerville. He's the department head within the City of Somerville, and he's working with the mayor there to go over his budget. And that's what I'm saying should be done in our community. The mayor should be working with the department heads, and if she's able to share information with the council, that's fine. But eventually we're going to get a budget like we've done for the last 20 years. And we were never privy to any of that information, Mr. President, ever. And I don't remember any councilor ever requesting this information either, Mr. President, over the last years that they want to see the wish list from the department heads prior to us getting the budget. I've never mentioned that or never seen that mentioned as a council resolution. But hey, maybe this is the time to do so. But I think we have to let this process play out a little bit. and see where we stand, Mr. President. Point of clarification, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: No worries. Okay. Mr. President, just if I could, there were a lot of requests asked for last week. And one of the original requests was for the department head wishlist budget. And chief of staff Dave Rodriguez said he didn't feel comfortable sharing that at that point. because it was in the early stages and may didn't have a time to look at it. So indeed, I don't know who asked for it, but someone did ask for a department head wish list budget. And he didn't think it was fruitful or would have been valuable. And one of the Councilors said, I'll consider what's valuable to share a department head wish list budget. And that was what was requested, Mr. President. So- I was the Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: Council of Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I met with residents of the 9th Street Condo Association several months back. We met with the city engineer and the traffic engineer. We came up with a number of recommendations for 9th Street and Brainerd Ave, and some of which has yet to take place. One is the marking to divide 9th Street. If you're familiar with the street next to Cappy's, when you take a right or left onto 9th Street, there's no dividing line. So it's very difficult when cars are coming off of 9th Street or going onto 9th Street to see the delineation in the road. So we ask that a yellow marker, paving marker be put down and also that the potholes in 9th Street be repaired or repaved in the interest of public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Council Vice President Caraviello for putting this on. I've received so many calls from Salt Method residents regarding tough square, the inability for any large trucks or buses to take turns. around that intersection over there, the getting caught midway between. So I would ask if Council Vice President's are right to amend that we receive a report back from the city engineer and the traffic engineer on the status of that project as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I think I know where you were going. Yeah, I do. Don't tell them about the gap. I heard everything, Mr. President. Where was I?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. This may sound familiar to some of my colleagues. Several months back, I offered a very similar resolution. The reason why I bring it up again this evening is the fact that last week when we were discussing the budget, it was mentioned that we could look and potentially save some money with the waste management contract. which we all, I should say we all, which I thought was coming up at the end of this year for renewal. And come to find out when the mayor mentioned it doesn't renew until 2023, Dave Rodriguez, the chief of staff, sent us a copy of the amended contract. I was on the council at the time, Mr. President, and I looked through my records. I can't find anywhere that the city administration entered into a new renewal with waste management. Now, I know it happened, so I'm not trying to say it didn't happen. But at the time, back in 2010, the city administration, and I just want to give a little history on this. The city administration, Mr. President signed a nine year eight or nine month contract. So it's 9.75 year contract with waste management. Now, in order to enter that contract by state law, anything over three years has to be approved by the council, any contract with a length over three years. So then Mayor McGlynn approached the council and asked that we approve a 10-year contract, which we did, Mr. President, at the time, because there was some savings in the contract. Unbeknownst to me, some three and a half years later, into a 10-year contract, the mayor went back and extended the contract another three years, which he was able to do so under state statute. So it went from a 10-year contract, almost a 10-year contract, to a 13-year contract, Mr. President. And I found it ironic that at the time when the mayor renegotiated, waste management gave us an incentive of $400,000 to renegotiate the contract. And the only other change, Mr. President, was an increase in the recyclable rates. So there's a fee that they're processing fee that went up from $50 per ton to $85 per ton. which would lead someone to believe, why would you be negotiating after you have a 10-year contract for a higher rate for recycling? It doesn't make any sense. Unless, of course, you're looking for a quick fix of some incentive money, which the city received. Putting that all aside, Mr. President, because I'm going to bring that up another time. I offered a resolution on behalf of Maple Park condominiums because currently right now they only have recycling. So when the contract was made, apparently the city went around back some years ago to all the condominium associations and said, how would you like to participate? Would you like bulk pickup? Would you like recycling? Would you like trash pickup? And at the time, the different condo associations chose what they wanted. Some opted, like Maple Condominiums, Park Condominiums, opted just for recycling only. Now, several years later, they said, you know what? We'd like to get into the bulk pickup. We'd be interested in that. And other condos have approached the administration previous administrations and they were allowed into different aspects of the program And they are asking now to be part of bulk pickup. So i'm requesting originally the council if you remember we voted to wait for the city budget to add them or uh, we voted to wait till the contract ended, which we all thought was too, at least I thought was 2020. So knowing that, um, we're not gonna, if this doesn't end until 2023, um, that I'm asking now that we don't wait for anything and that the city administration. add Maple Park condominiums, I believe it's 35 or 40 condos in there, add them to the bulk pickup, Mr. President. That's all they're requesting. There's a public list out there that shows you the different condos and what they receive as city services and waste management. And it's my understanding the city just has to make a call to waste management and ask that this be done for Maple Park condominiums. So I'd like to do that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that the bulk pickup be added immediately to Maple Park condominiums.
[Michael Marks]: I don't remember seeing that, but if that's the case, that's great. I don't think it's the case because the residents are still calling me. They were actually asking me about the budget, if we're gonna put it in the budget, and that's why it precipitated this new resolution. So that may be the case, but I don't know.
[Michael Marks]: By request. My understanding, it's by request.
[Michael Marks]: That's my understanding. I'm talking to DPW.
[Michael Marks]: I was told by the condo association that at the time they were instructed by certain type of bins that were compatible with waste management. And it would have been a great expense to them. So they figured out rather than buy these new bins They already had bins that they would just bypass the service Now there it's I guess fruitful for them to participate and that's why they want to participate But I think at the time they had to get a certain bin and they weren't willing to do that to fit the you know compatible with waste management, but These are all great questions, and I don't think we do have a formal approach once the contract is signed. If condos would like to get back in, and they all pay taxes as was mentioned, they should have the ability to opt back in if they'd like. So maybe that's something that could be explored by our DPW subcommittee.
[Michael Marks]: In length of service, not age, by the way. Mike Endicott, anyone that knows Lieutenant Mike Endicott, he is a tremendous firefighter, led by example, well liked among his peers, was the first to volunteer for anything going on in the community. And, you know, from what I hear from other firefighters, he would be someone that you'd want to go to a fire with. That was the type of firefighter Mike was. He's a terrific husband, a great father. a family man, and I wish him well, Mr. President, on his retirement and want to thank him on behalf of the residents of this community for the exemplary service for 32 years for the life and property of Method residents. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Locks.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank council beers for bringing this up, uh, this evening. I also want to concur with council tonight that it's very important that the council receive a timeline of events, uh, through over the past eight weeks on, uh, what has occurred within the courtyard in particular. I also heard some troubling comments by a representative. from courtyard, Mr. President, as early as today regarding what took place at the courtyard. And it was stated, well, these particular clients are all over the age of 80. And I think that's a pretty troubling comment to make, Mr. President. I realize the nature of nursing homes and long-term care facilities, but that comment, I think, Mr. President, speaks volume on how maybe the situation was handled. Um, so I appreciate what Councilor Knight offered, and I want to concur with the timeline.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I had the opportunity to tune in last, I believe it was Thursday, the school committee had a meeting regarding concerns of budget. And they had the city's auditor present, Mr. President. And I thought it was quite enlightening to hear some of the concerns on the school side. But it was equally as stressful to hear that we're looking at potentially a 20% cut in local aid, which amounts to about a little over $5 million. We are also looking at cuts in permits. when I say cuts and permits, a reduction in permits close to $2 million. Vehicle excise is down 7%. Hotel and mails tax is down about a million dollar reduction. Fixed costs are up, health insurance and unfunded liabilities. And the list goes on, Mr. President. Ultimately, I think what was stated, we're looking at a little over $8.2 million shortfall in the budget. And depending on what happens this June 1st, they extended the deadline for taxes. If we don't receive the full $29 million in taxes, uh, which, uh, many people, uh, this community might be had press to send their taxes on time, uh, even with the extension, uh, that'll only add to our budget deficit gap. Uh, so the 8 million could quickly grow, uh, to 10, 12, 14 million, Mr. President. And I think as many Councilors are aware, our budget is probably about 85% salaries. So when you look at tightening your belt, unfortunately, the belt tightening mostly is around personnel. And that's where you can get into issues of furloughs and other options, days off and so forth, which I hope we never have to explore, Mr. President. The one thing that was stated, and it was just stated briefly, we hear so much about the federal government bailing everyone out, right? Um, and, uh, we have yet to receive, uh, any, uh, idea from the federal government, uh, about federal assistance, um, for a bailout of cities and towns that are really getting impacted by this COVID-19. And, uh, in my opinion, we as a council should be soliciting or lobbying, uh, right now. to make sure that whatever we experience in a budget gap is made up by the federal government. And I think right now, I would ask that we send a letter from the council to our federal delegation asking that the city of Medford, and I'm sure Dave is probably already in the process of doing this, but asking our federal delegation to assist us with a bailout, knowing that the state local aid is going to be cut, local receipts are down, taxes are probably going to be down, and fixed costs are up. And our options right now, we do have about 10 million in free cash. But as the mayor mentioned, we don't want to go through all our free cash because that leads us in a vulnerable position. So even though we do have an ample amount of free cash, I think we have to look for just as that kind of a rainy day fund. Um, so, um, there was some discussion during the school committee meeting and with the city auditor, uh, about what should we do with this year's budget that's coming up. And I think one of the recommendations was a level funded budget makes most sense and most appropriate at this time, uh, knowing that there's probably going to be a shortfall and any additions to the budget, uh, is going to mean deletion somewhere. Um, you know, not to say there's some good ideas floating out there that could be revenue generators, uh, or, uh, cost savings. Um, and I think those should be explored, but I think a level funded budget right now, in my opinion, uh, makes sense, Mr. President with COVID and knowing that, uh, receipts are limited right now in the city and maybe that way for some time. It's hard to put a finger on it right now. So I just wanted to bring it up. Mr. President. I know we're meeting Thanks to your leadership. I think it's what Thursday Thursday night at 530 and we're gonna get another briefing on it. Mr. President and hopefully we'll start I know we were promised we were gonna start looking at the budget in April and I realized there's a million things going on believe me and So I'm not trying to be critical at all. But the school committee has started their process. And I just want to say that I think we need to start meeting with the department heads and so forth very shortly. Because as Council Vice President Caraviello mentioned, this is going to be a trying budget for all of us. And I think the earlier we start, the earlier we get a grasp on what direction we want to go in, the better off we'll be as a council and as a community. So I just want to put that out there, Mr. President, and I look forward to hearing what my other colleagues have to say.
[Michael Marks]: I would, Mr. President, and we can add our state delegation in as well. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Larkins. I thought it was mentioned that he was hired by the city about two years ago, because Melanson was our outside auditor for 30 years.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just want to say in these trying times, I think it's even more more important that we as a council work collaboratively with the mayor and the school committee and You know, we're one city as you always say, mr. President one method. You're correct. We're one method and you know when I people make comments regarding putting people on the hot seat. And that does a disservice, Mr. President, to this entire community. And it's not what we need right now. We need to support and build up each other and not make comments about putting people on the hot seat and making people take tough votes. Because, you know, this is going to be extremely difficult for everyone, Mr. President. The last thing we need is people acting in a contentious way. And I just want to put that out there, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on. You know, Mr. President, when the school committee votes for their budget, It's a majority vote, and that's the will of the school committee, which is then presented to the council. I can't recall, I've been on a number of years, I can't recall ever the council cutting the school budget once it's submitted to us, ever. Also, Mr. President, I can recall many times where this council has stood up and voted for new technology, school building assistance. You name it, Mr. President, we've stepped up to the plate on numerous occasions. So if there are concerns with the school budget that relies on the school committee, not the city council. We're presented with their budget, Mr. President. We can't add to it, Mr. President. We can't do anything other than approving the total city budget. And that's where we stand with this, Mr. President. So for someone to stand forward and say, well, it's the council, that's being very disingenuous, Mr. President, because it's not the council. It's the school committee that creates the budget and then passes it on to the council. So if the school committee wishes to do other things, increase their budget, that's their prerogative. That's their prerogative, and they should do so as elected officials in this community, as an autonomous body. They're not tied to the council. And that's where it is, Mr. President. So I hope we can put this behind us and work forward, Mr. President, so we can address, as Councilor Knight and Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, so we can address all the needs of the community. The council's here not just to address the municipal side. We're here to address all the needs as well as the school needs as well, Mr. President. So I'm willing to work with anyone. across the aisle, but we have to do this together, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd be remiss not to thank John Anderson. He's done yeoman's work, Mr. President, from archiving to making sure that that building has not given way over there. And there's many valuable archived items in that building, which saves our history. And I just want to ask John if air conditioning is in the future for that building.
[Michael Marks]: Great news. How are you going to fund it, John?
[Michael Marks]: That's great.
[Michael Marks]: and you know that those are old people. Thank you, John, you do tremendous work and your group does tremendous work. Thank you. The residents are appreciative, believe me. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I reviewed the records, found them to be in order and move approval. Second.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Chief of Staff Dave Rodriguez for his timely response. The question I do have, and maybe I didn't pose it correctly last week, I'm trying to figure out how existing sidewalks are on our list currently.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, in the past, Dave, we were able to get a list of sidewalk repairs. And by a number of criteria, the date it was requested, the type or condition of the sidewalk, when it was reported, uh, when, when it's scheduled to be done. So there was a list that it was, uh, you know, available in the past. I'm just trying to get a handle on, uh, knowing that in 2019, we did roughly 232 sidewalks. Um, what percent of, uh, this year's money will get us through what list we have. So if we have a thousand on the list, is it safe to say we're going to do a quarter of the sidewalks or roughly?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So based on the criteria information, one of the criteria is the age of the sidewalk and the other is condition. And I think there's a couple of other criteria. So are all these sidewalks that are currently on the list I'm just trying to pin down exactly what you're saying.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So as one member of the council, it would be helpful to find out, first of all, the number. And that could be sent to us in an Excel spreadsheet very easily.
[Michael Marks]: the number of sidewalks that are on the list ranked by condition. So just say it's one through four. If four is a very problem trip hazard safety concern, it'd be interesting to know we have out of a thousand sidewalks, 800 of these compared to a level three or level two or level one. So that way, to me, it would be easier to make a judgment on whether or not we're actually moving forward on our sidewalks. Because after 20 years of doing this, I don't see us moving forward. And that's not a reflection on the current administration. But to say how we've handled it over the years, we've never really gotten ahead of the current. And I want to make sure whether it's the request of which Councilor Scarpelli and many Councilors have talked about, creating our own sidewalk crew, or just to continue the way we've done business with throwing a half a million dollars at a time at the problem and never really getting to a point where we can say, you know what? We'll make it some headway. Because I've been on the council 20 years. I don't know if we're making headway. I'd be surprised if any other councilors could tell me otherwise. I could tell you from residents' standpoint, they don't believe we're making any headway. And a lot of them that have been on the list for five, six, seven, eight years feel the same way. So I just want to make sure we're moving in a direction. And I know this administration's interested in doing so. Provides results for us and gives us a clear direction Whether or not we're making some headway and I don't think I've been able to accomplish that over the many years Start now And say hey, you know what moving forward. Is this the direction we want to continue? We want to keep on throwing money at this or do we want to maybe take this in-house? And I think this is gonna be the year for me to make that decision
[Michael Marks]: That'd be helpful. Thank you, Jason. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilor Scott Pell and Councilor Knight and yourself for putting this on. As was stated, the Maturana family have been in the city for many, many decades. One better than the next, to be quite honest with you. And, you know, Jimmy fought a terrible illness So for a long time, and not many people knew about it cause he kept it to himself and he didn't pity himself. Um, and, uh, you know, he will be as council Scarpelli mentioned, uh, truly missed. And, uh, I hope, uh, all the siblings, uh, can. uh, take some solace from the fact that, um, he led such a great life with such great family men. And, uh, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, we'll leave a legacy in this community, uh, not just as a sportsman, which they all were, they're all great athletes, but as a family man and as a person. Um, and that I think goes much further than anything else. Um, so, uh, I'd like to dedicate this meeting, Mr. President, in Jimmy Maturana's honor. Absolutely agree.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Mr. Varnberg for bringing this issue up, because I know we've all been contacted by Medford residents that are equally as concerned. I need to say over the last three or four weeks, this issue has evolved many times. And I think originally, if we all remember, the issue was don't wear mask. Remember when it first came out, they said mask won't help you. And don't wear mask and leave the mask for the health care professionals. the first responders, and then it evolved into, as more information came in, that it is helpful to have a mask and to reduce the risks like Councilor Bears mentioned. I think there's a lot of misinformation out there that people believe if they, as long as they stay a social distance of six feet, in particular outside, there's no need for a mask. And I think that's where a lot of the misinformation lies. that now that has also evolved and your footprint, so called footprint is left behind. And that's critical. I just want to say to that mask is one aspect of PPE. There's also gloves. The disease is transmitted through droplets and so forth, but it's also transmitted through touch. And you could be somewhere with a mask on, touch a surface, and then put that fingers to your eyes, to your nose, to your mouth after the fact. and catch to the disease. So if you don't protect your hands as well as your face, you're equally as vulnerable. So whatever we do, I think we have to look at all aspects. And in my opinion, I think it should be the wearing of gloves as well, the rubber gloves when you're out in public for now. So I think education, as the chief of staff mentioned, is extremely important. The fact that Councilor Morell and Councilor Caraviello mentioned that not everyone, I had to make homemade face masks. And it took quite some time to do it. Everyone says, oh, look online, you make a quick, easy one. They're not quick, easy, at least for me. And I consider myself pretty handy. They're not quick and easy. And they don't fit right, they push your nose in, you can't breathe. So there's a lot more than just making a quick homemade mask. And I think if we can get these masks out to the general public, like was mentioned in Somerville and so forth, I think that'll go a long way for people that will have them near their front door, like I do. Every time I go out, boom, it goes on automatically because it's right there. But if I didn't have one in the house, who knows? So I think the first thing for prevention is to make sure that these are out there. And I don't know what we can do to get these masks and rubber gloves out there. But I think that should be our first thing. I don't like the concept of penalizing people, to be quite frank. I know some communities of 200, 300 old fines for not wearing a mask. I don't like that concept. I think you have to get people to comply in a way that you reason with them and say, hey, you know what? This is a concern for safety, concern for health. Now we're hearing over in England and so forth that they're saying that kids are coming down with some sort of disease from the COVID that they didn't think they were susceptible to. This is brand new and they're starting to get cases over there. You hear animals now, dogs, cats, you know. So this is something that we really have to take the initiative. I personally think it should be done through an executive order, because I think that's the way it should be initiated from the governor on down. If the governor decides not to do it, then it's up to local cities and towns to take the responsibility. So I'd like to see the mayor take, I know she's taken a lot of leadership on this, but I think the next logical step is to mandate that if you're out, that you should wear a mask. And then if you're talking about enforcement, do we have the capability of enforcing it? Probably not, but I think you'll see people comply. if, you know, they're reasoned with and provided the mask. So that's my two cents, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, we do have Neil Osborne that's joining us and maybe he can give us just a brief overview of the census.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. For previous phases of the sidewalk improvements, this council has requested if the administration is working from a current list, if so, what percent of the list will be accomplished through this 500,000. So that was one of the questions that was asked in the past. And I was asked that that be re-asked again, Mr. President. Roughly how many sidewalks do they feel will be accomplished with this 500,000? What priority, if there is an existing list, will the sidewalks be done? Is there a priority list that is already established? And when will the work start to take place, assuming it's approved.
[Michael Marks]: However, I mean, if you could do it either way, it doesn't matter to me.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, because I know some of my other colleagues expressed concern. Over the last several years, these particular requests for sidewalk repairs have been pretty consistent, as Council Vice President Caraviello mentioned. And the consistent question back from the council has been, what is the list we're working from? Because that's always been a moving target. And I think members that have served for a number of years were never able to get a working list of what sidewalks are on the list. Are they prioritized? And then to accomplish some of the goals, I think, like Councilor Morell and Councilor Bears mentioned, is that when you hear phases, you assume that at some point this will be over, this phase one, phase two and phase three. However, since I've been on the council, it's never had an end and there's never been an end game. And I'm glad that we have a new administration now. So I think these are important questions that we know what the list is, what is comprised of, and what we're going to get for the money. I realize we're in the second half of a contract, but that way it'll give us an understanding that, you know, after we do this phase, there's another phase, or this is the last phase, and then everything coming in will be new requests. We've yet to get that over the years, and that's extremely vital so we can get a handle on it, like Councilor Scarpelli mentioned. You know, we probably could have hired three, four, five people with equipment and a crew to do it internally and get much more bang for our buck by now. However, we're at where we are right now, but I think moving forward, you know, I think we have to get these answers so we can make a financial decision that's good for this community and good for the taxpayers.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. And just one last point, if I could, Mr. President. Yes, please. Not to belabor this, but because when you talk sidewalks, most people think, Oh, it's the replacement of a sidewalk panel. But many times the work goes into curbing, goes into the removal of tree stumps because they may be the hindrance why you can't put a sidewalk and there may be a catch basin that's located near the sidewalk. And that starts to expand the scope of the project. And before you know it, rather than doing 500 panels or sidewalk panels, you're doing 50 with other related work. These are the questions I think that we have to have answered. And I know you can't tell sometimes until you get into a situation and say it involves much more than we anticipated. But these are the type of things we have to know because 500,000 sounds like a lot, but when you start to do work, it doesn't go very far at all. So I just want to put that out there.
[Michael Marks]: While we have the Chief of Staff, have you looked at any other funding sources other than bonding?
[Michael Marks]: Right, and we have what, at least four or five million in free cash or maybe even more?
[Michael Marks]: And that decision's already been made.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Can you give us next time to just what we have out there for free cash?
[Michael Marks]: Motion to table, Mr. President, until we get answers from the administration. Until next week.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions. First of all, how did the CPC arrive at this dollar amount?
[Michael Marks]: So if I could, so it doesn't sound like you had any game plan. When I say you, I don't mean you in particular, but it doesn't sound like there was a game plan on why 250,000 was selected. I realize you had a half a million, but why was 250,000 selected? Is it based on a number of families we believe that may be able to take advantage and that number would suit what we have the need for? And the reason why I bring this up is from what I'm hearing is there's a potential that if we do prioritize method residents, And just say that we overestimated the amount of need that could be out there. And for instance, only $75,000 of Method residents came forward. The other amount, according to what was stated, would have to go to other people that may be outside this community. we can't withdraw the money, right, once our priorities of method families are done, say, okay, now we want to opt out of the program. So, I'm just wondering how we arrived at that 250.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I also think it would be helpful maybe just to get an overview of eligibility requirements by the different programs. And I think that would be very helpful. And my last point is, will the full amount be used towards rental assistance or is there an administrative cost associated with this?
[Michael Marks]: So that's a 10% administrative cost? Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And just what, what about basic eligibility?
[Michael Marks]: But we just heard that's not a requirement.
[Michael Marks]: You don't look at income, you don't look at anything.
[Michael Marks]: So if they don't take part in stabilization, they can't take part of the program.
[Michael Marks]: They were, and I just had one follow up if I could. Sure. Because we're talking one to 2,000, and I realize every case is different. I realize that, and I realize there's all different circumstances and so forth. But we're almost close to two months into this. And from what I'm hearing, this could last another month or two. And so you're potentially talking three, four, five months. And when I hear $1,000 or $2,000, believe me, every little bit helps. But rents in Method are no longer $1,000, $1,200. They're $2,000, $2,500, $3,000. And I'm just curious, if someone did lose their job or there's no income at all in the household, what is one or 2,000 going to do in a situation that you may need tens of thousands of dollars to keep someone going and functioning? And, uh, are we underestimating this? I'd hate to see this go to, uh, you know, I liked the more the merrier in my, in my opinion, I'd like to help out a vast number of people with the two 50, rather than just maybe a handful, uh, with the money. So I'm just wondering how, how do we work this, uh, to make sure that we spread it out and knowing that, um, we're spread thin already because. you know, $250,000 is not a lot to help a city of this size. So I was just wondering if I could throw that out there.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, Councilor Marks. Sorry about that. This question is for Tabitha. Tabitha, currently right now over the last six, seven weeks, I'm sure ABCD has fielded phone calls regarding Method residents that have concerns. Is that not correct?
[Michael Marks]: What about regarding housing assistance?
[Michael Marks]: And why is that?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And I'm just curious, what percent of ABCD's budget is state funded?
[Michael Marks]: Either one. I'd like to know how much of your housing program is state funded, um, of the housing program.
[Michael Marks]: What percent of housing is funded through the state?
[Michael Marks]: Um, yeah, my, my, my, my question is, cause it reaped my tweak. My curiosity is that, um, It was just mentioned that Method residents really don't know that maybe rental assistance money may be available to ABCD. And I know for years, your organization has received either federal or state money. And I'm wondering why that outreach hasn't been done over the years, so that Method residents would know, hey, if I have a concern, let me pick up the phone and call an agency that's right next door in the city of Malden, and I may be able to get some assistance. So that is my curiosity a little bit. why it seems to be new to the city of Medford where there's been federal and state money for many years.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so the COVID-19 RAF money that was just made available, do we have any Medford residents taking advantage of that?
[Michael Marks]: So have you sent method referrals into RAF?
[Michael Marks]: And why is that?
[Michael Marks]: That's good to know. And the success of this particular program we're talking about tonight will be based on the outreach that's done by your organization. And as you know, I think we have a lot of outreach to do to make residents aware of what's currently happening. And the only reason why I brought up the other state funding or federal funding is that I want to make sure that Method residents, they may not be aware, but that they're getting a piece of the pie as well. And I know the government is throwing a lot of money into this COVID now. and there's a lot of money being dished out, I want to make sure that Medford residents have a seat at the table as well. And I appreciate all your efforts.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just that we'd be provided with any statistics, documentation of what currently is going on over the next couple of weeks. And if there is a need for an additional appropriation, that that information be provided.
[Michael Marks]: The reporting. So any statistics reporting, number of families, the dollar amount each family got from the first, if you want to call it first allocation. OK. So then we can make an informed decision if additional money is necessary. OK.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Just before we call the roll. Now, the services that are provided by housing families, are they also providing some of the tracking that's necessary over the six months, is that part of their responsibility?
[Michael Marks]: So I'm just trying to figure out. So the 20,000 that's going to your organization is for what purpose?
[Michael Marks]: So is the 20,000 tied to the 250 in any way?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Yes. I'm a little confused. The Millerons are only 45 years old.
[Michael Marks]: I agree with Councilor Knight, Mr. President. They're two outstanding citizens and I wish them well on their 50th wedding anniversary.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on. Charlie was truly a great man, a great advocate to the city of Medford. And a little known fact, uh, Charlie was a former, uh, public safety officer and, um, you know, he was very instrumental in moving forward many public safety initiatives, uh, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of which, uh, the Shannon bill, uh, was named after Charlie Shannon. Um, and, uh, you know, he, uh, as, uh, uh, Councilor Knight mentioned, uh, was a big constituent person. Uh, you know, the first thing that came to Charlie's mind was always how can I assist the city of Medford and how can I improve constituent services? And I think many of the local politicians took advice from him because that was his number one concern, addressing constituent, the local level. Everything else was secondary. And he was a master at what he did. And again, I want to thank my colleague for putting this on. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Before we adjourn?
[Michael Marks]: I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Captain Brennan and Latitu along with the brave men and women of Latitu. They were at the Glen Ridge nursing home just recently and brought up some food, which I thought was a great gesture in this time, Mr. President. And members of the Medford firefighters also did a tour. I don't know if you saw it online, but they went by Wegmans in some of the stores, beeping the engines, horns, and thanking the workers that are out there very unselfishly, you know, doing the business to make sure that Medford residents have food and all the essentials. And I just want to thank our brave men and women of both the police and fire department and all the other offices in the community, Mr. President, from people at City Hall to the public schools that are stepping up and answering the call, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Um, Joe, if many people were not aware, Joe was an avid singer, uh, as well as an historian. So he had a lot of man of many hats, a real Renaissance type man. And, uh, he will be sorely missed. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll refer to the Vice President of the Method City Council, Councilor Caraviello. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Before the city engineer, I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for co-sponsoring this with me. Mr. President, I think we realize all too often Uh, when utility work is being done in the community, first of all, uh, the utility companies will do their very best not to do curb to curb and explain the reasoning why. Uh, and secondly, uh, they'll come out depending on what time of year it is and say that, uh, this is only the initial patch job and, uh, the curb to curb restoration will take place at a later date. And I think it's important that we as a council get follow-up on our request to make sure that curb-to-curb is done. And even if it takes six to eight months to have it done, that this work truly gets done by the utility companies. So I just want to thank Councilor Caraviello for co-authoring this. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Tim because, uh, over the past year, he has done a lot of work in trying to pull everything together in the engineer's office. Um, the medallion program that he's talking about, uh, I'd like to see that implemented citywide where temporary and permanent patches utility company puts a small medallion with their name, uh, what they're doing there and contact information. That way, anyone in the city, not just someone from the city engineer's office, can walk down their street and say, you know what, I see a sinking hole there. It has the name of this particular company on it. And then at least city hall knows what you're referring to and so forth and can get on top of it. So I appreciate that work that Tim's done on that. Tim mentioned about a capital plan. This council has been calling for a capital plan for 20 years. And I'm glad to hear that we will have a pavement capital plan because there's $0 allocated in the city's budget for total street repavement. The money that we get for street repavement comes from chapter 90 money, which is about $980,000 a year. And you're talking maybe if you can get through a street or two with that amount of money, you're lucky. And we have over 760 streets in the city. Uh, so you can see we're never going to get ahead of it by just following chapter 90 money. We have to do some type of capital plan or put money on a yearly appropriation and the budget. Um, you know, part of the frustration I think councilor Caraviello was talking about is every time a utility company appeared before the council. The city engineer, and in this case it was the previous city engineer, would put all the agreements within the paper. And you could bet your bottom dollar, it never said curb to curb restoration. It was always permanent patch or restored as they found it. And it was the council that took a stance back a year or two ago saying, you know what? We're not going to tolerate this anymore. We don't like the condition. The subcontractors and utility companies are leaving our streets and we're going to require pavement curb to curb. And many of them kicked back at us and we kicked back at them saying, well, maybe you won't get it approved if you're looking to get it approved. And sure enough, each one over time committed to doing curb to curb restoration. So part of the, uh, request, I think by councilor Caraviello myself, and I won't speak for him was to go back over the last year and a half, two years on all the council votes that requested curb to curb. As a condition, not as just, Hey, will you please do this as a condition of approval, whether or not that got done. And I realized it could be in the stages of getting done because Tim mentioned It could be a temporary patch because there's other utility work being done there. And that's fine. Um, in regards to, uh, creating an ordinance, this definitely needs to go to the public works subcommittee. Uh, it's not a black and white issue. There are a lot of other circumstances that play a factor. I would personally like to know that my city engineer is backing what we think should be done. And I think that would be the case. So even if we create an ordinance that gave direction to the city engineer saying, this is how we would like to operate as a city and as a city council, knowing that you have to use your expertise and so forth and your judgment. Uh, you know, I don't think you can create a cookie cutter. We want curb to curb on every project. Um, so I, I think we need to craft something. that's meaningful that allows the city engineer to do his work and not tie his hands. So I'd like to see that be sent to the public works subcommittee. And just my last point, as the city engineer just referred to, you'll have the same utility company, they outnumber us. So they might have five trucks in the city and all aspects of the community doing work. And we may have one clerk of the work that's out there overseeing all these projects. It's unrealistic. And that's just one utility company. There are several out there that may be doing work. There are subcontractors that are doing work. So I think in order to get on this, you know, get our hands around this problem, we do have to look and Tim, I'll say it. If you don't want, you don't want to say it. We have to look at the budget and I think his office needs additional staff. And, you know, we have to take a look at this. You know, if we're going to talk about it, we was just talking last week about putting our money where our mouth is on a different subject. I think we have to put our money where our mouth is when it comes to our streets and our roads. Because as Councilor Scarpelli says all the time, that's probably If it's not the number one, it's the number two call I get regarding potholes, regarding sidewalks, regarding manholes that are sinking, regarding catch basins that are sinking all around the community. We really have an old infrastructure. We have to take a look at this and, uh, you know, we have to be smart about it. So I appreciate everything Tim's done. Uh, he's been very attentive over the last year and several months. Um, and I think he has us on the right track to moving forward. But I think this is a larger issue rather than just voting on something tonight. Let's move something to subcommittee on public works and have them sit down and put something together meaningful that addresses all our concerns. I think we share all the same concerns. Let's make sure someone's safeguarding our city. Let's make sure that whatever the utility companies are doing, They're held accountable, and that's to make sure we have a plan that's endorsed by not just the city engineer, but by the mayor's office and by the city council. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: That's the longest point of information on record. You attacked the information or was it muted?
[Michael Marks]: Uh, so now, now that, uh, consular beers, rent it back all street openings, uh, this, this would also include as the city engineer mentioned, the one-offs, uh, a resident that's trying to get, uh, you know, some utility to their home. Um, you know, that would be a huge hardship, uh, financially to some of that may be trying to do some work on their home, uh, to, to do some type of mitigation. Um, and I'm not quite sure if I can support that at this present time. Um, you know, if we're talking about national grid or the larger utility companies that are here doing work all the time and not the mom and pop one-offs, then I could support it.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could.
[Michael Marks]: We remember when Craddock Bridge was done. That was a four-year project. I offered the resolution before the council that they pay mitigation to the business owners, to area residents, and so forth. And the state came back to us unequivocally and stated they do not pay any mitigation on their projects. That was a four-year hardship for the businesses in the square. So I think we have to be mindful too that, you know, there may be projects in the community that won't pay any mitigation at all, but Mrs. Smith on Warren Street that's trying to do a utility to her house to improve something may be paying mitigation to get something done. So I think we have to be very mindful if we do support this here tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Let's send it somewhere else then, one second. Transportation again?
[Michael Marks]: Motion to revert back to regular audit business, Mr. President. Second.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Anyone that knew Peggy knew she was a loving mother, loving grandmother. She loved to be around family. That was her main thing to be, just around her family. Peggy was an accomplished knitter. She would make mittens, hats, blankets, you name it, she could knit it. She loved to garden. She spent a lot of time in her yard gardening. She was also an employee for 25 years of the Medford Public Schools. and served our students and our school system in a great fashion for many, many years. She's leaving behind a lovely family. Her son, John Small, was a retired Medford fire captain who we all know and love. Bob Small, who's a longtime Medford vocational teacher, and their sister, Carol. Margaret will be sorely missed, Mr. President, and I would ask that this meeting be dedicated in her name, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Present.
[Michael Marks]: Present.
[Michael Marks]: I would support that increased notification as well as adding all the other exemptions that currently exist as well. So it wouldn't be just the deferment that goes out, it'd be the senior property tax exemption, it would be the disabled property tax exemption. I believe there's one for the blind, there's four or five of them out there. So I would ask that they all be sent out as well if that's all right.
[Michael Marks]: This is only a recommendation.
[Michael Marks]: Maybe if he could send someone an email with his question. Exactly. If you'd like to send an email to the clerk or yourself or anyone he's familiar with.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just posing a question. What would prevent any retirement board currently from doing any different type of divestment they'd like to do?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could, I had the opportunity to talk to one of our local board members, and he said at this current point, if the board decided to divest in any different option that they chose, they would go to their advisor and choose to do so, and nothing would prohibit them from doing so. Unless there was a conflict of interest of a board member, And that is a whole other ballgame. I'm not bringing that in, but that's a whole other ballgame. So I'm not sure quite what House 4440 does in moving this issue forward, if we're really talking about, you know, investing in our planet and so forth. I think currently, these boards have the ability to do so. And they can exercise that right. So I'm not quite sure what this does. If it's just a feel good type initiative, then so be it. But I'm not sure what weight this really holds, to be quite honest with you.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could, cause I feel that a number of emails and phone calls and in my conversations and back and forth with residents, I asked each resident if they were a member of the retirement board and quite to my amazement, Not one retiree or member of the current retirement board reached out to me to express their opinion on this. It happened to be everyone outside of the retirement system and everyone's open to their own opinion, which is great. But I think we have to remember this is $182 million worth of assets for our retirees in this community. And we have to be very mindful that any change could have a potential impact on the investments that are being made. And the future of many retirees in this community. So I think we have to be very mindful of that. At least I am before I take any action.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And specifically, the language states fossil fuels. So you're making it sound like, oh, they can go off and do whatever they want. But the legislation specifically says fossil fuels and to divest from fossil fuels, which is Exxon, Chevron, British Petroleum, a lot of the major S&P. bear holders. And I think we have to be very careful because this will have an impact. I don't know if anyone could state what type of impact, but if we do move away from a certain energy, it will have an impact on retirees within this community. And I think we have to be very mindful of that. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: That's a very appropriate term, putting your money where your mouth is, because in fiscal 20 of last year, the taxpayers in this community invested $12.2 million into the retirement system to make that system whole. And every year over the last 20-something years, Mr. President, the taxpayers have been supplementing the retirement system to make it whole. And, uh, I'm not saying this is going to happen, but eventually when you do open the door, uh, you will be putting your money where your mouth is. Um, and the taxpayers will be paying the burden of that, Mr. President, as well as the retirees. So this doesn't just impact retirees. It impacts every taxpayer in this community down the road. potentially could be paying additional money depending on what investments made, what diversity is done in regards to investments and so forth. And this could have a major impact, Mr. President. So, you know, the proponents of this would like you to believe that this is just another tool in the toolbox. This is the opening of the door, Mr. President, to now go and put pressure on our local boards, because that's the next step. The next step is to go put pressure on the local board members to start making the changes, Mr. President. And so be it. And I applaud anyone that's working towards a cause, Mr. President. But I'm mindful of the taxpayers of this community. I'm mindful of keeping a strong system. Our last five years, the return was 6.25 in our portfolio. The last three years was 8%. And this year, before the issue that we're in, it was at 10.9%. and it's down very much from that. But I just want to state, Mr. President, based on what our portfolio has been over the last five years, any change could have a devastating impact, Mr. President, to the returns and to our retirees and to our taxpayers. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Any other questions? Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to reflect the report that the fire department report says pending final inspection. So I would ask that any approval of the council be contingent upon approval of final inspection by the fire department and the chief of the fire department.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to revert back to regular order of business, Mr. President. Second.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think what this resolution is trying to accomplish is asking that the city council collaborate with the administration. whether it's a one-page document, whether it's through social media, whatever the avenue may be, I think what this resolution is trying to accomplish is saying, we're here to assist, we're here to help in any way we can do it. So I think that should be the message to the administration, and maybe not saying we need to put together a one-page document and so forth, but we want to be here to assist. I personally want to do a shout out to our colleague, Councilor Caraviello, He's been working the food lines, Mr. President. He's been giving seniors, picking up food, delivering it to their homes. He's really been active on a level that I think is admirable to be quite honest with you. And I'd like to thank Councilor Caraviello in his own way, Mr. President. And I think that's what people are doing now in their own way. They're trying to assist. And as members of the council, I think we all want to assist the administration in helping get the message out. So I support this, whether it's a document, whether it's anything, I support this and what it's trying to accomplish.
[Michael Marks]: If I could, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page then. This is not specifically asking for a one-page document. We're asking just that information and collaboration be done. Is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: No, I, you know, I don't think we have to put the delivery in there. Let the administration do their job and decide how they want to disseminate the information.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just a little confused on what exactly would go out. You know, this is the creation of a housing stability hotline. It also involves, I know, some other language regarding landlords and tenants and so forth. I'm not quite sure we were just discussing not confusing people. And now we're talking about adding document after document, sending it out to people, which I think may be very confusing. And you're talking to someone that actually works in housing stabilization for the state. I deal with thousands of homeless families on a daily basis. And this is something very near and dear to me. But I think what you have to do, Mr. President, is do it in a way that makes sense. And if we're going to create a hotline and potentially even a task force, then I think we have to lay the foundation first. You have to crawl before you run. And I think we're trying to run first. So I think we should do our homework first and then look at disseminating information. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could I think we have to be mindful over the last several months We've sent dozens of requests to the city administration Working on a lot of different issues and requesting a lot of different things There's nothing that precludes of the council to get together in a subcommittee or a committee that would be appropriate to the topic and discussing. We can create a task force. The city administration doesn't have to create a task force. We as a council could do a lot of things legislatively and move issues forward. And I'm not saying I don't want to work with the city administration, but I just hate to see everything passed off to administration that's already in the midst of dealing with this horrible, uh, you know, Corona that's out there. a million things on their plate, and I just hate to say, well, here's another thing that we want you to do on top of that. And I'd like to see the council take control. You know, send it to a subcommittee. We can call in all the different department heads and parties as a council. We can unite this. We can work on it. There's really no need other than to get support from the administration that the council can't run with this. So I'd like to see more emphasis on the council and less emphasis on city administration, city administration, city administration, knowing that I believe they're already inundated and they're barely keeping their head above water now. And to add another task is gonna be extremely difficult. It may take their focus off something that is vital. And this is a very important issue, but I think we can accomplish this as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This resolution is also open-ended as well. And who makes the determination when does this public health crisis end? Could I be sitting in my apartment a year and a half from now stating that I don't believe that this crisis has ended yet, at least for my family or me in particular, based on my employment, based on a number of things? This is a very slippery slope, Mr. President. I appreciate what Councilor Bears is trying to do, but this is a very slippery slope. I think as was mentioned by some of the other councilors, this could be misinterpreted. in many different ways, it's open-ended, and I don't believe it accomplishes what we're trying to accomplish. I think if maybe we set forth something saying that for the next 30 days, we would hope that landlords and so forth will not evict anyone, then that's something that maybe we can hang our hat on. But something open-ended, Mr. President, I cannot support here tonight.
[Michael Marks]: I did, Mr. President. I just want to clarify the RAF program has existed for many, many years. Um, this is not a COVID-19 RAF program. This is additional money that's being given to the RAF program because of what we're going through. Um, and every time, uh, every year about this time, actually, this supplemental money that's put into the RAF program, along with the home-based program and many other programs that assist low income and residents that are maybe on the verge of losing their apartment. And this is the time of year, religiously, that additional supplemental money is given. So I appreciate the fact that Councilor Bears offered this. I can almost guarantee you that there will be additional money for raft, home base, and those other programs because of what's going on right now. And I don't think us sending something to the state legislature in support of it would do any harm. And it can only do some good. So I would support this, Mr. President, in making sure, you know, this is the money that's, as Councilor Knight just alluded to, that's being sent to the most vulnerable. So if you're someone that's living day to day in a time like we're going through now, one paycheck could mean losing your apartment. And so to many people, additional stimulus money, which I refer to as stimulus money, additional money for the RAF program may keep you in your apartment. If you're homeless, home base may be the additional money that you need to get you into your own permanent housing. So these are all important programs. And the state legislature, as Councilor Bears probably knows, they usually only fund at 60, 70% at the beginning of the year. And then there's supplemental money that comes shortly after that. And this is what we're seeing now. And I will support this tonight because it's a good measure in keeping those most vulnerable in our population in their apartments. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears, did you have a comment?
[Michael Marks]: Offered by President Falco and Vice President Caraviello. Be it resolved that the administration update the city council as to when peer consultants will be hired and what type of peer consultants will be hired to assist the city of Medford through the 40B process. Council President.
[Michael Marks]: Move for approval, Mr. President. Vice President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion offered by Council President John Falco and Council Vice President Rick Caraviello as amended by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor?
[Michael Marks]: Roll call on the B paper as offered by Vice President Caraviello. I second that.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Covering the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion is adopted. Now the main paper. Is the main paper seconded?
[Michael Marks]: Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion is adopted. All right, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I agree with council morale about design standards, and that's something that we should be exploring as a council. Uh, when we do take a comprehensive look at our, uh, zoning ordinance, um, the six month moratorium that was stated, uh, in my opinion, uh, doesn't make any sense at this particular point. Uh, because I think if we were to put a moratorium in place, um, it would be for a very finite period of time, because we haven't looked at zoning. And I think that's the next logical step. So I wouldn't support at this time any type of moratorium either. I think this all came about and this is no secret that over the last year or two, there's been a number of projects in the city where There's been some questionable lots in the community that have expanded. And I think that raised eyebrows in the community and some people concerned about what was happening in the community and didn't want to see the face of method change. But I agree with some logical standards regarding design review, a comprehensive approach to zoning that the council is going to be looking at hopefully very shortly, Mr. President, under your leadership. I think we can move forward with a lot of these issues. And the last thing we want to do is curtail uh, building and especially building that adds, uh, additional affordable units, potential in-law apartments, which no one wants to talk about. But I think that's another issue that I hear over and over again. How come I can't have someone, my mother that lives out in Cambridge, come and live with me. And I want to build a small in-law unit for her to live in. that's not a rental, and believe it or not, many of those get denied by the zoning board. So these are the issues I think we have to look at, but I cannot support this here tonight. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to hear from Mr. Sandoval just to, uh, regarding his business and, uh, if he would have a problem with closing at one. Mr. Sandoval.
[Michael Marks]: So based on Mr. Sandoval, based on what Councilor Knight and Councilor Caraviello mentioned, I would too support the one o'clock closing.
[Michael Marks]: Just based on the 90-day review, which I support, we know this business has been opening for probably about a year and a half now. So I would just state that if we are gonna put a review, that it commenced with the day of opening and not the day of the issuance of this extended hours of operation.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Will the street be closed off for any particular reason? And how long, roughly, will this construction take?
[Michael Marks]: And what type of sidewalk currently exists there? Is it asphalt or cement?
[Michael Marks]: Right, and the pole itself is located on Middlesex Ave? Correct. Yep, it's on the sidewalk.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Roughly, how long will this project take?
[Michael Marks]: And will the primary work be done during the day?
[Michael Marks]: As you may or may not know, Dan, there's been an issue with construction along the Green Line extension and trains that are going through at night at two, three in the morning have to sound their horn when they go through a construction area. And that's been causing a lot of problems in the Salt Method area. I don't think this will have any impact, but I didn't know if the work that's being done there will affect the trains that are going through.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I saw recently in one of the governor's speeches that he stated that the housing court, Massachusetts Housing Court, would not be considering any evictions or foreclosures. I don't know the exact time frame that he gave, but he did say that they weren't going to entertain that subject at this particular point. And I know that involves a large measure of what Councilor Bears is talking about.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think time is of the essence with this issue. And I would highly recommend that we use our bully pulpit as this meeting to alert residents to call their state delegation. To be quite honest with you, I think it's important that when a rep receives, I used to work for a state rep, when you receive 800 phone calls rather than a letter from the Medford City Council, that goes a long way. So I would urge anyone that's tuning in right now, anyone that's watching, if you haven't picked up the phone, if you haven't sent your state rep an email, let them know where you stand on the issue. That's, you know, because time is of the essence and it's important that we move forward. And I agree with my colleagues, you know, I think this is an important issue, but I also think it has to be properly vetted before we give it a stamp of approval, Mr. President. And, you know, I have some issues with, you know, If Councilor Bears came out and said house docket four nine three five like we do on many other things that City Council supports that You know that may be a different issue, but they came out with other items that I'm in that particular docket I assume the amendments that council beers offered with things that weren't part of that house docket and So that adds a whole other layer of complexity on something that's already a complex issue. And I think it takes it too far to be quite honest with you. I probably would support just voting for House Dock at 4935, saying that we approve that. But now you add all these other amendments into it. That's a whole other issue. I think that merits discussion.
[Michael Marks]: Why not? You can make multiple motions.
[Michael Marks]: I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on. I know Mayor Lungo-Koehn has been working on sanitizing many of our public buildings. I think what Councilor Scarpelli mentioned about the vehicles is an excellent idea and one that needs to be added to the sanitation. So I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli offering that. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I have not seen it yet. I haven't looked at my emails in quite some time because we've been in meetings. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: And if, if, you know, make a recommendation rather than withdraw, why don't we just send this paper to a company, the paper, the council vice president put forward already. Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: While we're on the suspension, if I could just bring up, uh, we had a recent loss of, uh, a long time method resident, Sam Musto, uh, family man, father. just dedicated to this community. And he recently passed a long time labor in the community, and he will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, while we're in the suspension.
[Michael Marks]: Paper 20-094.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I put this on tonight's agenda because I had several residents that reside in condos, in particular Maple Park condominiums that reached out to me recently regarding waste pickup. And they asked me the question, which I've actually received over the years from other condo people in the community, why don't they pick up my trash, the city? We pay the same tax rate that any other good paying taxpayer pays in this community, and we don't get trash service. So I did a little homework, Mr. President. We have probably about eight or nine residents from Maple Park, and I appreciate they all came out tonight. because this issue is very important to them. But I did a little homework, Mr. President, pulled out the contract that was signed by the city of Medford and Waste Management back in August of 2010, August 25th to be precise. It was a ten year contract which actually ends this year. And it's my understanding in talking to DPW, what resulted from the contract back in 2010 was the city went around to all the different condo associations. And they touched base with each condo association, saying, we're signing an agreement with waste management. It's going to be a 10-year agreement. Are you interested, as an association, to have either recycle or trash pickup at your building? And for a number of different reasons, many associations said, you know what, we are interested in having both. And the city added their condo to the contract, which I have a copy of all the condominium associations and whether or not they get trash, recycle, a combination or none. And so at the time, they went around to all the condos. Some condos, like Maple Park Condo, opted at the time not to do trash pickup. They currently have recycle pickup, but not trash. And it was based on, I guess, the board of directors of the condo association, and they decided not to do it. But within the contract, Mr. President, and I won't read it, it's a lengthy contract, but on page six of the contract under section 12, It states the contractors shall collect refuse weekly and recyclables every other week from condominiums as listed on exhibit D. And that's what I refer to. Exhibit D shows you all the different condo buildings and whether or not they have recycle or trash. It says, Exhibit D, as from time to time may be amended subject to compensation as specified in Section 23.3, condominiums will be required to provide rubbish dumpster and recycling cots compatible with contractor's vehicles at their own cost. Condominiums that require services greater than specified herein will be directed to purchase additional service outside of this agreement from a vendor of their choice. So at the time, Mr. President, Maple Park Condo, and like I said, there are other condos that are in the same boat, decided not to do the trash pickup. And then some years later, they say, you know what? At this point, we'd like to start trash pickup with the city. And I'm being told from the DPW department that in order to do so, if Maple Park wanted to join the contract, they can do it one of two ways. They can ask during budget period, which is coming up very shortly, to have the city, because we have a fixed amount every year that we put into the waste management contract, and if we were going to bring on a new condo association, that would increase the contract amount, naturally, that we would have to add to the budget based on the newcomers into the program. So that would be the first way. If Maple Park and other condos said, you know what, we'd be interested now in joining, please sign us up. The city would have to make compensation within the budget to account for that. The second way, Mr. President, is the way of The contract ends in 2020. So it ends this year. It's a 10-year contract. It ends this year. And I'm not sure how this new administration will go about doing this, but I would assume it might be similar to what they did 10 years ago and reach out once again to all the condo associations in the city and saying, would you like to participate? And we can gather a new list at the end of this contract, which is this year, and have the city fund this brand new list. I'm being told also in the past, over the last ten years, based on a by request, the past mayors If an association went to the previous mayors, they would make their case for why they need recycling or trash pickup through the city, and the mayor would grant it or not grant it. And I've been told that in the past, there have been condo associations that have been granted this additional pickup service through the mayor's office. So I'm offering tonight, Mr. President, a way that not only Maple Park, but the other condominium associations that I have on this particular list, like Craddock Cove, I think the Regency Condo, Wellington Condo, there's a number of other condos in the city that may opt to participate. So I'm asking through this resolution, and I'd like to hear from some of the residents also, Mr. President, that the mayor determine how she wants to handle it. If she wants to do it in this year's budget, we have to make sure that the condos that want to participate make it known and that we add that to the budget or if the mayor feels best that we wait out the five or six or seven months that are left in this 10-year contract and then just see if anyone else wants to join. That may be an easier way, Mr. President, but I'll leave that up to the administration. That's not up to me to decide. But based on my findings, Mr. President, the contract, in my opinion, does call for allowing newcomers into the contract. And it does state there'll be an associated cost for a newcomer. It also states if you have a large condo and you need more than the one pickup, which may be the case in some of the larger condos, that that's added at your own expense. And that's spelled out in the contract. But my hope tonight, Mr. President, is really to put everyone on the same playing field. You know, we all pay taxes. I've had people in the past say, I pay taxes for school, but I have no school-aged kids. That's not how we work in the city of Medford, Mr. President. We all pay a tax. We all should receive the service. And there's no reason why the condo associations and people that live in condos and pay the same tax shouldn't get that same service, Mr. President. Another issue too, Mr. President, if you don't have trash pickup, you're not eligible for bulk pickup. So someone that lives in a condo that wants to dispose of a bureau or a mattress or something, they're not eligible for the pickup that every other resident is eligible for. And that's unfair too. So I'll have residents, one resident told me he had to take his mattress over to his friend's house. This gentleman is not a spring chicken, Mr. President. And to have him get in his car and bring his mattress over to a friend's house is unacceptable. And they should be added, Mr. President, as well to the bulk pickup. So I'd like to hear with some of, I know Cindy Watson's here, with a number of residents. And I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that either suggestion be entertained by the mayor to ensure that Maple Park Condo and any other condo in the city that opts to enter into the program is able to do so.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could follow up. I think part of the issue, from my understanding of talking to DPW, is that the city pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just for the bulk pickup contract. And at some point, it was determined that if you didn't have trash pickup, that you weren't going to be eligible for bulk pickup. And I'm not sure where that decision was made, if it was a unilateral decision or what. I didn't see it in the contract, but I was told by DPW, if you don't have trash pickup, they're not going to pick up bulk. And I think that was a way of trimming down the exorbitant cost of the bulk items. I believe they said they paid $22 an item in the city for bulk pickup, and it's unlimited. They only do it during the recycle period, so it's every two weeks they do the bulk pickup. But I think that was a way of cutting cost, and that may have been when they cut the service off to Maple Park during that. I'm not sure exactly when it happened. But the reason why I brought up, Mr. President, is to ask these questions. And have the administration, we have the chief of staff here, Dave Rodriguez, who I'm sure will take this back to the mayor regarding this issue. Mr. President, and we'll be able to get an answer. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: We can offer those two different options to make, because it could be done in other ways, too. Those are the two that were stated to me. Adding to this year's budget, or when the contract turns out, which is at the end of this year, that all the economy associations be out with their options.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. The Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility, you guys continue to produce. It's one after another after another. It's very impressive. And I like the fact that you're getting donations, you're soliciting organizations, and you're doing it on your own. You're not saying, hey, how can you help or do this for us? You're taking the initiative. And I think that goes a long way. I, too, would like to see, you mentioned Morrison Park. potentially doing this in some other parks. We in the city of Medford are very fortunate to have so many beautiful parks within our neighborhoods, many of which I believe are underutilized. And to introduce something like the arts and attracting people to the parks, I think goes a long way. And I appreciate all the effort that you've both put into this, as well as all of your fellow students. I thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I was not under the impression we were voting for a rule change, so I may have missed that.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. The reason why I state that, I don't know, I was under the impression this was going the way of every other request, either sending it to the Rules Committee or being properly vetted. And I really don't think this has been properly vetted, in my opinion. I think it has all good intention. However, Mr. President, The filing of a petition by a resident is requesting council action. And it is, it complies with the open meeting law. It appears on the agenda. And from what I gather from this, it does state the following petition shall be reserved only for matters requiring council action per law. So there may be an item when someone's coming up for council help, but it's not a requirement of the council action. Not as was stated, special permits, grants of location, sign variance, those require council action. There's no way around it. So I think this is kind of a slippery slope, Mr. President, that it limits speech of residents that want to come up and not only come up like they would under suspension, which gives zero notification, but give proper notification and look for council relief. And that council relief may not be something that's under our jurisdiction, But something that residents feel that they can get relief from the council by coming up. And I don't want to limit that, Mr. President, and I think this language would limit that. So I cannot support that, Mr. President, unless this is properly vetted out to make sure that we're not limiting residents in the ability to come up here and speak or file a petition. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. So this is petitions, presentation, and similar papers, right? This is what the section it falls under. So if someone wants to come up and make a presentation that the council has no bearing on, that would come under public participation or petitions, presentations, and similar papers. Or are we amending or eventually going to amend this to have what my colleagues are stating, having the agenda coincide with what we're trying to do?
[Michael Marks]: So is the issue that it's assigned a number? Is that what the issue is?
[Michael Marks]: But there's a distinction between a resolution and a petition, correct?
[Michael Marks]: Only a council can file something. Receive and place on file. This council's been doing that for 100 years. And that's how we dispose of things. So if someone comes up.
[Michael Marks]: If someone comes up and it has no bearing on the council, Mr. President, or doesn't require a council vote, you'll hear that saying all the time. Receive and place on file. I just feel that this is, Mr. President, a way of restricting people from coming up, putting something which is valid on the agenda, it gets signed the number as a petition, not as a resolution. It's a petition. They're two very different things. And a petition is requesting council action. Now, if they put something on the agenda that they believe requires council action and it doesn't, that's when the council can make a decision to receive and place on file or state clearly that this doesn't require council action and hear out whatever their concern is, Mr. President. I just don't see the reason to eliminate it. I really don't. I don't see the reasoning behind that. I don't see how that, how does that increase public participation or make it easier? Can anyone state that to me? How does this make it easier for public participation?
[Michael Marks]: How? How? If someone can explain that to me, by eliminating this, the ability for some resident to come up and put this in advance on the agenda, So it's open and notorious, and everyone knows what they want to discuss. I don't see how that, Mr. President, this enhances anything. warrants additional discussion rather than just approving a council rule. It's not often in my years on the council that you ever see a council rule come up, Mr. President, and approve the same night. I can't recall the last time it happened, Mr. President. It doesn't happen often. And I think this hasn't been properly vetted, Mr. President. And I realize that we're looking to address our maybe open meeting violations and so forth. I'm not sure this accomplishes anything in that realm, Mr. President. And, you know, I've heard people say this doesn't do anything to decrease public participation. What does it do to increase public participation? I haven't heard that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. If I could, and this is, I'm not directing this at Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not taking it that way at all. I just want to, council rules are very important. Yes. And I want to make sure that they're properly vetted and you know, public participation as Councilor Knight said, you can come up at any time and speak on anything. However, what wasn't stated is now under the open meeting law, Mr. President, you may be able to come up, but the council cannot deliberate now under the open meeting law. So if a resident wants to come up and speak on an issue, someone popped up tonight and wanted to speak on an issue, we can hear them out, Mr. President, but we can't deliberate. We cannot until they're placed on the agenda. Hence. Petitions, presentations, and similar matters appears on the agenda, gives the 48-hour notice that's required by the open meeting law and the Attorney General. Hence, we can deliberate on something they're discussing, Mr. President. They're two completely different things. So if the council feels comfortable with doing away with a section of our agenda that allows people to come up and pre-advance, put on the agenda what they want to speak about, and hopefully have the council deliberate on it, that's petitions, presentations, and similar matters. If we want to do away with that and say, you know what, the only one that can offer that now is anyone having business that deals with signage and so forth that requires a council vote, or variances, or whatever it might be, that's very different, Mr. President, than a resident coming up. So if we eliminate residents from coming up under this section and require them to come under public participation, we may be telling residents that come up We can't deliberate tonight, sorry. We'll see you next week. Point of information, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, so effectively, you're going to have someone in the city clerk's office, with all due respect, making that determination. Whether it falls under the criteria, which was based over here, limited to special permits, grants, locations, sign variance, and common vituals license, only petitions filed meeting this criteria shall be assigned a council paper number. All other petitions shall be placed on the public participation. So in effect, what we're doing is having the city clerk's office figure out what's going to be a petition and what's not a petition. And that goes under public participation.
[Michael Marks]: I was just wondering maybe if the council defined this petition was that where was that definition is that just part of our rules or is that part of a definition?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so that definition is not a legal definition. It's a definition that was created by a legislature somewhere, a town council, board of aldermen, someone that said that only a petition is defined as a council action that only requires action by law. So that's just a made up, that's a made up term, Mr. President. A petition is exactly what it is. It's requesting the council to do something. Why does it have to be something that's required by law? I don't understand. To me, that limits. Why do we want to limit people to come up? This is the only... Point of information, council and I. It's about stuff that requires the council to take action.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information. Councilor Marks. If Mr. Krause came up tonight and wanted to do what Councilor Knight was talking about, and he is not in any violation because the open meeting law only applies to deliberative bodies. Mr. Krause wouldn't be in any violation of bringing up the issue, so he can appear before us and bring up the issue. However, we would be in violation by deliberating saying, you know what, Mr. Krause, that's a great idea. That's asked the mayor to get 20,000 for the school board. So that's why I'm saying, Mr. President, having something, if I could just finish, having something assigned a petition number, Mr. President, is a way of getting around, because a lot of people will come up, Mr. President, and want to speak before us that night. And they're not in violation, we would be in violation for deliberating. And I think what Mr. Krause raises is a valid point, even with the numbering. I think that's a great idea, Mr. President. I think having the ability to do that and also having public participation, that to me opens up the process. Eliminating one is exactly what it does. It eliminates the option. And I don't see how that is open and transparent and adds to discussion. I really don't. Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Not if they were allowed to do a petition.
[Michael Marks]: So we're no longer a body. We're individuals. When someone comes up. Well, I'm going to do that. No, no, I'm going to do that. No. You can do whatever action you want. You're an individual Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to echo my colleagues. Mrs. Morris was the matriarch of the family and truly was someone that had strong moral values. And as Councilor Knight mentioned, raised two boys that really impeccable people of character and she will be sorely missed.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the fact that Councilman Knight's trying to get creative with the concern about potential loss on street parking. However, it flies in the face of everything I've spoken about over the last several years regarding properties on Salem Street and Riverside Ave that have turned their front yards into parking lots, Mr. President. And I don't think it's very pleasing aesthetically, Mr. President. And I would hate to see a practice, any practice that promotes such, even though it's called inner core and sounds great, the inner core is the outer core of our city and how our city looks. And I don't think it does anything for our community. So I would not support this, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, we actually have our first request for a suspension of the rules. A resident that's here tonight would like to speak on crosswalks on Salem Street, which he considers a public safety concern.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, if I could, in the interest of public safety, request that this be sent to the Traffic Commission in the interest of public safety, that they review a crosswalk at the intersection of Everett and Salem. OK.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, other people want to speak from the community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I had the opportunity to work with Patrick for close to a year. He's the one that welcomed me up to Channel 3, the new facility. I was one of the first local access programs to air, Mr. President. He was very professional in my dealings with him. Always had a vision to expand local community access. to invite new people into Community Access, to actually, years ago, there used to be a fee to get into Community Access. There is no longer a fee to join Community Access. Anyone can go up and start a show. Anyone can get involved. Anyone can go out and tape their own and bring it to the station and do editing and so forth. So I believe the station is on the rise. Would I like to see more membership? Absolutely. But I think it'll come over time, Mr. President. I think it will come over time that you will see some more local programming and as was mentioned by some of the speakers, you know, we're running an operation in a city of 58,000 people with one person. If you go to Community Access in Malden, Somerville, they have upwards of 7, 8, 9, 10 people running Community Access. We have one person, Mr. President. So I think he's doing the best he can with what he has, Mr. President. And I only see good things for Community Access. I see more community participation. They are very welcoming in my experience and in talking to other people that have produced. I've watched Laura's show. She has an excellent show. And they are very welcoming up there. They're willing to pick up the camera and help. because it's not a matter of just creating a show, it's a matter of editing, having a producer, and Patrick served in all those functions at one point or another to make sure that we were able to get local programs on. So, you know, does more need to happen? Absolutely. Will it happen? Absolutely, Mr. President. So I have confidence that we're going in the right direction with community access. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Matariz family as well. And if we can also recommend that the mayor use the city billboard, which we're allowed to use on 93 to promote this also, this terrible disease or these terrible diseases, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for the presentation. It was very enlightening. I never realized when I would go out for takeout food and get something in a Styrofoam container, I'd bring it home, and it would taste different. And now I know why it tastes different, because the food's probably heating up that Styrofoam, and it's letting off chemicals into my food. That's very enlightening. The other thing I found very interesting, it says that polystyrene showed me an expanded styrofoam, which is a thermoplastic. And we use thermoplastic on our crosswalks because it's a very durable substance and it's highly reflective and it's slip resistant. But it's amazing that this also transforms into a styrofoam container that you put your food in. And I can see the health effects and a reason why we should probably take a look at this. I remember my days at the high school. We didn't even know who was on the city council. Now we have members of the high school that are putting forward ordinances and creating ordinances in our community. Times have changed. And we really appreciate it from the plastic bag to the polystyrene, which I think is another logical step. And I appreciate all the effort that you put into this.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. I was contacted recently through email by a Medford resident who was concerned about airplane noise over the city of Medford like many other residents and he asked that I use this council forum to reiterate the fact that last year Medford filed over 700 complaints to Massport regarding airplane noise. And based on the number of complaints, it's our belief through our representatives, Peter Hauk and Luke Presner, that the more complaints we file with Massport for Medford citizens regarding the noise, that Massport and the FAA may take a longer look at our concerns. So he asked me if I could just reiterate the contact numbers at Massport. And I told him I'd do so. If someone wants to make a complaint to Massport regarding airplane noise by phone, it's 617-561-3333. And if you want to do it online, it's www.massport.com backslash loganairport backslash aboutlogan backslash noise. And if you want to do it online by Air Noise mobile friendly web, it's an application or a button subscription, it's HTPS double backslash airnoise.io. And those are the three ways residents can file a complaint, Mr. President. There is that button subscription that I'm not familiar with, but I know Medford residents carried around with them, and when they hear excessive noise, they press a button and it logs in a complaint automatically. And I forget what the app costs it may be ten or fifteen dollars for the year But it's very helpful and the more complaints. We log mr. President the more our concerns will be heard by Massport and FAA I appreciate you taking the time off for that. Thank you counsel marks the other thing I wanted to mention mr. President briefly and we just had our This past Sunday, a community volunteer initiative that started at Medford High School, the main entrance of Medford High School. There is a committee called Medford Beautification Committee, which organized an event this past Sunday from 8 to 4. to paint the front foyer of Medford High School, to spruce it up a little bit. The co-chairs are Larry White and Bill Carr Jr. They organized, must have been 75 people that showed up, Mr. President. A lot of local volunteers, a lot of businesses, which I'd like to name just a few, Mr. President. I think it's always helpful to let people feel that when they come out and help out, that they are involved and they are doing something good to get involved. Lou and John Iantoppa from Iantoppa Painting did tremendous work. John McLaughlin, who's the Director of Buildings and Grounds along with his staff did excellent work. Red's Painting, Magnificent Muffin donated coffee and muffins. Modern Hardware donated the Mustang blue paint, which from what I'm told is a specialized paint that is painted dark blue. Ryan Tate, project supervisor for select paints and finishes, donated all the materials and painting stuff for the entire event. I witnessed Mayor Lungo-Koehn painting herself, Mr. President, the stairway. It was very tedious work. Superintendent Dr. Maurice-Edouard Vinson was using a roller. She seemed to be a master with the roller. School committee members Kathy Kreatz, Melanie McLaughlin, Paul Rousseau, and Paulette Van der Kloot were also pretty handy with the paintbrushes. Hank Morris, Fred Roach, Neil Osborne here from City Hall, Ricky Harris, Rich Lavoie, Steven and John Pompeo, Chris Donovan, Sean Caron, Ed and Susan Lungo, and a number of volunteers, Mr. President. It was just a great day. It showed a lot of community pride. This is the first of many projects that this beautification committee is going to start working on, Mr. President. It's all volunteers, it's all donations, and it really was a win-win for the community of Method. And I want to thank everyone that showed up.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Counsel Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Cheryl, I had just a question for you. When the building commissioner came out regarding the lot coverage, he has not responded since?
[Michael Marks]: Because you're 100% correct, that should be before the Zoning Board of Appeals. So they should require a variance if what you're stating is correct, and it exceeds the law coverage. That does require Zoning Board of Appeals, and also would trigger public hearings, so neighbors would be notified. So that's number one. You bring up some great points regarding mitigation for dust, debris, dirt. I agree with you 1,000%. If someone's working directly next door to you, there's no reason they should be throwing stuff out and impacting your quality of life. And if they do, they should be able to mitigate it to keep the dust and dirt and debris down and so forth. So that's a great suggestion when we eventually start fine tuning zoning and so forth. The digging or excavating does require fencing off. I just went through something up in North Method where a developer came in, started digging a giant hole, left it there right in the middle of the neighborhood. I reached out to the building department. They required them to go out and put one of those plastic, you know, four or five foot fences around the perimeter. And I don't think that's zoning, I think that's according to building code. So they did go out and rectify that, and they should do that with your fence.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not sure why you didn't call a lawyer if they knocked your fence down, but that's another issue. Because they should be responsible for that. The length of a project. That is an excellent point that you brought up, because there should be some definitive answer when someone comes in and says, I have a request to do x, y, and z on this particular property. You get a permit for a length of time. And that length of time shouldn't exceed anything that's longer than a standard period. So if they're doing renovation to the exterior house and that takes three months, it should be expected to be done in three months, not a year and a half. So you shouldn't have to live next to an active construction zone for that length of time. I'm going to check into that just to see if there's anything on the books. Because I've driven by that place. It looks like the Adams family home. It's awful. It really is awful. And what else? I think that was it. But I will check into the length of time, and I appreciate your comments on that. I'm sorry you have to go through this, but hopefully Paul Moky will give you some relief.
[Michael Marks]: But that's the city's responsibility for notification of the residents.
[Michael Marks]: We should be relying on a private contractor to notify our taxpaying residents whether a city street's going to be closed or not. Right. The city street is a city street, and they have to get permission to close the city street.
[Michael Marks]: That's unacceptable. That's unacceptable. Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: I think this matter would probably be appropriate for the police department. That's what I'm thinking as well. It seems to be police in nature. So I think the correct avenue is that we could also notify through our channels the police department. Maybe they could do some mediation or see what's going on.
[Michael Marks]: We'll have the police look into it.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. The Medford City Council had Committee of the Whole last week. We met with the Mass. Department of Transportation, as well as City Engineer, and they gave us an update on the Safe Routes to School project, which the Brooks School sought funding from the state back some two or three years I think now, and they just received $1 million for upgrades for safe routes along High Street, which includes Hastings Lane, Mystic Street, and Walcott Street. And some of the updates they're looking about curb extensions, bump outs, pedestrian lights in that particular area. As part of this project, we were told by Mass Department of Transportation, that there will also be some land takings in that particular area. And the City of Medford is now reaching out to many of the homeowners along High Street. In addition, Mr. President, there is also going to be a bike lane that will be put on the southbound side of High Street. And the bike lane goes from Auburn Street all the way up to Woburn Street. And it starts and ends in that particular area. On the other side of the street, they will have a lane that could be used, I guess, for both bikes and cars mutually. Just recently, Mr. President, the Traffic Commission also held a meeting because approval would be required by the Traffic Commission to eliminate some of the spots. We were told at last week's meeting, last Wednesday, that they numbered out the spots to be 60 on-street parking spots from Auburn Street all the way up to Hastings Lane. And of the 60, 19, according to their numbers, were going to be eliminated on the southbound side. Now, over the last week, Mr. President, I, like many members behind this reel, have received a number of phone calls, residents that did attend the 2 p.m. Traffic Commission meeting and They weren't quite sure. They thought they were going there to listen to a presentation about this new Safe Routes project. And unbeknownst to them, there was an actual vote taken by the Traffic Commission to eliminate spots in front of people's homes that have been there for four, five, six decades, Mr. President. I don't think anyone behind this reel is against safe routes, and I think I could speak for my colleagues. I think we all welcome that. We all welcome state funding. Anytime you can get additional funding, that's great, Mr. President. But I do have concerns, Mr. President, that this project may not move forward if we're not able to reach a compromise. And I think the best way to do it is at this point, where it's still in the early stages. And I'm formally requesting tonight that we ask our city engineer to go back to the Department of Transportation regarding the southbound bike lane that only is about two city, three city blocks. That they revisit the elimination, Mr. President, of those spots. to accommodate a five foot bike lane that leads to nowhere. It ends, it starts, it ends. And like I said, three city blocks. And we were told that the Department of Transportation will only entertain projects and only fund projects if it includes bike lanes. But in my opinion, Mr. President, it makes no sense to have a bike lane that doesn't continue on. I asked a question that night, well, if it stops all the way up at Hastings Lane, where does the bike go after that? And they said the bike will continue to ride on the street. Because under the laws of Massachusetts, bikes and cars are allowed to have equal access to the street. So I think we can head this off, Mr. President. I don't want to be at the last minute attending to neighborhood concerns when they're going to be asking for a vote of this council to improve land takings, which will make the project even go further down. So I would ask at this point that we intervene, we send a letter to our city engineer, let him know that we feel more comfortable. that the project, while it's in the early stages, be revisited to add those 19 spots that we're going to lose and come out with another solution that doesn't impact parking, Mr. President. Many of the residents were told, well, if you live on a high street and they're removing that spot, just park across the street. And one of the residents that called me said, well, my 80-year-old mother really shouldn't be crossing a very busy street that you're already saying this concerns. and having her walk another 300 yards to maybe get up to the pedestrian light to cross over to get to her house, where we've had this spot in front of my house for five decades. So I can see where they're coming from, Mr. President. Other residents on Mystic Street that contacted me were concerned that by eliminating these particular spots, especially next to the Brooks School, that you're just going to take people that are regularly parking on High Street and push them into the secondary roads. which I think is a concern for residents already in a busy area, Mr. President. So I would ask that in the form of a motion that we send it to the city engineer and have him contact DOT regarding the bike lane and other options available so we can continue to have the 60 spots that residents count on right now, Mr. President. in a very cramped area, not just because of the school, because of the public transportation in the West Method area, because it's right out of the business district in West Method, and that area is very congested as is. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, the report that was done spoke about the number of spots and how their utilization rate is pretty low in that area. Anyone that would drive, I don't know when they did this report, I don't know who did the study, but anyone that's familiar with that area would know the southbound, maybe not all the way up to Auburn Street, but further down, is always packed with cars. So that's number one. Secondly, Mr. President, has there been any report or indication how many bikes are actually using this particular area? I haven't heard anything about that. And to me, to have a bike lane that ends at the top of Auburn and then going down a windy rest of a high street is far more of a public safety concern when that lane ends, Mr. President, than having a fake lane for three city blocks. And I think the area that would be a concern is not in that particular area. It would be what happens after that, Mr. President, because the bike lane ends, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, right where the new intersection will be with Woburn. So they're creating a new island there that's going to be like a fork in the road. That's where my problem is with this particular bike lane, Mr. President. I think you're setting up bike riders for failure in this particular area with a false sense of security. That's all I wanted to add, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to clarify, it's not a separated lane. That's a big clarification. It's its own lane, but it's not a separated lane. It's not separated by anything. It's its own lane, but there's a distinction.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And that was when I made my opening statement to see if we can come up with an alternative. And it's our job as elected officials to also represent the neighborhood. And I think that's what we're doing. And the reason why I brought it up now, Mr. President, so we wouldn't be bringing the issue up at the last hour when everything is all set in stone, all the land takings are signed off, and then they need a vote of the council. This gives them ample time to revisit the process, Mr. President, and find out what we can do to accommodate the residents that have a hardship, Mr. President. That's all we're asking here tonight. We're not asking to stop the project. We're not asking to give money back. You know, that's a red herring. No one's asking for that, Mr. President. We're asking to safeguard residents that contact us and have every right to do so because it's a quality of life issue that's impacting them, Mr. President. You know, so any project worth its weight, Mr. President, needs to be properly vetted. The fact that the state may come in and say, well, the federal government, this is how it's going to work, that's fine for them, Mr. President. Then it's up to us as a community to stand up and say, this works for us, and then comes for a compromise. That's all I'm saying. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing up this very important subject. I would request, as maybe a B paper, if we could send this to the Traffic Commission as well as our Human Diversity and Disabilities Commission regarding other street signalization throughout the community to see where upgrades for sound devices are needed throughout the entire community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was contacted by a resident on New Bern Ave, New Bern Street, I'm sorry, regarding this particular intersection onto Medford Street. If this car's parked at the corner, it makes it increasingly difficult to pull out into traffic. And they are very concerned regarding public safety. So they've asked that a sign go up on New Bern, that says no parking from here to corner at the intersection of New Bern Street and Medford Street. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Thank you. Councilor Bears.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I think part of the concern is naturally the public safety concern, but there are many residents in this community that are not familiar with the parking rules and regulations, and one of them is no parking 20 feet within an intersection. Correct. And many residents think they're far enough back or may not be quite familiar and say, hey, I'm a good distance. I'm a car length away from this intersection. And they're getting tagged, Mr. President. So we know Park Method is doing their job. But I'd like to at least be able to get notification out to residents that there is no parking at any intersection within 20 feet of that intersection. And that's throughout the entire city.
[Michael Marks]: Something. Signage, yellow paint, just to notify residents, as well as keep the streets safe.
[Michael Marks]: I'd like to make an amendment, but I'd also, I don't know how we do it as a council, but I think it would be great to notify the public on some of these issues that I'm hearing around the community. And one of them is parking within 20 feet of an intersection. And again, as we probably all hear, parking too close to the apron of a driveway. I get a lot of calls regarding cars that are parking right up in thickly settled neighborhoods, right up to a driveway, and it makes it increasingly difficult to get into your own driveway. And I believe you have to park, I think it's two or three feet, I can't recall, I think it's three feet from the apron of a driveway. And that's seldom enforced, but it's also an issue too, Mr. President. And I think these reminders to the public to let them know that these are rules and regulations that are out there to benefit everyone are helpful.
[Michael Marks]: So I'm not sure how we get that out other than me just mentioning it now. But I'm not sure how we get that out.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: The one stipulation with Park Method, they only enforce streets that have resident permit parking. So the other several hundred streets in the city that don't have it, don't get that type of enforcement. So I think we have to have a consistent policy, whether you're on a resident permit parking street or not, where these infractions are enforced. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Mayor Lungo-Koehn for presenting this joint resolution. I also would like to thank the Greater Boston Food Bank, as well as Project Bread and our very own Method Food Security Task Force for doing yeoman's work on this subject. The question I have, and maybe this is for our own task force, is that the 2019 food plan goals Is that how we're going to arrive at making method hunger free over the next several years? And if so, if you could describe, I know there's some broad strokes listed, removal of systematic barriers to food security, improved access to food assistance programs. How will this be done in order for us to move forward?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, thank you for that. I think part of the concern that I see is the fact that disseminating information out to the public, and how do we get into the circles where we may have a larger need? And I'm not sure quite how to do that, to be honest with you, and maybe we can do some brainstorming. In my other life, I work with homeless families. And I can tell you right now that probably a majority, if not all, of our families that we service through the Department of Housing and Community Development do have food insecurities. And the Greater Boston Food Bank has done tremendous work in assisting 3,600 families currently right now. that the state houses to get them off the street. And in my opinion, when you end food insecurity, you also need to end homelessness. And they go hand in hand.
[Michael Marks]: You know, I've been on this council, uh, 18 years and I could tell you over the last year or two, I received more phone calls from people that are living out of their car that lived in the city, can no longer afford to live here, but maybe in their car living in the cemetery or behind the mall, and it's happening more and more. And it's really at a point right now that I think we as a community have to step up and address this issue that for years maybe just went under the radar. But I'm seeing it more and more, I'm fielding the phone calls now. And I think we should work in conjunction with your task force as well as any other agency that would like to step up and assist our homeless families that are coming from the city. These aren't people that are just moving into the community. These are families that have lived here for many years that all of a sudden, because of the economy, they can't keep up and they become homeless. And it's at an epidemic proportion right now. But I appreciate all the work you're doing. I do support this and will support this tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the vaults, in particular vault 8 and 10.
[Michael Marks]: Any time frame when that work will start?
[Michael Marks]: And roughly, what's the length of those two vaults?
[Michael Marks]: Two weeks?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And isn't there a way of checking for ledge before you start to dig?
[Michael Marks]: And depending on the type of ledge, would that include blasting?
[Michael Marks]: And residents notified when that type of jackhammer was?
[Michael Marks]: So if any of that takes place on vault 8 or 10, there'll be ample notification of area residents?
[Michael Marks]: Do you guys do any video of people's homes and so forth if they're in close proximity?
[Michael Marks]: The other question I had, currently within the MOU, there's some language in there that states if there's any city utilities that are either over or under your transmission wire, if they're cast iron or so forth, that you would replace them. Is that not correct?
[Michael Marks]: OK. Has any of that happened to date?
[Michael Marks]: But you are working over and under our utilities, correct? Yes. And you haven't seen anything to date that needs to be replaced? No. Now, replaced meaning you see something actively leaking or you see something actively wrong? Is that when you see it?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but just the mere fact that it may be a cast iron pipe, water cast iron pipe, is that? From my reading of the MOU that I have in front of me, signed by the city solicitor, it states that, this is bullet point three. It says, in addition to surface reconstruction, Eversource should upgrade city-owned underground utilities that are in close proximity. For example, a minimum, a bucket width of five feet to their new transmission main and or for those utilities that cross over under the transmission main. So are you saying that only if you see something actively wrong with the pipe that you would bring it to the city's attention? Correct. So you don't think that there's a responsibility to replace anything that you cross over or under?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Mr. President, I'd like to get just a response from the city solicitor. Regarding bullet point three in the MOU for March 9, 2017, that was signed by City Solicitor Rumley. Just if we can get clarification on the responsibility of Eversource when they cross over our utilities.
[Michael Marks]: I am good for now, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Paper 20-054 offered by Vice President Caraviello and President Falco. Be it resolved that the city administration develop a pilot program to resurface a portion of our roads using recycled asphalt. Vice President Caraviello. What's up with this thing now?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Vice President Caraviello. President Falco.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion for approval, Councilor Knighton. That's all I know.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: So if I could, from the chair, I agree that funding would be an issue. And the Chapter 90 money is very limited. I think it's about $980,000 a year we receive. However, there is linkage money that's out there. You would know better than I, Mr. President, how much money is left in that account. But I would tend to say, as Councilor Knights mentioned, if we could take that equipment and do it in-house, We go from doing one or two streets to many streets, and I realize the upfront cost, but it may be worth looking at. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Bierce.
[Michael Marks]: Hey, you know, on the original paper 20-054 and the BPAS amended by Councilor Bears to ask the state delegation to increase our Chapter 90 funds. All those in favor? Aye. The clerk just corrected me. We'll do the B paper first.
[Michael Marks]: Amended B paper by Councilor Bears, that we ask the Speaker of the House and the Senate President to increase the City of Medford's Chapter 90 funds. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. On the original paper, 20-054. Offered by Councilor President Falco, Vice President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Morell. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the paper is approved. Paper 20-055 offered by Vice President Caraviello and President Falco. Be it resolved that the city administration develop a pilot program to repair our trip and hazard sidewalks by saw cut repair instead of grinding. Council Vice President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion for approval by President Falco and Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Organization to discuss the impact that this would have on their bargaining unit On the motion as amended by councillor night that The mayor meet with the collective bargaining units to see if there's any impact of this particular Motion all in favor I opposed guys have it the motion is adopted I
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilor Knight hit the nail on the head. John was a staple in this community for many years. He was one of the founders with local community access, ran a show for a number of years, and the one thing I remember about John He never held any words back. He'd tell you exactly where you stood with him, whether you liked it or not. And he will be sorely missed, Mr. President. And I'd like to dedicate this meeting, if it's all right with my council colleague, after John Baez.
[Michael Marks]: John Baez.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Peters. Councilor Marks. Thank You mr. President also, and I want to thank councillor Scarpelli for his work on this in this follow-through If we could just track whether or not our resolutions from several months back This council put together a laundry list of resolutions that were supposed to be sent to the Traffic Commission Can we just have maybe the city clerk follow up? I'm being told that some of them may have not made it that far and
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so right a Letter may have gone to the chief, but I'm not sure I'm not sure that they acted upon any of our requests So I just want to make sure and reiterate that. I'm glad to hear about the bond bill, but honestly I've been hearing a lot of things about the bond bill. Like there's money there in the bond bill, but somehow it just doesn't go anywhere. But I'm pleased to see that they are looking into it. But I'm going to be cautiously optimistic, because I've been there, done that with the bond bills.
[Michael Marks]: on a suspension Councilor Marks uh... thank you mister president i i just want to bring up the fact that uh... the massachusetts creators award uh... recently recognized uh... local uh... cable entities throughout the state uh... for uh... television and media within uh... the state of massachusetts and uh... method community media was nominated for their work in the 2019 Method Mayoral Debate live from Chevalier. And this was an event coverage category at this year's Mass Creator Awards. And the event category is for any citywide event covered for television, either live or taped. And unfortunately, we did not win. But the fact that we were mentioned, Mr. President, in a community access station that has one full-time employee. That's Patrick Gordon, he's the station manager. Other surrounding communities have three, four, upwards of nine. I believe Somerville Community Television has about nine full-time employees, Mr. President. And Patrick runs the station. He's done an admirable job with very little resources there. And trying to attract Method residents to get involved. It's community access. But I would personally like to thank him for his efforts and thank the station volunteers for their efforts on being nominated for the category of live event and being nominated. And maybe next time we'll win, Mr. President. I want to thank Patrick Gordon. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Present.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, after we've done signing, can we take paper 20-048?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Morell for bringing this up. I remember last year's discussions and at the time I believe it was two or three people that took advantage of the tax deferral program. And at the time when we were discussing of raising the income levels and also lowering the interest rate, we thought by taking a step by lowering it from 8% to 5%, we'd see if we attracted more people. Was that more attractive to people that possibly wanted to do a deferral? And I think it's too soon to tell now, but over the next several months, We should see if that was somewhat successful. And I agree the next logical step is increasing the income levels. So I agree with that. I also want to put out there that this is one of several programs that seniors could take advantage of. The other program that we have is the state circuit breaker tax credit program. And that's been around for a number of years. It's 100% through the state. So it's not a city run program. And based on how it works is when your tax bill exceeds 10% of your total income, you qualify. So it's 10% of your total income, you qualify this for this particular program. And for the tax year 2019, the amount that you would qualify for is $1,130. So if any senior out there, is interested, you have to apply for it when you do your taxes, which are coming up. This is an ideal time to do it. And that's when you would apply for this through the state. And you would have to follow their rules and regulations. But that more or less is, in a nutshell, how do you apply for it and who's eligible. The other one is the regular statutory exemptions that we have currently in this city right now for, I believe, veterans, disabled, the blind, and also seniors. And there may be another one. I think there may be five or six exemptions. And the one that I'm speaking about, Mr. President, this council back many years ago, through my resolution, lowered the age from 70 to 65, which actually helped thousands of people take advantage of it, that five-year gap. And that's something I'm proud of that we did many, many years ago to help seniors in this community. But the senior exemption, Mr. President, and this is something we have to look up. It's set up statutorily. So we can't raise the income levels, but we can ask our state delegation, which we ask a lot of things, if they would look at it on a state level, Mr. President, because depending on where you live, in Massachusetts, these income levels are way out of whack. So for instance, your income to be eligible for the senior statutory property tax exemption is not to exceed $24,758 if you're single or $37,137 if you're married. So those are the two income levels that you can't exceed to be currently eligible for a $1,000 exemption in the city of Medford. The one nice thing about this program is we get paid for a portion of what we give in exemption back by the state through our cherry sheets. So we actually get something in back. So actually, we should be promoting this for our seniors. They're getting $1,000, and we're also getting somewhat reimbursed. So we're not fully losing out the $1,000 on our tax roll. So it's a win-win for the resident and also for the city, Mr. President. And also, there's the income level I just mentioned. And regarding estates, you cannot exceed, if you're single, $40,000 in estate revenue or worth and $55,000 for married. And this does not count your domicile. So it does not count where you live. So if you have other assets and so forth that are above the $40,000 for single and $55,000, that's also another criteria. But this program, I believe hundreds of Medford residents, I can't remember the last count, take advantage of this program every year, Mr. President, and count on it because of the way taxes are going up. But as I mentioned at the beginning, $24,000. If someone's making $24,000 and they want to rent in the city of Medford, you wouldn't be renting in the city of Medford. You wouldn't be able to afford anything else but possibly your rent. So these numbers are way out of whack. Maybe if you're living out in Fall River or maybe in Springfield, that may swing it for a single person out there. Who knows? Maybe not. But around here, it doesn't, Mr. President. And I would ask that we as a council, because this has been an issue for years, and it does go up incrementally every year. So it went up from last year, it was 24,000, it might have been 24,100 rather than 24,700. So it does go up a certain percentage every year, but it's not enough to be eligible to the masses, which I think in this day and age we all want to get to because many seniors like my mother and many other mothers in here, they may be property rich, but they're money poor. They don't have the fluidity of having money. They have a house that's worth something they bought years and years ago, but they don't have the cash to pay for the taxes and everything else that goes up. The cable bill and you name it, everything goes up every year. So these are important things that seniors that are low income, seniors in our community need to take advantage. And if we can do anything, like Councilor Morell mentioned, about increasing the income and asset levels, I think we should be promoting that. So I want to thank the Council.
[Michael Marks]: I can hear what Dr. Streller is mentioning. At this point, because there's only two households taking advantage of this, what we're trying to do, doctor, is increase the number of participants by lowering the interest rate from 8% to 5%, making it more attractive, by increasing the income levels to make it more attractive. And by the way, that dollar a piece that you're talking about, has to be realized every year, but we're also getting an interest off this. So the people that are doing the deferment, if you have roughly an $8,000 tax rate, you're going to be paying $400 eventually when you settle up on that every year. So really, it's going to come back. It's not really paid out by the people that aren't taking the deferment because we're gonna get it back through the deferral. But what we're trying to do is increase the number of people. So right now, you're right, it's marginal because there's only two people taking advantage. But that's not the intent, to keep it marginal.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I hate to say it, but here we go again. This was a promise that was made back in 2014 when then Mayor McGlynn signed the parking contract enforcement with Republic Parking. And at the time when they were rolling out this program, because it was considered to be somewhat detrimental to the business districts because of the new parking regulations and could have possible impact to business and so forth. could possibly deter people from using our business districts. At the time, Mayor McGlynn offered, and I sat on the committee, the parking enforcement committee at the time, offered an olive branch to the Chamber of Commerce saying that $250,000 would be used from the enforcement money received, and that would be $50,000 for each of the five business districts. That's where it came, all came out of. And over the last several years, I've brought this up a half a dozen times. So if you heard this once, you'll hear it again and again, questioning where is this money? Where is it sitting? How come it hasn't been allocated to the different business districts? I know many of them, such as Medford Square. Salem Street Business Association, West Medford Business Association, have met with their membership, have discussed improvements they'd like to see in the neighborhood, have taken these improvements back to the city administration, and for the last five years, nothing has happened. So you can feel the sense of frustration, not only with the business owners, but us as a council, because I'm not the only one that has spoken about this, Mr. President. So, you know, and over the last few years I've heard, well, that was a commitment by the former mayor, and it doesn't mean the next mayor would carry it out, or that was just a one-year commitment. So I've heard a lot of different scuttlebutt. And if you look at Method Patch, dated October 2014, The article is New Parking Enforcement in Medford. It states, Mayor Michael J. McGlynn signed the parking enforcement contract with Republic Parking System on Tuesday. The city of Medford hopes the new enforcement will benefit the business districts. About $250,000 of revenue collected each year will go to improving the business districts. So that's one. That's the Medford patch. So they must have heard it somewhere. City website, I assume someone from the city typed this in, dated October, again, 2014. And it says Medford signs parking enforcement contract. After deliberating and discussing concerns raised by the business community, Mayor McGlynn is recommending the following changes to the plan. I'm not going to read all the changes. But this is one of them, Mr. President. Recommended 250,000 of revenue generated on a yearly basis, yearly basis, to be dedicated to the business district improvements. So based on what Mayor McGlynn offered back in 2014, we're looking at, because this was the end of 2014, right now we're looking at five years of backlog. So that's $1,250,000 that was promised to the business districts. They have yet to receive one red cent. And they've done a lot of work in their subcommittees putting together plans, Mr. President. So I bring this up tonight for a number of reasons. The fact that we have a new administration. And I believe Mayor Lungo-Koehn is fully on board with this, Mr. President. But I bring it up to revitalize this and to start the dialogue again with the Chamber of Commerce to get this going, Mr. President. You can go into any one of our business districts, and they need attention. They all need attention. And I'm not pointing the finger at anyone. They need attention, whether it's sidewalks, barrels, you name it, Mr. President, lighting, anything that would increase traffic, increase viability in the business districts. And the money was there. So tonight I'm asking, Mr. President, where is the money over the past five years? So Mayor McGlynn gave the commitment. I'm not sure because Mayor Burke never really gave a response when I asked this over the last four years, other than the fact that the business districts were working on a proposal. So at this point, I'd like to know where the money is sitting, Mr. President, and I would respectfully ask, under this new administration, Mayor Lungo-Koehn, that this money, Mr. President, as soon as the plans are presented, be given out. And even if we start off with the original commitment of $250,000 and move forward, I think we'd all be fine with that. And I think the chamber, I won't speak for them, I think they would be very happy to start that off, Mr. President. And like I said, they have plans. They did their homework. They know what improvements they'd like to see. Whether it's benches, there was a lot of things mentioned. Power washing sidewalks, putting new lighting, putting some decorations in certain areas. So new sidewalks in areas that could use it. So that's my resolution tonight, Mr. President. I know Mayor Lungo-Koehn's going to follow up with this. And I feel comfortable moving forward that that commitment that was made in 2014 to the business districts will be kept, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This has been, as Councilor Knight alluded to, a long ongoing issue in the community regulating these drop boxes. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for doing the homework and research on it. I think it's a magnificent idea. I would also recommend, in addition to what Councilor Knight mentioned about those amendments which were a concern, because we don't want to impact fundraising and so forth of any type of school facility and so forth. But these boxes at the very least, Mr. President, should have some type of ID tag on them. Who owns it? Who operates it? A contact number? There's nothing on these boxes at all.
[Michael Marks]: No, I just wanted to make those points that at the very least, Mr. President, like I mentioned last time this was brought up, we regulate dumpsters. If you're doing some home improvement and you want to get a dumpster, we not only regulate it, we charge you a fee, but someone could pop up a dumpster in any open lot outside. The one on the Fells where I keep referring to because I drive by it all the time, there are five boxes out there now. It's not about one medium-sized box, there's a large, Giant box out there with four small ones. Looked like it had babies. Four smaller boxes now. And there's stuff all over the place out there. And people are constantly dropping things off. You go out there, anytime there's always items out there. And it's a safety issue, Mr. President. What if a little kid climbs in one of these boxes? You know, we have no way of getting in these. We have no way of, no contact. We don't know who's operating them. It's a real safety concern. Absolutely. I want to thank Councilor Caraviello. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I'll offer it at the time of the committee meeting, so no, no.
[Michael Marks]: Actually, Councilor Bears just reiterated what I was going to state. I was wondering if Councilor Penta was aware of any community that did have a moratorium that a 40B project was not allowed at.
[Michael Marks]: And that stopped a potential 40B project?
[Michael Marks]: But was there a 40B project offered during that period of time?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you, Max. Is it two goals? Mm-hmm.
[Michael Marks]: You have to wear that proudly around your neck. Sure. If I had one of those, I would never take it off. Believe me. I'd like to thank you personally for representing our city so well. And I wish you well in your future endeavors. And I can tell you there's a local sports team, the Boston Bruins, that can use a goal scorer. So don't stop here. Keep moving forward.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week, Mr. President, there was a meeting held here at City Hall regarding the 5G network and potential installation in this community by Verizon. Verizon has petitioned the city for, from my understanding, at least three to four dozen locations within the community to add these small cell networks. throughout the community, and we received a letter which I've already read into the record several weeks back from Verizon, dated December 10th, 2019, to then-Mayor Stephanie Burke regarding their applications. And I won't read the whole letter, but more or less the letter is stating that method is in current violation. of the FCC rules and regulations which requires the city of Medford after 60 days to either approve or deny small cell applications. Verizon went on to say that they would be willing to give us an extension until January 20th. And I am not sure which I will be asking tonight. where the city stands with these current applications. But for tonight's purpose, Mr. President, I received a number of phone calls and emails from area residents. This has been an issue that I've been on top of for the last several months. And many residents who reached out were concerned not only with a number of issues related to 5G, but also the potential health impact it could have on residents in this community. So tonight, Mr. President, I will be offering a motion tonight. But I would like to go through, which was provided to me by a number of residents. One being Jay Ritchie, who I think is in the audience here, Mr. President, provided this council along with the mayor with an abundance of information regarding health impacts, ordinances in other cities and towns throughout the United States, and also actions taken by local legislatures throughout the United States as well. But, Mr. President, local ordinances note various purposes for ordinances, such as preserving visual character, protecting environmental resources, and protecting residents against adverse health effects. They take a variety of approaches, such as prohibiting small cells in certain areas, creating application and recertification fees, and imposing aesthetic and administrative requirements. Under location ordinance suggestions, Mr. President, and what I'm hoping to do tonight is just to start the dialogue because the mayor, in her wisdom, Mayor Burke, when we were approached with these requests originally, there was no city ordinance that governed these. And I think the mayor did a tremendous job at the time for what resources that she had. She created an administrative policy that would govern the approach to applying for an application and how the city would handle it. And also the creation of what the city refers to as the method ad hoc small cell committee, which is the granting authority. and they may have put together a several page policy, but in my opinion, it was good for the time that it was presented, but it doesn't go far enough. to add the protections that we need as a community and to have a full-fledged ordinance because Verizon is going to be the first of many vendors that will be before us. And you can count on that. So getting back to the local ordinances, location suggestions. Prohibiting small cell installations in residential areas. Requiring installations to be certain distance away from residences, schools, hospitals, Specifying that installations must be relocated when they would interfere with public projects. Aesthetics and environment ordinances. These are just a suggestion. Aesthetic design, noise requirements such as co-location, camouflage, height, and light limits. The administrative legal suggestions for ordinances. Requiring that residents who will be within a certain distance of an installation be notified. instating automatic time limits for permits, requiring annual recertification fees, requiring permittees to defend and indemnify the city for many liabilities arising from permits in the installation, operation, and maintenance of small cell installations, reserving the right to hire independent consultants at the applicant's expense. What was presented to us, Mr. President, and there were several states, but the state of New Hampshire has proposed a bill which would establish a commission to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology. The state of Montana has proposed a joint resolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives urging Congress to amend 1996 Telecommunications Act to account for health effects. So those are two proposals, Mr. President, that I will be offering tonight that we ask our state delegation submit on behalf of the city of Medford and on behalf of the Commonwealth, because we're not the only city in the Commonwealth that's struggling with this issue. Mr. President, as we all know, this is an FCC regulation, and in my opinion, they really do tie the hands of local government to act. And one thing we can act upon is creating an ordinance that will safeguard our residents and also re-insure that When these installations if and when they do get approved that all the measures are in place mr. President that safeguards our residents So that will be what I'm offering tonight One resolution, I would like to offer now mr. President is be it resolved that the method City Council approve a resolution asking state lawmakers the Federal Communications Commission in Congress to limit 5G technology deployment in Massachusetts until the health effects are fully understood. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I can say, Mr. President, many residents that I spoke to, no one's against new technology. No one's against advancements in technology. No one's against having our residents not have the technology that would enable them to use their devices and all sorts of angles and aspects and so forth. But what we are against, Mr. President, is moving forward without getting the proper answers. I have asked several times, I was here at the meeting that Verizon held, and Verizon will be the first to come out and say there are no health concerns that they are aware of. And I got that from every representative. However, when you go on the internet, you'll see experts saying there are concerns. So this is no different than a trial when you have two experts, they may be physicians or accountants, say two completely different things. And on behalf of our residents, Mr. President, we should proceed with caution. And if that caution is that we take a while to explore this issue and make sure that it's safe, these devices are going to be within 200, 300 feet of residents' homes. They're going to be in backyards where kids are playing, close to parks, close to schoolyards, close to churches. So we have to make sure that we do our due diligence, Mr. President, when it comes to creating the ordinance. The second thing, Mr. President, I'd like to bring up is I happen to have bumped into recently a former member of the Burlington Selectmen. And the town of Burlington, I would tell anyone interested in this subject, they should really go on their website. They have an application process, Mr. President, that is literally probably 10 pages long. And it's a very in-depth process that makes these particular vendors jump through many hurdles in order to proceed. And from what I've been told by the town of Burlington is there was enough hurdles that they got tired jumping over hurdles. And the application process is equally, Mr. President, which I have equally as Cumminson, these design rules and regulations, which is about a 20-page report that was issued by the town of Burlington. Very in depth, Mr. President. And then there was a number of correspondence back and forth from attorneys that were hired to discuss the issue on behalf of the town in Verizon, which I won't get into tonight, Mr. President. I would like to just briefly mention that some of the things that we should be looking at as a community, And this is not unique to Method, but prior to any installation, a structural analysis should be completed to ensure the pole can handle the additional equipment. That should be the very first thing either in our policy, which is not there currently, or in our city ordinance. The city should ask about a host agreement. When we sign on, Mr. President, to anything happen in this community, the first thing that we usually do is sign a host agreement to make sure that if there are any issues that arise from this, that the city of Medford will be covered. There should be an agreement in place that requires the removal of these systems when obsolete. Right now, you can go down any street in our community, Mr. President, and you see dishes They're on the side of homes. I have one across the street from me. It's a two-family, but they have three dishes that have been disconnected for years. It's just a blight, an eyesore, and there should be a provision in there when they become obsolete, no longer useful, that they be removed, Mr. President. I realize they're on private property, but I feel strongly about that. And this is no different. These will be located on public property. and public right-of-ways, but when they're no longer useful, they should have a plan to remove them. The city should establish design rules and regulations that I won't get into, similar to what the town of Burlington did, as well as the application to ensure compliance with city policy. Verizon should also provide the city with a long-range plan, including future expansion. We should not be subjected to the one and twosies of these, Mr. President. Last I spoke to the city engineer, I believe he said there were three or four dozen applications, and there possibly could be upwards to 100 from what he's being told. And I believe at the very least, as a community, we should know what their intent is. Is the intent to put 100? We should know the locations offhand, Mr. President, and we should know if they are the only ones that are gonna be doing this in the community, because in my opinion, they're not gonna be the only ones. Verizon should also provide a public health, I'm sorry, public health concerns be addressed by an independent study. So that would be, Mr. President, the city requesting, I know Verizon has done their studies on health and the impact and effects of 5G on residents and so forth, but the city should have its own independent study so therefore we can rely on valid information from a neutral party and not someone that's trying to make a dollar. And I wish them no I wish them no animosity, Mr. President, but our job as residents of city council is to ensure the public safety of this community. And this truly is a public safety issue. The second point, maybe the third point by now, Mr. President, is that several weeks back, the city, actually probably more than several weeks now, the city had its own public hearing. And that was conducted by the ad hoc small cell committee. And the correspondence that went out to residents at the time, and I know this has been expanded since, Ashcroft Road, Dutton Circle, Cedar, Lawrence Road, they received a letter from the city that did not really specify the location. They received a letter, Mr. President, that wasn't signed. They received a letter that called for a public hearing at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. making no consideration for people working, people with kids, people that need childcare, people that may not be able to get there, Mr. President. There was no copy or scope of the project within this letter. And they did adhere to the mayor's policy about notification. And that was to notify residents within 300 feet of the installation. As we both know, 300 feet would be here to probably the far back of the chamber and maybe a little further outside, Mr. President, in the hall. It's not much notification to a neighborhood. I requested, along with this council, it was unanimous, that we increase the notification to at least 500 feet. That was passed unanimously by this council. That any other future mailings that go out that the specific location be mailed along with a copy of the site plan by Verizon, and that all public hearings take place after 5 p.m. so that we can have more resident involvement. That was sent to the city administration back, I think it was a month and a half, two months ago. And, uh, I am not sure if the mayor, mayor Burke at the time, uh, updated the policy that was under her prerogative. And that's why I think we need a city ordinance. So, uh, I look forward, Mr. President, uh, to sending word out to our state delegation in the form of, um, If we want to do council resolution, asking that state delegation. Bear with me one second. The state delegation, our state delegation establish a commission to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology. So that's the second resolution. And the third resolution is that our state delegation offer before the House of Representatives and also the State Senate, which would include Senator Jalen, urging Congress to amend the Telecommunication Act 1996, of 1996. To account for health effects. So those would be the three resolutions I'd like to offer tonight, Mr. President, as well as you reconvening a meeting so we can start diligently working on our own ordinance to safeguard residents. And I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say and also residents in the community, Mr. President. Last week's meeting, I also thought was going to be a question answer type meeting. I know there were a lot of residents that were upset. It was more of a just an informational meeting where you can walk around and talk to representatives. And I'm not sure you're quite going to get that out of tonight's meeting, but I'm hoping after tonight's meeting we will invite Verizon down, we will invite the Method Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee, who is the granting authority. We will invite the mayor down, Mr. President, and have our own public hearing here so residents can ask Verizon the tough questions. And this council, as well as the mayor, as well as this Ad Hoc Committee, can be on the same page. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Every petition comes with a start date. So the date commences when the 60 day period starts. So the first batch, and I'm not sure how many were in the first batch, the date that we had as a city was December 20th to act upon it. Verizon came back because the city did not act and said, okay, we'll give you another 30 days, which brought it to January 20th. Now, I'm under the impression they still need approval from the city of town, from this ad hoc committee that was created by the mayor. And when that's gonna happen, we can ask the city engineer who happens to chair that committee what his thoughts are. But as far as I know, it doesn't just automatically get approved.
[Michael Marks]: Do you prefer separate votes on these? I prefer separate just in case they all get sent, and then they all. Different directions.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'm not sure if I've asked already, but I would request that this council have a public hearing, and invite a state delegation, the mayor of the city of Medford, the Medford Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee, Verizon, our city solicitor, and Congresswoman Clark. At a public hearing here, Mr. President, at the earliest that you can call for that and get all the parties together to discuss 5G.
[Michael Marks]: The last one? Yes. So the last one was that the state delegation proposed a joint resolution of the Senate and the House urging Congress to amend the Telecommunication Act of 1996 to account for health effects.
[Michael Marks]: C paper. So it would be that a state delegation proposed a bill which would establish a commission to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology.
[Michael Marks]: And the B paper is a resolution from this council. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council approve a resolution asking our state delegation, the Federal Communications Commission, and Congress to limit 5G technology deployment in Massachusetts until the health effects are fully understood.
[Michael Marks]: And that's the creation of a public hearing? Correct.
[Michael Marks]: That is correct, and I appreciate that clarification. It's a public meeting, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues, Vice President Caraviello and Councilor Knight for signing on to this. All of us that behind this reel, Mr. President, can appreciate the work. that Carol has done over four decades. And you couldn't meet a kinder, gentler person. Always has a smile on her face and willing to help. And anyone that could stay in this city service for 40 years deserves a recommendation, Mr. President, of great service, believe me. So I want to commend her and thank her personally for her many years of city service. And I think we should dedicate this meeting after Carol for all the years of service, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Gerard was a true family man that lived in this community for a number of years. Again, someone that always had a smile on his face and was willing to lend a hand if need be. He is also the father of our superintendent, Dr. Maurice Edouard Vincent. And he will surely be missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with the intent. I'm not quite sure an executive order, uh, would be the Avenue. Um, and the reason why I say that is traffic commission is set up by state statute and they're an autonomous, as the councilor mentioned, an autonomous body. And I'm not sure enough executive directive can change that. Um, but I think it's, worthy to ask, or maybe you can ask more of a general question, if the mayor would be willing to reach out to the different boards and commissions to see if she can get a buy-in. But either way, I support it. I believe strongly that, as my council colleagues mentioned, that these meetings should be open to everyone to attend, and during the day is just not adequate enough. So I support it.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. There were a lot of great ideas and priorities brought up during this meeting. The one thing that I am grateful, and I believe you were the first to bring it up, were the pre-budget meetings. Thank you. Because for many years, we were, as a council, I believe, and I won't speak for everyone, but I think there was a sense of frustration once we got the budget. It was already in ink. And our only authority was really to cut from the bottom line and not to offer suggestions, like I think many of us have, on ways of improving how government operates. And I think it's very helpful that Mayor Lungo-Koehn now is talking about us looking at the budget and potentially April, which has never happened in my 18 years on the council. And I look forward to actually a preview of the budget where we can have some input before it goes into final status on obtaining some of the priorities and important measures that we see as a body. There's seven of us. You know, we're out in the streets, we're listening to constituents, we receive the same emails and phone calls, and what better advice or counsel to have than members of this council when you are putting together the budget. And that has never happened since I've been on this council. And I look forward under your leadership, along with this new mayor, to actually sit down around the table and discuss not only the mayor's priorities, but our priorities and how do we incorporate that in a budget process.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. The pilot, in lieu of taxes, has been an issue on my plate since I got on the council. And actually, when I first got on the council, the city of Medford didn't have a program at all. And it was at my urging that the mayor back then, Mayor McGlynn, signed the first pilot program, and it was a 10-year program. And you're absolutely right. There was actually no input from the public at all. It was an agreement between the president of Tufts and the mayor of Medford and nothing else. So I look forward to the establishment, to be quite honest, of a commission that would be involved, would get public input, and not only in the payment end of it, but also as the city of Boston. The city of Boston has, as you may know, has a full-fledged pilot program. And they actively go out and solicit, because you can't make it mandatory. Pilot payment is voluntary. And they go out and they actively solicit non-profits. And depending on the size of the non-profit, they have all different criteria on what they seek out. And we really don't have any of that in this community. We have a number of small ones. I believe Harvard Vanguard pays a pilot in the community, as well as Tufts. But there are other organizations, Mr. President, that may be able to assist. the community when asked. And you don't know unless you have a program set up and you don't know unless you ask. So I agree with this endeavor and I hope that we can establish, I'm not sure, I think we as a council could meet and committee the whole subcommittee and try to put something together as well as having the city solicitor draft an ordinance. But I think it could be under our purview, Mr. President, to create something that works for not only the nonprofits in the city and the residents, but also the city as a whole. So I support this.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli offering this. It was Councilor Knight, I think you mentioned two or three months ago, that brought up this similar resolution. And prior to that, I happened to live just right across the street and received a number of complaints over the last several years, Mr. President. I tried to reach out to the owner of the property. I had little success. I don't remember receiving, three months ago we asked for an update from code enforcement, as well as the Board of Health. Mr. Clerk, if I am mistaken, I haven't seen any response regarding the bin on the Fellsway, Mr. President. Many cities and towns that regulate them, which we do not, will require on the side of the bin that the owner operator's name be listed, a contact number, the size of the bin. These could be very dangerous in nature, these bins, Mr. President. It sounds harmless, but that Fells Plaza has seen a number of bins that have just been dropped off. So you'll have an entity that just drops off a bin, they don't ask for approval, and all of a sudden they're in business. The one in the Fellsway is manned at least six days a week. They have staffing there. It's a full-fledged business that they're running out of the parking lot. So we really have to regulate this, Mr. President. I think that's where it starts. We have to regulate these particular bins. We have to know who the contact is. If it's not the owner of the property, Mr. President, as far as I'm concerned, that bin shouldn't be there. So these are the things I think we have to have discussions regarding, and you're right. It's not just clothing, it's old computers, it's furniture. You have to see what's left out there. It's a disgrace, and no one should have to live across the street from that. It attracts rodents and everything else. So I would ask, Mr. President, that if we don't receive a response from our administration, that we as a council put a cease and desist, even though it's not a legitimate business, because I don't think it's registered in this community, but we put a cease and desist on that particular bin, Mr. President, at that plaza. And then maybe we'll get some answers. So that would be my motion, Mr. President. If we haven't received any correspondence from the Board of Health or the Building Commissioner, their office, that we send a message to the building department today, tonight, that a cease and desist order be put on that particular bin that's out in the Fells Park parking lot.
[Michael Marks]: If he doesn't mind amending it. If not, we'll... Okay. So if we don't...
[Michael Marks]: Counsel marks. I don't recall seeing, I believe you offered that what, two months, three months ago. Oh, was it two months ago? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but just recently you also offered that it was your resolution that those bins be reviewed by billing department and also the Board of Health. And I don't recall seeing a response. Do we get a response?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but we never got a formal communication. Mr. President, and this has been an item for I can't tell you how long, so I would say that we as a council should send a message that we'd like to see a cease and desist until we can find out, Mr. President, what's happening down at that location. Why are things being left and strewn all over the place down there? Why is there a full-time staff six days a week? I mean, what's going on? Is it a regulated business that has staff? I mean, go down there any time, you'll see. They man it. They have someone that sits inside the bin itself. It's open for business. It's a legit business.
[Michael Marks]: It may have been on fire.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Council Knight.
[Michael Marks]: And is the owner of the property going to take responsibility if something happens there, Mr. President? These are all questions that need to be answered. Absolutely.
[Michael Marks]: Regular, I'm not I'm not asking to ban. I'm asking to regulate absolutely So so they're above board if you as a homeowner doing home improvement And you want to get a bin to empty your waste in that's heavily regulated in this community Heavily regulated and you charge for it as a homeowner But if you all of a sudden want to throw a bin in a parking lot and have it manned six days a week There's no regulations at all Doesn't make sense Thank You console marks
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, it was several months back when we had 200 residents from that area, the South Street area, come up when the may was looking to change the direction of South Street. And this is a two-part issue. The corner of Main and South is state property, and we understand that. And we've been going back and forth with the state regarding signalization and signage. But what Mr. Lamb is talking about is South Street, which is under the purview of the city of Medford. And that night, this council voted unanimously on several, like Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, several traffic calming initiatives, some being additional striping, some being signage, raised crosswalk. There were a number of things that were offered that night with the chief, Chief Buckley, that was in the room, Mr. President, and heard the discussion, heard the residents, heard this council. I can't say how disappointed I am, many months later, Not that the state didn't act, but that the city has not acted, Mr. President. And it's even more troubling when I drive around the city and see signs popping up everywhere, Mr. President, stop signs, pedestrian crossing signs, and that's great. But this area we've been talking about for years, Mr. President, for years, and we still couldn't get a sign erected after having 200 people come up here discussing the issue. What is it going to take? I don't understand what it takes to get something done. And we received no correspondence back. That's even more troubling, Mr. President. We can put out resolution after resolution after resolution. And if there's no follow through with this council, then what good is it? Really, we're spinning our wheels. We're going to be in here a year from now talking about the same issue. Mr. President, someone needs to dig up that vote that the council took and resend it to the Chief of Police and the Traffic Commission immediately, asking why hasn't this been done? Why hasn't it been done? The traffic commission has met several times since the residents came down. Is there an issue? Is there a problem that we should be concerned about? If not, these signs should have gone up. The weather has been permitting for the last couple of months. There's no excuses, Mr. President. Really, enough's enough. And this, you know, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I'm tired of talking about the same problems over and over and over again. We're wasting our time. We really are. And regarding the trucking route, really, it's the traffic commission that can do something about the trucking route. And it's an act of Congress to get it changed, just so you know, because you've got to go to the state and so forth. And they did it on Harvard and Salt Method. They changed that. It's no longer a trucking route. But that took, I think, about three and a half to four years of actively pursuing it and so forth and coming out with alternatives. And that was a real act. But that's really who would be responsible, the Traffic Commission. and you can get put on their agenda and so forth and speak on it. But I would just hate to see, Mr. President, when people come up here, They expect to get results and answers. That's why they come to the city council. And if we're just going to rubber stamp something and send it off to a department and no follow through to make sure things are actually getting done, then what good are we? Really? I'm part of it too. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone. What good are we if we can't get these basic things done? It makes no sense, Mr. President. So that should be sent out immediately. I don't know if it should come from you as the president of the council to reach out to the chief, or if the city clerk should send a correspondence first thing tomorrow. But I want to know what happened to all those votes. We spent three hours here, Mr. President, talking to residents. We heard 100 people testify, and then nothing got done. And we can't turn the finger at the state. This is a city problem. It's a city street. It's our traffic commission.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. Bob was a tremendous firefighter. I was just getting on the council when he was actually retiring, but he served with distinction this community and its residents for over 29 years, Mr. President. He served in engine two and engine six. And from what I hear from some of the firefighters that served with him, he was always there for an encouraging word. He was like the gatekeeper of every engine he was part of and was really the glue that held it together. And he will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I want to thank my council colleague for bringing this up. In addition, as he just alluded to, South and Main Street, that intersection has been in discussion with this council for as long as I've been on the council. And I believe we're at a bypass at this particular point because the state is saying that in order to do the signalization, you'll need to start from South Street and work your way all the way back. And it's going to cost them millions of dollars to do this. Just, I believe it was three or four days ago, there was a major, major accident at that very intersection in the city. And that happens almost daily from what I hear from residents. And I would ask again, as you know, we asked our state delegation to meet with DOT and so forth. I know Councilor Scott Pell has been very active in this issue, but to be quite frank, there's been very little movement, and even some of the issues that we spoke about, about adding possibly a raised crosswalk, adding some additional signage, things that don't really take into consideration the signalization that they're talking about, and would provide some increased safety in the area. We're looking at putting a brand new police station across the street, and it's one of the most dangerous areas in the city. I mean, and there's nothing being done to the surrounding infrastructure. We're spending millions of dollars on a new building, a new facility, but I wouldn't tell any residents to walk there because I don't trust crossing either way. And this is a major concern. So I would ask that as part of this recommendation that we also get an update from our state delegation and the Department of Transportation where we stand with the signalization on south of Maine, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you. Just to follow up, Mr. President, and I've been saying this for years, and I know some people don't like when I say it, but I'm going to continue to say it. We have a number of state roads in this community. And when we reach out as a council or the mayor reaches out, we expect to at least get a response in a timely manner. And that's not happening. South Street's a perfect example. We've been waiting 10 years probably even over 10 years, to get some type of relief there. And it's yet to come. In my opinion, if we as a community deem this as a public safety hazard, which we know we've received reports from the chief of the hundreds of accidents at that particular intersection, we should be able to intervene as a city and say, enough's enough. I don't care if it's a state road, a federal road, or a road from whoever. We're going to take care of it on behalf of our residents and our community. And it's not just that area, Mr. President. It's Elm Street. It's Middlesex Ave. It's sidewalks that the state refuses to come in and fix that's a trip and fall hazard. It's trees that they refuse to trim on their property that happen to be in front of people's homes that pay taxes in this community. So if I live in one of these streets that are a state road, I'm paying taxes to the city. It's very difficult to tell a resident, well, sorry, we as a city can't do anything, even though you're paying taxes to us, we have to wait for the state to step in. I think it's about time that we step in, Mr. President, and start making some of these changes. And let the cods fall where they may be. Let the state get upset about it. Maybe that'll create a new story, Mr. President, like you see happening now in the news, where some cities and towns are unable to fix these giant potholes and so forth, and some of these state roads, and the inaction. And that's a major concern, Mr. President. I'm tired of wasting time, to be quite frank, talking about the same issue year after year after year. And salt in Maine is a major, major concern. And this will be the year that we act, one way or another. We have to do something, Mr. President. We just can't keep on talking about it. Like I said, it was a major accident. And I believe there has been a fatality over there in the last several years as well, a pedestrian fatality. So this is well documented. So I just wanna put that in again, Mr. President. These are our roads and streets. They may be state under state jurisdiction, but they're our roads and our streets, our residents are crossing them, our residents are driving on them, and we have to maintain safety. And if the state's not willing to do anything, then we have to step up as a community. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, when this agreement was signed in 2014, it's my understanding that money was earmarked by the mayor at the time for different needs in the community, one being public safety, one being road improvements, and I believe there was something in there for arts and so forth, but it spelled out the particular needs in the community and what this money would go towards. And I'm not sure if every member of the council is aware of this particular document, but I think it would be helpful to provide the council with the document itself and to make sure that the money, when it's being appropriated, especially if it's not gonna require a council approval, that we know what it's being earmarked to. I can tell you firsthand that road improvements and public safety should be a top priority regarding this particular money. And I would just ask, is that still the case that the money was earmarked to particular needs in the community?
[Michael Marks]: Do you have that in front of you?
[Michael Marks]: And I agree, but it may be easier just maybe if we can.
[Michael Marks]: Do you have another copy to read off? Yeah, if you could just read off the needs, because there's some new members of the council, and I've been receiving a number of questions from different organizations in the community that said, geez, we thought that some of that money is supposed to be earmarked to arts or other needs in the community. And I want to be able to get back to these groups.
[Michael Marks]: And we haven't received any of this money as of yet, because it was based on the opening, correct?
[Michael Marks]: OK. And have we expended any money?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. How will we know about a complete accounting for this every fiscal year?
[Michael Marks]: Revenue fund, but will that also be part of the budgeting process? Not a part of the budgeting process. Can we make it part of the budgeting process? So at least every year we're Looking at it?
[Michael Marks]: Right. I just want to make sure that that's being followed, especially where this is new.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. I put on the agenda, it has to be over a year ago, money that was earmarked to the city that was supposed to go to the neighborhoods. from Tufts University, they bought some air rights over the train tracks. And at the time, the state didn't want to negotiate. They said, you can negotiate on our behalf regarding what you'd like to do with the money. And I've yet to get an accounting regarding, I think it was $425,000 or $500,000 on where that money has been spent. And I know you provided something, but it didn't say what it was spent on, where it was spent. It didn't say if it was spent in the neighborhoods. It didn't answer any of the questions.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But what I'm saying as a council, if we wanted to look back and say the 500,000 that was earmarked to the city of method for these purposes, did they go to these purposes and what was actually done? You can't find that out.
[Michael Marks]: Just so you know, I'm not pointing this at you, but I'm just pointing for the future that it's helpful that we have the ability to go back and say we received X number of dollars, it was earmarked for this, and we'd like to make sure it was spent on this and what was actually done. And I think moving forward, it's helpful to have those documents. And we, because we're not going to be responsible for the allocation anymore, I think at some process, and maybe even though it's not part of the budget process, that may be an ideal time to talk about these other accounts at that time to at least bring them up. Because if we don't bring them up, no one's going to be the wiser. And it's important that at least there's a second set of eyes taking a look at this. That's all I want to bring up.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah. Point of information, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Correct.
[Michael Marks]: And that committee was established by the administration, right? The previous administration? You are correct. Yes. Right.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So maybe similar to what's being done with that, we can maybe take a look and look at some of these other, like public safety and so forth, and do something similar, where it's not just a unilateral decision made by the administration, but comprised of a committee made up of maybe someone from the council and members of the community and department heads. And maybe that may be a similar approach. Because I agree, I'm always one for checking balances. I agree that anything that would tie the hands of future Councilors, I would not support either. But I think that may be a good option to have this money, maybe the new administration set up additional committees for each of the different topics that were discussed. And don't forget the original agreement that was signed, I believe it was signed by Mayor McGlynn back in 2014, that was As far as I was on the council, I don't remember any giant community outreach saying, hey community, how would you like to spend this million dollars a year for the next 50 years? That was done by the mayor when he negotiated this surrounding community agreement. And it was done in a vacuum, in my opinion. And so there wasn't a lot of outreach then. And maybe now the time is to bring in the community and say, what would we like to see this spent on, spent, how we'd like to see it spent. And maybe our needs have changed. And over time, they may change. And are we subject to this particular framework? for the next 50 years or are we able, do we have flexibility? Maybe it's not a question for you.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Okay. So, so maybe, uh, those discussions can be had. So I'm in favor of doing whatever the council would like to do if, if they want to maybe include, uh, maybe just a two year span in the home rule petition. Uh, they're easy enough to file. Uh, and so that would only cover our term and, if we're agreeable to that. So I'm open.
[Michael Marks]: So this is a request for a home rule petition by the city administration. Correct. So this is their home rule petition. We can't naturally just amend their petition, but what we can do is request that this amendment take place. And if the mayor decides to make this change, then submit it back to us for a vote. So I think we just have to make sure that what we're asking is that the administration changed the whole moon petition because it was initiated by the administration. So we just want to make sure it's a request to, to, to request to amend these, this current document. Right, right. And with the language, I agree with that. Correct.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. At many of the meetings that we had regarding the brewery ordinance, Allie Fisk from the city administration was one of the leads from the city side, and I believe she also served as the Liquor Commission's secretary of that commission, and she was very instrumental in getting some information for us and so forth. I would ask, Mr. President, whatever meeting that we do have, that we invite members of the Liquor Commission And they may be able to also shed some light with Councilor Caraviello just alluded to. And I believe we can move forward with all this information if we get it all around the table at the same time.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I'm pleased to see that my colleague, Councilor Knight, is thinking outside the box. I think this is healthy. The thing I would say, and I think Councilor Bears hit along many of the points that I was going to bring up, but, you know, the allowing for suspension to bring an item up is a council rule. So if the concern of this council is that council members are using the council rule to bring up something under suspension, then moving the night is secondary. If the issue is bringing stuff under suspension, let's get rid of the rule that allows us to bring stuff up under suspension. And let's discuss that issue. Because I agree with Councilor Bears. I would say out of the 22% that is part of this resolution, I'd say that 70% are condolences, potholes, and to fix a sidewalk that come up in our interaction between weekends and the next council meeting. And so I agree, I don't think there's any pressing issues that I've seen over the years that have come up under suspension. I find it helpful to have that ability. I've always been transparent in government and I'm not concerned about where I stand with transparency. I think we have to remember too that when people get an agenda, We may know what's on the agenda, we may have quick access as a council to documents, but the general public doesn't have that quick access. And we're limiting the amount of time that someone from the public can get access to documents and do their research. It's not just the council that research, it's members of the general public. And we're cutting in half the amount of time that we're giving people in the public to look at the agenda and research it. And also to get, which we may not consider, child care. So if the agenda comes out on a Monday and you say, jeez, I'd like to get up there on Wednesday, It doesn't give you a lot of time to put your ducks in line to be able to get the ability to be there. And I think having the extra few days gives you the ability to look at the agenda, gives you the ability to do the research, gives you the ability to get the childcare that you may need, and to me, It's been working that way. I don't see a real issue with the transparency issue regarding what's offered under suspension. I would be very mindful that if we want to keep part of the people in this process, remember, there's a lot of people that watch this meeting to get their news on what's happening in the community. There's a lot of people that count on the Tuesday night meeting. This meeting, from what I've been told by historians in this city, has been run on a Tuesday night since 1948. Now that's not a reason to keep it, right? Because we've always done it that way. But I think it's important that Tuesday nights have always been known, that's when the council meets. Monday night, the school committee. And the fact that City Hall changed their hours of operation some eight to 10 years ago, and now have extended hours on a Wednesday night, I don't think should have any bearing on us. I've never asked or requested, myself or any member of this council, a department head to come up to this meeting, and we've never got a response saying, oh, you guys meet on a Tuesday, we get out at 4.30 on Tuesday, sorry, can't make it. Never heard that happen. So I don't think that's another reason to say, well, we'll have more access to department heads. I like the idea, and if the idea is transparency, maybe we have to look at suspension. If that's the big issue, suspension of the rules, then maybe that's eliminate offering things under suspension. You know, I offer things on behalf of people in the community. They're not always things that I want to bring up. Someone may contact me last minute and say, hey, can you put this on the agenda or can you do this or that? So there's a lot of ways things find their way on the agenda. Maybe we can offer. you know, because we'll offer things that the clerk may have in his hands. So we may call the clerk and we'll get a paper in our packet of something that's under suspension. Maybe there's a way of disseminating that to the distribution list that goes out from the city clerk's office, right? Your distribution list has hundreds and hundreds if not a thousand names on it. Method residents they get the agenda there may be some other ways of doing it rather than change the night I think it's admirable if the council is looking for more public input which I look for and looking for transparency I'm not quite sure this provides that this Avenue Thank You mr. Thank You councillor marks
[Michael Marks]: Clerk Hurtubise.
[Michael Marks]: Absolutely.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This was tabled from, I think, last week. And I'm a little surprised that such a major change to our rules would be requested without at least going to the Rules Committee and have some discussion. So I am a little surprised that it's being moved forward tonight. However, that's under the druthers of the person offering the resolution. But I would like to say that I think at the very least, it should be sent for proper vetting to the Rules Committee. I am not going to support it based on what I mentioned tonight. If there are other options, I think they can be explored at Rule Committee, like Mr. Beers and Ms. Morell mentioned. Councilor Morell, and that would be the proper place to vet looking at other solutions maybe to this.
[Michael Marks]: the time here on the floor, but I think it's written. I thought it was a rule, and I'm not going to go through the rules, but I thought it was a rule that said there was a standing meeting Tuesdays. It used to be 730. We changed it back some years ago to 7 o'clock to accommodate more people. So I thought it was a standing rule. If it's not a standing rule, I thought it may have been part of the charter. There has to be something that calls for the meeting of the council. Point of information, Mr. President. So whether it's the charter, whether it's a standing rule, it has to be written somewhere. So I don't want to take time now to discuss it.
[Michael Marks]: that we meet Tuesday nights at 7 o'clock.
[Michael Marks]: I was always under the impression it was a two-thirds vote to change a rule.
[Michael Marks]: We have a committee of rules, right? There is a rules subcommittee. A rules subcommittee. I think that would be the appropriate party, but again, It's a motion on the floor, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Consular Scarpelli. Starting when, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Tomorrow. We adopted the standing rules. We're amending the standing rules. It will be effective next week.
[Michael Marks]: What about notification to the general public? What about... There's a lot more involved, Mr. President, than just changing a night. If we're talking about transparency, how do you change a night that's been established for 72 years and not be transparent about changing the night and alerting the general public?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. What do you say about a gentleman that served the residents of this community for 36 years in the law department? Mark was an outstanding city employee, an outstanding department head, a man of faith, a man of the law, and a true friend. It's something, Mr. President, that I think you should be very proud of. Because, as you know, behind this reel, in general, issues can be very contentious. And there have been a number of occasions that Mr. Rumley had to come up and represent issues on behalf of the administration, on behalf of the city, that may have been in conflict with the council, or certain members of the council. And he always did it in a way, Mr. President, that I think was strictly issue, it was never personal, and that's something I respected about him. And at the end of the day, you could put the issue aside, whatever side you were on, shake hands, and then go on being a friend. And I want to congratulate him on 36 years of exemplary service to this community. I wish him well on his retirement. I hope we'll be able to tap his vast knowledge and resource that he has gained over the 36 years. He started out as assistant city solicitor and worked his way into the city solicitor role. He's a true family man and I'm proud to call him my friend. And I just want to wish him well, Mr. President. And I know we dedicated this meeting, but I'd also like to dedicate this meeting on behalf of our friend, City Solicitor Mark Rumley, and wish him and his family well, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe the sidewalks are going to be replaced by Eversource when they get through Winthrop Street. So remember we discussed, I think that might be in the works. So that's actually a positive thing. I just would caution, I'm not sure who from the Office of Community Development would show up, but where this is actively something, and the director, I believe, is the Secretary of Community Development Board. that they are very cautious about having any influence by anybody. So I would just caution. Right. And I think, I think Paul Moki, the, the building commissioner who attends those meetings and it's actually sits on, I think the board would probably be a good person to give us an update. I know he tends, I don't know if he sits on that board. I know he, I know he attends the meetings. Um, but I just would be cautious on, uh, having anyone that may be potentially be involved in a vote coming before us. I just want to put that out there.
[Michael Marks]: Second.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, on line with Councilor Caraviello, I would just ask also if we can send a letter to the Chamber of Commerce and maybe we can work through the Chamber of Commerce to have them alert their business owners regarding the sign ordinance. And if anyone needs to be enlightened on what the current, because the sign on ordinances is rather lengthy and new businesses may not be that familiar with it. So I would ask as a first step that we also send a letter to the president of the chamber asking that they contact their membership also about adhering to the local sign ordinance.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, move to waive the reading and if a brief synopsis could be given.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I, too, want to thank my council colleague. Last week's motion was to have the city solicitor draft language around a city ordinance, but the language wasn't clear. There really wasn't any language, just a direction. And clearly we have something to work from now. So this was very helpful and I appreciate the fact that Councilor and I did that. As I stated last week, and I'll state again publicly, Mr. President, on private property of homeowners, I believe homeowners should have the right to remove a tree on private property. If we're talking about development with large developers that are coming in and declaring land and so forth, I think that's worthy of an ordinance to protect our shade trees and our trees that might be endangered. And I would support that, Mr. President. I also want to state an ordinance is great, and we can follow an ordinance. But we also have to put our money where our mouth is. And in the last several budgets, there is a pittance of money to replace shade trees within our community. And Aggie Tudin was good enough to respond back. I believe it was the next day from the council meeting regarding something that Councilor Caraviello brought up about the, if someone buys a tree, the city will match the tree. And Aggie Toonan came back right away, our tree warden, and said, that's a great program, and it's working. I mentioned the Back of the Curb program, which I believe at the time, and don't quote me, but there's been a dozen or so trees this year planted on private property that the city will purchase a tree for $500, $600, $700 at the request of the homeowner and plant a tree on private property in areas that You probably couldn't put a tree because the sidewalk may be too small. It may be a tough intersection to put a tree. And I think that's an important program too that we run, but needs to be funded. So as part of the ordinance, I'm also going to push in budget time that we increase our funding for our public shade trees within the community too, Mr. President, because I believe they go hand in hand. And I want to thank my colleague for bringing this up tonight.
[Michael Marks]: I'll take that title, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: I'll take any title. Thank you, Mr. President. It was about two months ago we had a person from the Library Foundation Committee appear before this council. It was at the request of I think it was Councilor Lungo-Koehn at the time. And the advisor that was hired by the Library Foundation with the mission of raising private funds to help with the capital campaign towards a $34 million public library. As we all remember, the city of Medford was awarded a $12.3 million grant from the Mass Board of Library Commissioners to construct this $34 million library. And the advisor that appeared before the podium stated, based on their recent outreach and discussion among the Library Foundation group and their different outreach, they anticipate to raise about $3.5 million. The reason why I bring this up, Mr. President, and I mentioned it two months ago that we have a Committee of the Whole meeting, this is a very vital financial economic issue in this community. And the reason why I bring it up is at the time when we were building a new library, or plans to build a new library, it was mentioned that a $34 million library, based on $12.3 million grant, would leave us paying over $18 million for a balance. And at the time, it was Mayor Burke that mentioned that she was going to raise privately the amount of the grant. So she was going to go out and raise $12.3 million privately, the amount of the grant. And this was stated. This isn't just off the top of my head. It was stated on two occasions publicly, one during November 2017, that Mayor Burke said she was hopeful donations would be able to match the funds from the state. And this is her quote, Mr. President. We're very optimistic from those that have already been interviewed and people that we have reached out to that we'll be able to parlay the state grant, double it with foundation money, and then be left for the city to put up a piece of about $5 million, which is our goal. We had the foundation advisor appear before us stating $3.5 million was probably an aggressive figure. But that was what they were looking to raise. And I asked Barbara Kerr, the library director, when she was at the podium, I stated to her unequivocally, where is the $12.3 million that you're going to raise privately? And Barbara Kerr, who has been involved with this library planning from day one, said, oh, I never heard of that figure before. Where did that figure come from? And I said, well, it came from the mayor of this city that it was going to be raised privately. So that's why I keep on raising the issue, Mr. President, because as time goes on now, and we have yet to hear back from the Library Foundation, and I'm sure they're doing yeoman's work, reaching out to people, trying to gather money, but as time goes on, there's going to be a rather large commitment outstanding for the taxpayers of this community. And I, as one member of the council, can't turn back to taxpayers and say, you know what? They may have made a commitment, but the $12.3 million they may have said they were going to get, they only got $3 million. So guess what? You're going to pay the difference. That may have been a game changer, Mr. President, at the time. So when you look at the figures, $12.3 million grant, the foundation money that they're saying, just say $3.5, it may be more, it may be less, who knows? Maybe they'll raise the whole amount. I don't know, but I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling to date regarding the private funds. So that's $15.8 million. You take that from the $34 million, it leaves you a balance of $18.2 million. We have to start discussing this. We should be having, if not weekly, monthly meetings with the library, with the administration, saying, how are we going to pay for this? And I don't want to hear, well, year one, we're all set for year one. There's year two. There's year three, four, five, six. There's other projects in line, like the fire department, Mr. President, like the high school, like the police station. The fire station, the plans that were made with the fire station were made based on the fact that private funds were going to be garnered to support this project. Now, if that doesn't come through, does that push the fire station from year 2024 to 2029, 2030? I don't know. And no one's talking about it. But I'm going to continually bring it up, Mr. President, because it disturbs me when the director of the library that's been involved from day one never recalls a commitment made by the administration of $12.3 million being raised privately. How do you overlook that as the library director involved from day one? That's not a small little fact that you can overlook. That's huge how you're going to pay for this. So again, Mr. President, respectfully, I asked that we have a meeting with the library foundation group that's set up and the library commissioners, I think they should be part of this also. I've spoken to library commissioners regarding this and they're eager to find out what's going on as well, to be quite honest with you. And we have yet to get an answer from this administration other than the fact, in my opinion, that the mayor is hiding from her original commitment. Now, if the mayor thinks she was too aggressive at the time, happened to be during a city debate for office, and maybe she was being a little overly aggressive to Ghana support. But now if that's the case, Mr. President, we still have to make ends meet with this project. And according to my figures, there's an $18.2 million balance in this project. So I would ask that we sit up. I know we have a lot of Committee of the Wholes, Mr. President. We joked about it tonight while we were in a Committee of the Whole meeting with the administration. But we really need to sit down as a council. because it was the council that took this vote. This was a very difficult vote regarding public safety, regarding a new library, which I don't think anyone feels that we didn't need at the time. But we were sold a bill of goods. This is what's going to happen. This is how we're going to afford it. And now if this is not how it's going to happen, and this is not how we're going to afford it, we should know how it's going to work. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilor Caraviello. If people aren't aware, Councilor Caraviello was one of the first people to start speaking about the poor condition of our public library where our students go. And I think he was one that first raised many of the concerns with the leaks and so forth. So I want to thank him for his efforts on this. I just, I don't want people to think for a second that I don't want to see funds raised. I'm hoping that we raise the full amount. I just think we should have a contingency plan. And if that doesn't work out, how are we going to pay for this? And it's unfortunate when the mayor can sit back and say, well, if that doesn't work out, we have 60,000 people out here that are going to pay for it. That's not the way we should operate government, Mr. President. And there should be, if there's none established now, like they're changing the rules on how they're going to raise money and so forth and different ways of raising money, then we should have a contingency plan on how are we going to afford this if the expectations of what the mayor stated, the 12.3 matching private money doesn't come through, how are we going to gather that money to pay for this library? And if we can't afford it, what are we going to do, Mr. President, moving forward?
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate you being so candid with us, If it's a private organization, why is our treasurer collector, Anne Marie Irwin, sitting on the committee?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So someone from the administration, a city employee. I'm a city employee, so I. Right. Is sitting on this committee, but the mayor has nothing to do with this.
[Michael Marks]: And I hope you do.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, want to go on record thanking Councilor Scarpelli, It was under his leadership calling for this meeting, getting the players at the table, having DOT sit around the table, having the district office there, not just the people that are responsible for the day-to-day activities, but the engineers from our district, from DOT were present, and people that can make decisions. So it was very helpful to have them there. I think it was insightful, which was offered by Councilor Scarpelli, The fact that DOT kept on stating to us they have to adhere to state and federal guidelines and regulations regarding signage, regarding traffic lights, and much of which prevents them from doing what we would like to see them do, which is provide some pedestrian safety in that area. And it was under Councilor Scarpelli's motion that within the next, I think it was 30 or 45 days, that we reconvene with some short-term fixes for that area. And I believe they're going to come back with a number of short-term fixes, whether it's a raised crosswalk, whether it's additional signage, whether it's changing that just blinking light to a steady light for the time being. They're going to come back with something, Mr. President, in my opinion, that's going to improve that section. And I would just put out a challenge to my colleague that that is one intersection. I have about another 75 on a list that we need to look at, and I'm sure he'll be eager to take them one at a time.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I reviewed the records, find them to be in order, and move approval.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, also we have a related paper 19-064. I ask that we also take that out of order in conjunction with the paper you just listed.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Blake, could you shut that off, please? I'm sure the glare is bad enough without that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, maybe if the gentleman could just give us an update. I know we just received a response from Melrose-Wakefield in the DPH letter that they sent out. regarding the closure of the emergency room. If you can just give us a brief update on where that stands right now.
[Michael Marks]: So I had a question. I'm not sure if you're able to answer it or not, but I had the opportunity to read through the response submitted by your organization. And I had just a question regarding travel times. So this is a response back to DPH, letting them know that when and if and when LMH does close its emergency room, that there are alternative plans, meaning other emergency departments in the area. And the report that I viewed mentioned about Armstrong Ambulance Service and the times it takes to get to different facilities. Do you know what percentage of emergency room visits based on actual ambulance service?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. I would assume the information that was in the report regarding travel times that the data was obtained from Armstrong Ambulance only included the ambulance at these particular locations. That's correct. So when they say that the drive time for Method residents to Melrose Wakefield Hospital is seven to 10 minutes, I assume that's in an ambulance that's going full-blown sirens, breaking many rules and regulations, getting to a hospital. Is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right. I think it's important that, and I'm sure DPH will do their own homework, the Department of Public Health, but it's important to know how these figures were arrived at. And, you know, not everyone arrives at an ambulance ambulatory setting by ambulance. And anyone traversing this community knows that it could take you 10 to 15 minutes just to get from, you know, Wellington to Medford Square, let alone West Medford, which might be another 10 minutes. So I think these particular travel times are concerning for me as a resident and someone that potentially could need emergency service to know the distances between alternatives when we had an emergency service right in our own backyard. So that's the first point. The second point is based on just the annual emergency room data. And I've stated this publicly a number of times regarding the closure of the emergency room, that the statistics will bear out and the statistics that were provided show from 2016 to 2019, with 2019 being annualized, because it's not a full fiscal year, but it does show the volume in emergency visits to Lawrence Memorial dramatically decreasing. For instance, 2016, it was 12,514 visits. 2017 was 11,925. 2018 was 9,289. And if you annualize 2019, we're looking at about 7,520 emergency room visits. So you can see there's been a decline. But as I stated on many occasions, the decline is not due to the services that the hospital is offering. For many years, that hospital emergency room was a robust emergency room and provided great service to residents and people that lived in surrounding communities as well. But if you look back over the years, And for instance, in 2014, when the Health Policy Commission reviewed Partners Healthcare Systems' proposed acquisition of Hallmark Health, they mentioned, and this is September 2014, that Hallmark Lawrence Memorial Hospital would become a 30 to 40 bed facility for ambulatory care and short stay inpatient care lasting three days or fewer. operated under the MGH license. We know that never came to fruition. It also goes on to say Hallmark LMH would have an urgent care center, certain expanded outpatient services, and Parton is also committed to keeping LMH emergencies department open during at least the transition period of LMH's conversion, which they estimated take two or three years. So as far back as 2014, which are prior to the numbers I just gave regarding volume. Uh, there has been the word out there either was partners or Hallmark that there was a steady move to close the ambulatory care at Lawrence Memorial. And there was decisions made by the hospital to go in a different direction. And I think what we saw was services over the years, somehow start to filter over to Melrose Wakefield Hospital. And the decline was not because of a lack of service within our community or a lack of need. It was because of an administrative decision that was made to cut out ambulatory service or surgical ER service within our community. And that same article went on to say, Hallmark Melrose Wakefield would remain an acute care hospital under the Hallmark license. The hospital received an estimated $152 million worth of substantial renovation, including expansion capacity of their ER. 2015 Method Lawrence Memorial Hospital would likely close if Hallmark Health merger fails. And it goes on to say, in its August 2014 letter to the Health Policy Commission, Hallmark said it faced significant financial challenges and had implemented significant cost-saving initiatives in fiscal 2014 after seeing a 23% decline in patient discharges at LMH and Melrose-Wakefield Hospital over the previous two years. So it wasn't just LMH that was supposedly losing emergency business. It was also Melrose-Wakefield, according to this particular article. In 2016, Hallmark Health nears merger with Tufts Medical Center, parent company Wellforce. And in 2016, it says Hallmark Health, which owns Medford Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Melrose-Wakefield Hospital, Melrose, and a handful of smaller sites around greater Boston represents 295 million in revenue. The details of the Hallmark's merger with Welforce have not been finalized, but will likely include capital investment at Hallmark facilities. Hallmark officials hope to build a new emergency care wing at Melrose Wakefield Hospital that is at least three times the size of the current ER. So as you can see, there's a pattern over the years of taking from Lawrence Memorial and adding to Melrose Wakefield. So I think it's very disingenuous when we're showing DPHR numbers, strictly numbers saying, hey look, it doesn't appear that Method can support an emergency room. From a financial standpoint, as a hospital, we can't afford it anymore to have an emergency room in Method. And I think it's disingenuous to state that when clearly there was an administrative decision over many years to close the emergency room. at Lawrence Memorial, a thriving emergency room, and come out with an outpatient clinic that we're talking about now. So I just want to state that publicly and go on record that I don't think it was any lack of demand in this community. I still believe there's a strong need for emergency room. We have one of the highest percentages of seniors in the Commonwealth living in the city of Medford. And as you know, an emergency room is very important, not just to seniors, but to all residents. And this is going to have a real dramatic impact on our community. And I'm hoping still there's some hope with DPH that they will deny the closure of your request for closure of Lawrence Memorial Hospital. And then we can discuss other options about what's going to happen internally within the hospital, about other outpatient services, and also look at the proposal that you're offering regarding an ambulatory care. But I just want the record to reflect the numbers that were mentioned in your report, as well as the drive times. I think it's important to clarify the drive times also to these other emergency rooms.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. While we have representatives from the hospital here, I had a question regarding interaction with the Medford Fire Department. Has there been any on-site meetings with the Medford Fire Department in regards to the placement of your ambulatory care building and where it's situated in comparison to the nursing school?
[Michael Marks]: by the method fire department relative to the the placement of the ambulatory surgical center in front of a building that may not be sprinkled up to code?
[Michael Marks]: As part of the mitigation, is it potentially possible that the building could be relocated?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, uh, myself and council Lungo attended the neighborhood meeting last week and as part of some of the conditions that were raised by the neighborhood, There were a number of conditions that were raised that may not fall under the purview of the Lawrence Memorial Hospital and something we as a community could be looking into. I know signage was an issue on some of the roads on Joyce and Hutchins. There was talk about maybe resident permit parking, which would alleviate some of the concerns of people parking on those particular roads that may be employed or going to Lawrence Memorial Hospital. But there were a number of issues that we really don't need to wait on Lawrence Memorial. And I'm not sure at what point we as a council can forward some of these recommendations to either the traffic commission or whether it be the mayor's office to act upon these issues, because there's no reason to wait. So I would ask that as part of the committee report tonight, that we formulate a response that addresses some of the conditions within the neighbor's concerns and start working on those immediately, things that really don't need involvement by Lawrence Memorial Hospital.
[Michael Marks]: I think it may, I don't think we should do it here on the floor, but maybe a committee of the whole meeting or a subcommittee meeting.
[Michael Marks]: To talk about some of the conditions.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the issues that I think Councilor Caraviello was alluding to was the fact that signs that are internally illuminated can pose a concern within neighborhood settings. And I know the other sign that was denied that was approved by this council, we requested special conditions on the special permit. And I'm not sure if you're willing to make that tonight, but that would be my vote for support. that the sign be turned off no later than 8 o'clock at night. I believe that was the special permit we put. And we could check with the city clerk, Mr. President, to see what conditions we'll put on the last sign.
[Michael Marks]: Well, and we've called code enforcement on them between you and I, and now the whole city knows about it, but they were, they were in violation. And I want to make sure that we as a council are consistent when we approve these signs. I would prefer to sit down in the subcommittee meeting, talk about the sign, talk about the illumination, talk about hours of operation, and then move forward, Mr. President. I think that's a better way of operating where this was already denied by the billing department. We would be happy to meet any special conditions that you have.
[Michael Marks]: Business, economic development, and science.
[Michael Marks]: To approve. To approve moving it.
[Michael Marks]: Subcommittee.
[Michael Marks]: Signs. Signs. To discuss with the petitioner the conditions that we'll discuss.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Dello Russo, I'll mind.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I was just wondering maybe if the Director of Community Development could share with us potentially some of the reasoning behind some of the figures that were arrived at within the Community Development Board's recommendations. For instance, the number of units that they arrived at was 10 units.
[Michael Marks]: They agreed with the number. Right. So maybe my question is to my colleagues then, because it's been mentioned to us that most of the surrounding communities start off at six units rather than 10 units. Why did we start off at a much higher number of units where affordability is I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but if the surrounding communities are all doing it, you know, why would we start, you know, at probably 40% higher than what they're doing?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So my recommendation would be, and we could do with this at any point, but I agree with the lessening of the units. I feel very strongly that especially where Winchester, Arlington, Everett, Somerville all start off at six units, that we should be also starting off at six units regarding the affordability component. Also, Mr. President, it's mentioned, you know, the term affordability. And when you talk to different people, I actually work for the Department of Housing. And when you talk to different residents and you start talking about the median income and what exactly does affordable housing mean, it's not very affordable, affordable housing. And I think anything we can do as a city to open that up to residents and truly make it affordable, I think that's what we should be exploring. especially in an economy, Mr. President, that, you know, we're looking at outrageous amounts for a one-bedroom, a two-bedroom. You can almost guarantee any new construction for a one-bedroom in this city. You're close to $2,000, maybe even $2,200, $2,400 for a one-bedroom. You know, and then it goes up as the number of beds, naturally, rooms increase. But I think those are the tweaks that we need to look at. And I'm not opposed to doing it at a later time. I just would hate to have to reinvent the wheel and go through the whole process again where we can make some tweaks now. So I'm not opposed to making some tweaks now to this. Mr. President, this may not be the appropriate forum here, but I'm not opposed to making some worthy tweaks that really address some of the affordability issues in our community. You know, I hear all too often people can no longer live in our community, and that troubles me. It really does, not just for younger people, like my own kids that would like to live in the city someday but probably can't afford it, but people that are actually living here, seniors and families and working people that can no longer live in a community that they grew up in. And I think these are the issues that we have to address. And maybe it's small in stature by changing the numbers and so forth. But I think every little bit helps. And so that's what I'm going to be pushing for, whether it's tonight or this meeting that Councilor Scarpelli called for.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, knowing the process and the number of readings it has to go through, would it be feasible to have a subcommittee meeting while this is going through the legislative process and amending it now, rather than going through a whole other process to tweak something that we may all be in agreement with right now, because it has to go to a second reading where it gets published, a third reading. It may be worthwhile for us to do it while this process takes place, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Correct.
[Michael Marks]: So it doesn't require a posting then?
[Michael Marks]: A posting.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so you're saying this is the 13th?
[Michael Marks]: So our option tonight, I was under a different impression, but our option tonight is either to tweak and make changes, which is our prerogative to this, or approve it as Councilor Knight mentioned, and then at a later date, move towards some amendments to this, which, you know, hopefully will be quick, but who knows? You know, who knows? That's why I was hoping we can try to put some of this stuff through tonight. So that'll be the druthers of the council if they. OK.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Josephine was a longtime Method resident. She was a beloved wife, mother, loving grandmother, and great-grandmother. And she was truly a tremendous woman, and she will be sorely missed in this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, who ultimately has the final say on a bus route?
[Michael Marks]: So is the city of Medford signed off on this particular route that you're showing us tonight?
[Michael Marks]: So, so, so you've already received approval from the city to use that as a route, this temporary route, correct? And you're coming before the council because it's the council's jurisdiction to create bus stops, right? To approve bus stops.
[Michael Marks]: So you would think that when the city was doing their due diligence, they would have notified residents in the impacted areas, and said, hey, this is what's going to happen. And I appreciate all the meetings you're saying took place in Somerville and so forth. That has not happened in our community, not from the phone calls I've received. So just so you know, the input has not happened. And that's very alarming to me that a route could be created like that without proper notification of the public. So I just want to say that. The second point, you know... Well, it is a detour route.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, if I could.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, clearly from day one, Somerville has been driving this GLX project. It's no secret. Medford has taken a backseat every inch of the way. And I think what we're seeing now is some of the results of Medford taking a backseat. We have an advisory board that's done Yeoman's work, but the city administration has been nowhere on this issue, Mr. President. And Somerville's driving the bus. Somerville is driving the bus. So when they say we don't want it to go down this particular street, as Councilor Knight said, We'll have it go through six miles of method.
[Michael Marks]: But it's temporary. You just said it's temporary. You made it sound like it's temporary. We're doing it temporary because it's temporary. So, Mr. President, I think part of the frustration, you just happen to be bearing the message, so don't take it personal, but part of the frustration... Don't shoot the messenger. Part of the frustration is this council has requested to meet with the T for years, and they've blown us off for years, and they only come before us when they need something. We've asked the T not just for moving bus stops and so forth and signage, we asked about bus shelters. You can count on one hand, in a city this size with all the bus routes, how many bus shelters we have. So we'll have, not many is right. So we have routes where hundreds of residents stand when it's pouring rain, snowing, and we can't get a bus shelter. We can't get the T to recognize a stop in Medford Square, West Medford, Haines Square. And that's a shame. It really is a shame that we can't work in cooperation with the T, who's charging us millions of dollars off our cherry sheet every year to operate the T in our community. We pay for this access. We pay. It comes directly off our cherry sheet. So I think this is, and I'm not directing this. I know you're here. I'm not directing it. Part of the frustration is that the T's unwillingness to meet with us, talk about issues. We don't want him here every night, but when we ask him to talk about an issue, they should really present someone and not just blow us off. So I think that's part of the- I think that's another issue. It is another issue, but unfortunately, you know, you're here tonight requesting something of us. So, you know, I hear what you're saying. This needs to go somewhere. I just think the lack of notification, in this community is appalling. We get calls every day, reverse 9-1-1 calls, telling me about things that I really don't care about, to be quite honest with you, but something that impacts that there may be a new route on your street. Those are the type of notifications that should be going out. This is not to you. This is to the city that are laxing, and they can fall back on meetings. This was how, let's face it, you know, people don't attend meetings for the most part, unless you're directly impacted. So, uh, Mr. President, I think I'm going to join my colleagues tonight, uh, not supporting this unless the T can come back with us and say other options were explored, uh, about routes. And I'm very disappointed that the city of Medford, this administration would sign off on a proposal, Mr. President, without even talking to this Medford city council, who has direct authority over bus stops, and mention and have a dialogue with this council. Very disappointed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, some time back, a few years ago, the city was looking, and I think it was Roberta Cameron at the time, offered a suggestion about adopt a tree. And it was actually having the city plant trees on private property. So if I was a homeowner and The city approached me and said, we'd love to put a tree at the corner of High and Elm Street or wherever it might be. Would you like to have it on your property? We'll pay for the tree and so forth. It never went anywhere, the program, but I thought it was a great suggestion in increasing our trees in our community. I, however, have a problem with creating a permitting process to remove a tree on private property. Now if it's a new development that's in an area that as Councilor Knight referred to, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with telling a resident that there may be a list of certain protected trees that you want to remove one. And we're looking at either you may need to relocate the tree, and who knows how much that would cost, depending on the size of the tree and so forth. You may need to replace it. You may need to pay a permit to have it removed. I think it's a very slippery slope, Mr. President, that we're going down when we start getting involved in people's private property. We're all in favor of shade trees and doing whatever we can in this community, Mr. President. But I think it's an overreach, to be quite frank with you, to start dictating to people whether or not they can cut a tree down on their own private personal property. So I have a real problem with that. If you're talking about new development and maybe just that angle, I could support the city solicitor looking into that. But a general broad brush, Mr. President, of saying that everyone now has to go through a permitting process to take down a tree or make sure it's not a particular tree or relocate a tree, I think it's a burden on residents of this community and something that I could not support, Mr. President. So I appreciate what the council is trying to do, but I think there may be other ways, as I believe it's called Back of the Curb. Roberta may be able to speak to that program. I think it's called Back of the Curb program, the city would go in and encourage private homeowners to plant trees. And I think that's an excellent concept and I would support that, um, you know, uh, in order to increase our, uh, trees and the different types of trees in our community. But, uh, you know, uh, you know, reaching into someone's personal property, Mr. President, I have a problem with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? Just if I could, because once we ask as a council, the city solicit to create an ordinance based on what's being submitted to us, I have a concern with the language that's in this, because the council is saying not to preclude someone from taking down a tree, but it also says there's a permitting process and certain trees are protected. So I don't know, are there certain trees that you're never going to be able to remove? Are there certain trees that you're going to have to relocate? Everyone now is going to, if you want to remove a tree, you're going to have to pay a fee. Here goes another fee. You know, that's, we have a water fee. Now we've got a fee on everything. That's create a fee to move a tree or take down a tree on private property. Next they'll charge you for cutting your grass. Uh, if you, anytime you want to cut your grass, we'll charge you a fee for that too. Um, you know, it really is. It's just another way of generating revenue. Um, and, uh, if the mayor wants to create a tree fund, she can do it overnight. She can do it overnight. If she wanted to create a tree fund in this city, there's plenty of revenue streams right now that they could dedicate, uh, towards a tree fund. If that's what the mayor's intent was to do. but to add a permit charge on someone that wants to remove a tree for a host of reasons. Most people that contact me about trees and so forth on private property, after I'm done discussing, it's usually because the tree's ill or sick, and they're taking it down for a particular purpose. And they're not just taking it down because they don't like trees. So I just, again, Mr. President, I'm not going to have the city solicitor spin his wheels on drafting something an ordinance that I'm just opposed to reaching out to people on private property and requesting that they pay a fee, permitting fee, to remove a tree in their own property. So, you know, we got to remember, we're looking at the snow shoveling ordinance now shifting the burden, requiring people to shovel intersections and pedestrian pathways. If they don't do it, guess what? They're going to put a lien on their property. I mean, we're really going down a slope here, Mr. President, one which I don't appreciate, to be quite frank with you, of how we dictate to residents rather than work with residents, Mr. President. And if the intent is to create, you know, more trees in this community, all you have to do is look at the city. It was this council for years, the city abused trees in the city for years. They used to use them just to put postings up throughout the community. I mean, you go down the square, there was 10 dead trees there for years in the square alone, right? Everyone reckoned, and how many resolutions did we put forward to replace those trees or put trees that were more suitable for thoroughfares and so forth? I don't know, Mr. President. I just think we've got to be very careful when we start looking at creating more permitting fees and making it difficult for someone on private property to do what they'd like on their own property, Mr. President. Very careful of having solicitors start creating ordinances and then present them to the council. And you're going to be hard-pressed, Mr. President, to do something with it, let me tell you.
[Michael Marks]: Counsel Marks. So based on what we're submitting here tonight, you're giving him a framework to draft an ordinance, correct? This is a framework. Correct. And your framework talks about permitting making people go through hurdles to cut down a tree on private property. So that's what he's going to draft. He's not going to just come up with something different than this. So if that's the council's intent, to charge people on personal property to cut down trees, then you would say, solicitor, please go ahead, forward, and draft something. I don't support that. So I don't feel comfortable saying, go ahead and draft this, because I don't support this concept. If we want to look at other concepts, I'm more than happy to. But this particular concept, I don't support. So I will not vote on it tonight to have the city solicitor move forward, because from the language I see here tonight, I don't support that, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Knox.
[Michael Marks]: This council creates ordinances. To just pass a resolution off to the, an open-ended resolution off to the city solicitor to have him draft something, I think we're shirking our duties, to be quite honest with you. If the council is that interested in it, Have them send it to a subcommittee. We have plenty of subcommittees. Have them look at language. Mr. President, at this point in time, I will withdraw my position.
[Michael Marks]: So to put out a resolution asking the city solicitor to craft an ordinance that conceptually I don't agree upon, and I think it's so open-ended that I don't think anyone behind this reeling could tell me how it would work, and then to take what he drafts and work that as a framework, I don't think makes any sense at all. Have a subcommittee, get down, start brainstorming, put stuff down like we do with city ordinances, and then come up with something. So that's the only thing I'm saying, Mr. President. So I don't want my colleague to take exception, but that's the only thing I'm saying.
[Michael Marks]: Whatever the committee is, we should have the tree water in there. We should have anyone that's interested in this issue, Mr. President. So it shouldn't be just the council meeting on this. It should be the city administration, because we're eventually going to need a buy-in from the mayor and the city administration on this, if that's what they're interested in.
[Michael Marks]: Also in the Fells Plaza, right across from Modell's, there's a drop-off box that's manned eight hours a day, seven days a week. And it's getting to be a business over there. And neighbors are very upset that live on the Fells Way. because I don't think the intent is to run a drop-off business of items there. And like I said, it's staffed eight hours a day. So there's someone there, there's a big bin, they open the door up and they get deliveries all day there. And then drop-offs at night, weekends, and it's becoming a real eyesore and a nuisance to the neighborhood, Mr. President. So I'd ask in the Fells Plaza that that be looked at by our code enforcement officer.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, school committee member DiBenedetto, I appreciate that. And thank you to the school committee and Madam Mayor. I had the unique opportunity to serve six years as a member of the school committee alongside Lena DiGentimasso. And I can tell you unequivocally, she was the most dedicated, hardworking elected official that I've ever served with in this community. And I've been doing this for a number of years. Back in January 2018, I offered before the Medford City Council paper 18-006. The paper read, to recognize Lena DiGentimasso, for her 28 years of dedicated service to the children of our community. It was passed unanimously by the city council and referred to the superintendent of schools and the school committee for further review. I just would like, Madam Mayor, if you would indulge me just for a few moments. I appreciate the dialogue that took place in the Committee of the Whole meeting tonight, and many of which current members have never had the opportunity like I had to serve with Lena and you brought up some very valid questions about when and why do we bestow such an honor on someone. And I can just let you know that in my dealings with Lena, she was always straightforward, someone that you can count on, someone that was a person of their word, someone that was loyal to the utmost. And in her time as a member of the school committee, She served with distinction for 28 years, but she was also a very active member of the community. And that's why I think you have to look at someone's total resume, for not better words, when you look to honor someone. And I just would like to bring up a few things that I was able to dig up over the years. Lena served for three decades on the Medford School Committee. She was a strong advocate for the Medford Vocational Technical High School. She was a strong supporter of the Curtis Tufts alternative high school, a strong supporter of the fine arts department, and the high school band, of which was mentioned tonight by members of the school committee that back in the 90s when times were very lean, there were a lot of cuts going back and forth. And I can remember firsthand that the arts were a major cut. And if it wasn't for Lena and her voice standing up to save the band and many other arts within our school department, It probably wouldn't have happened, to be quite frank. Lena was the past president of the Friends of Chevalier. She was instrumental in the building of the new schools. I had the opportunity, along with Paulette van der Kloot, to actually climb to the roofs of many of our old school buildings, and Lena was the first up the ladder to the roof with her high heels and her dress on and her hair done to a tilt. And that was the type of person she was. She was dedicated. to the end. I mean, she really lived the job. And she also served with distinction as the PTA President. She was selected by the Board of Directors of the Mass Association of School Committees and Corp to receive the Association's Lifetime Achievement Award. She received the Woman's Achievement Award from the Human Rights Commission. She was the recipient of the Tip of the Hat Award from the Salem Street Business Association, received the Golden Mustang Award for supporting the students of the Mustang athletic programs. She was instrumental in planning and development of the Gene Mack Youth Center. She received the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post-1012 Award in appreciation of leading the charge to have the McGlynn School Auditorium named in honor of the veterans. She was honored by the Curtis Tufts Alternative High School graduation for many years of continued support. She received the Tony Lucci Golden Mustang Award for being an outstanding athletic program supporter. She served as president of the AARP, Medford Chapter, 1132. I'd also be remiss, Madam Mayor, if I didn't mention Lena's late husband. If you knew Lena, she was always with Alfred. Wherever you saw her in the city, it was Lena and Alfred. Alfred was a Korean War veteran and a Purple Heart recipient, and also her three children, all were educated in the Medford Public Schools. So I, too, think this is an honor that's long overdue and worthy of such a dedicated member of this community, not only to the schools and the children, but to the entire population of the city of Medford. And I thank you all for your diligence on this, and I look forward to the day when we can call the band room the Lena DiGentimaso Band Room. Thank you very much.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if we could hear from the petitioner where he's present tonight. Name and address of the record, please.
[Michael Marks]: Have you read the current sign ordinance regarding how long the sign can be left on and so forth?
[Michael Marks]: So would you be willing to, now you're going to have a secondary freestanding sign?
[Michael Marks]: So is that going to be the same size as it currently exists? Yes. So it's not going to be any larger? No. Okay. So, Mr. President, I find no problem with this particular paper. I wish the gentleman that's been a long-standing site for physical fitness in the community, I wish him well, Mr. President. I would just ask that he read the entire piece of the ordinance that was created some years ago regarding signage and what the rules and regulations are regarding signage.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We typically request that any new appointments come before the council to stand here and let us know the position they've been appointed to. These are reappointments. Right, right. And we've done that in the past for reappointments also. It's up to the druthers of this council. I would prefer, Mr. President, because some of them are three, four-year appointments, I would ask that the reappointments also appear before us, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: If they come tomorrow night, we'll talk to them. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Aye.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And, uh, I want to speak from a firsthand knowledge that, uh, this happens to be a local park near my home. And I've spent countless hours in the play structure and the basketball court and you name it. And I can tell you, I can't think of one other park in the community that's utilized to the fashion that this particular park is. It's such a fashion that the neighbors take care of the park. And there's a little dome there where you can sit down. Neighbors actually bring their supper out there and will eat within the park with their families. It's a real unique setting. And I believe this particular work is long overdue. And the question I do have, Mr. President, is recently we created the Crystal Campbell Memorial Garden, which is a park area. We're in the process right now of turning the Riverside Ave, which used to be a bus shelter, into park land and a new addition to the parks department. And we're going to be spending multi-millions of dollars refurbishing our parks, but yet our park department hasn't grown at all, the staffing. And in my opinion, you can't expand and create, especially parks that are going a water addition, and similar to the Crystal Campbell PAC, that are going to require significant upkeep and not expand the staffing and the maintenance on these PACs. So I would ask that during budget deliberation that the administration include ample amount of money to sufficiently increase the DPW staff, in particular, I know we need it in the highway, we need it in forestry, but in particular in the PACs. As we all hear, we get the complaints when the baseball fields aren't lined properly in time, the grass is not cut, and it's not because they're not doing the job, it's because they're at bare bones capacity, which many of our departments are in the city. So I would just ask that with the addition of these parks, we want to make sure in five years from now that the water facility at Harris Park, which is going to be a great addition, and I'd like to see more throughout the community, is still working after five years and properly maintained. And as Councilor Longo-Curran mentioned, that when needs come up, that they're addressed immediately. And you can't do that with a skeleton crew. So that would be my one recommendation I make on this, Mr. President, that the city administration come back to this council during the budget with an appropriation to increase the staffing at DPW, in particular, in the parks department.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion by Councilor Marks to take suspension to take paper 18-296 and report that out.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We met tonight as a council, Committee of the Whole meeting for an issue that was tabled or referred to the Committee of the Whole on March 20th, 2018. This paper was an appropriation of $1 million to fund a demolition and other costs for construction of the police station. We had several discussions regarding some issues with tearing down the current training tower and police facility in order to make way for new headquarters. And I would ask that that committee recommendation be brought forward this evening, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I think it's important that we remember how this all originated. And it was a year ago when this chamber was filled with police and fire and a number of residents. And at the time, we were told that we couldn't build a combined center because it would require a proposition two and a half. And I remember the discussion and debate quite vividly. And at the time, the firefighters took a step back. And they were the ones to say, you know what, if we can get a commitment, we're willing to postpone our fire station for several years out. We're willing to go without a tower until a new one's built. And they were the ones that stuck their neck out in the line more than anyone else, to be quite frank. And it's ironic we're back here a year later with the firefighters in the same predicament. And I don't blame, and that's why I stand alongside them, Mr. President, I don't blame a single one of them. After one year of hearing discussion and debate, after receiving a pledge or a commitment, whatever you want to call it, from the administration, that they would receive a new fire headquarters in 2021 or 2022, and to have the rug pulled out from underneath them and pushed down to 2026, which is another four or five years, And then to say, you'll get a training tower when that one comes down, this was a year ago, when the training tower comes down to make way for new police headquarters, a new one will go up. And we're a year out and none of those commitments are on track. So I don't know what track some of these Councilors are on, but it's clearly not a track that makes sense. It's a one sided track. And the firefighters are absolutely correct when they talk about training. I mean, I don't work in that sector or that field, but I can imagine the intense training that's required by both police and fire. In the private sector, sitting at a desk. We're scrutinized every year and go through intensive training, working with numbers and paper. Imagine doing fire rescue, the intense training that's required. And to take that away not only puts their lives at risk, but every man, woman, and child and pet in this community, Mr. President. And I don't think we could just brush over it. I really don't think so, Mr. President. And the conversations we had regarding state land, and I said this weeks ago, are going nowhere. Did they try? I'll give them an A for effort. Did they try? Yes, they tried. But they're going nowhere fast. So if we have to depend on getting state land, we're going to just keep depending on getting state land. And they're going to be in the same situation. So the commitments that were given a year ago have not fallen through. or they have fallen through. So where do we stand right now? They're exactly correct. The minute that tower comes down, it's going to be put on the back burner. And nothing's going to happen, Mr. President. Then there's going to be another need that comes forward. You know, a community, I think you could tell a lot about a community. When a community doesn't put its time and effort and money into public safety, it says a lot about a community. It really does. and I think we're seeing that in this community. The headquarters is one of six buildings. I'll take anyone, if the reporter wants to go through, anyone that wants to go look at these other buildings. We need to take them all down in one fell swoop, the condition of these buildings. But we're starting somewhere. We're starting with the headquarters because it was attached to the police station, which we all know needed to be done. And I agree also, and the police aren't here tonight, but how do you take a firing range away from police officers. It's unheard of, Mr. President. It doesn't make any sense. We're building a building undersized already because of monetary constraints. Everywhere I look, we're building in this community, receiving millions of dollars in new building fees, linkage money, millions of dollars in linkage money, new revenue coming in, thousands of new residents pouring into this community. It's a hot commodity, but we can't afford to rehab and build a station that's long overdue. It's a matter of priorities. That's what I tell everyone. They say, how come we can't do it? And you know what I say? We can't do it because this is not the mayor's priority. And that's what it boils down to. Building a park out here in Riverside Ave, that's the mayor's priority. Building giant big box residential buildings on Locust Street, that's the mayor's priority. But it's clearly not public safety. And I didn't support tearing this down in the committee hall, Mr. President. I hope, after hearing some of the pleas from the fire department, that some of my colleagues have a change of mind. You know, a 45-day is just what it is. It's 45 days. Did we put a time limit on the revitalization of Medford Square, which has been going on, from what I can remember, from 2005? Is there a time limit on that, where it just ends? But, no, there's a time limit on the fire department. We'll get to a certain point. We'll put some time limits. And if we can't meet our goal, we move on to something else. It's not fair, Mr. President. And commitments have to count for something. A politician is only as good as their word. And if people can't trust your word, then you're no good. You're no good, Mr. President. And I don't want to fall in that realm. I think we should extend the 45 days, Mr. President. Let's give it several more months to try to work out. The mayor's own committee that she put together when she became mayor looked at the revitalization of the square, looked at business and economic development, looked at a number of things. And guess what one of their major recommendations were? To build a new combined center on that exact location. It's in the report. That was one of their recommendations. Now, that committee did yeoman's work, spent many, many months putting together all sorts of data. So, I plead with my colleagues, Mr. President, take a step back. We're not going to lose out on anything right now, taking a step back and taking a look at this picture. Yes, there was a lot of things brought up. I brought up about wind casinos, Mr. President. We're going to receive a million dollars a year as soon as the casino opens for infrastructure in this community. i.e., public safety. What better of a project? To earmark, as Councilor Knight mentioned, all we need is roughly a million dollars a year to take us over the hump. That's only one aspect. That's only one aspect. We're not talking about new growth, to be earmarked, linkage. So, Mr. President, you know, a reason why we're in this situation is the fact that This council has talked, I've been on the council a number of years. We wrote together a wish list of capital improvements. You've been around, Mr. President. And what were the top one and two? Does anyone recall? For years, consistent, police and fire, one and two, police and fire, one and two. So now we're at a predicament where we're doing number one without number two. And that could get painful. You ever do number one without number two? It's painful. And that's the situation we're in now, Mr. President. This is becoming awfully painful, and it doesn't need to be. Who in this community doesn't think we need a new fire station? Stand up. Who doesn't think we need a fire station? Even when the library people were here, Mr. President. When the library people, I got more emails from library people after the fact saying, thank you, we knew that was a tough vote, but we want to be part of the fight to create a new fire station. Our eyes were open that night. We didn't know what was going on in our public safety buildings. We want to be part of that fight. This is an entire city fight, not just with the fire department. Think about it. They have to get up and fight on behalf of the entire city. They're not fighting for themselves. They don't want a new kitchen or a new bath. They're fighting for the entire city, Mr. President. That's who they're fighting for. And they don't have all these different interest groups and friends of the fire department and so forth, and maybe they should. But this is a crucial, crucial item that we as a member of the council, us as councilors, have to stand up sometime and say, you know what? We have to do the right thing here. And if the right thing is flexing our muscle, asking the mayor to come back to the table, which we were never at the table with her, by the way, but asking her to come back to the table and say, we are not going to move forward until we take another look at this. We're not going to move forward until we take another look. It's too important of an issue. I think that's the right way to do it, Mr. President. I respectfully ask my colleagues, I realize we took a vote and committed a whole. There's nothing that precludes anyone from re-looking after listening to new debate and dialogue to say, you know what, I'm at the point where I think we need to take another look at this. We asked that we meet with the mayor every two weeks. We've had two meetings, and they've been somewhat productive, but we've had two meetings. Let's continue the discussion. Let's put out plan A, B, and C. We only saw plan A. We never saw a B and C, ever. We got the email the night before the mayor was announcing where the new police station was going to go. The night before we got the email inviting us to a press conference. That's when we got it. So we had no idea what was taking place. The decisions were made in a vacuum. And we're just saying, let's revisit it. We're not that far down the road that we can't stop the process now. We're really not. I think we're right in the thick of things where we can't put a halt in this. and press the administration to sit down with this council and come to a resolve once and for all, Mr. President. That would be my suggestion. I would ask any member of the council, respectfully, because I know this is not an easy decision, respectfully take a look at their vote, Mr. President, and revisit this for at least another 90-day period so we can continue our two-week meetings and discussions about a combined center and where we're going with the tower. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think we're at such a unique opportunity now where we have some leverage and able to negotiate this as a separate body You know, they create separate bodies for a reason, as a check and balance. We're a separate body. We don't receive marching orders, or at least some of us don't receive marching orders from the administration. And I think we have the perfect opportunity now to sit back and revisit this. We're under no obligation, Mr. President, to move forward. And there's been a lot of great ideas bantered around, But personally, I don't think it's very bold raising everyone's taxes. I don't think that's a bold, creative idea, to be honest with you. My own personal opinion. It's easy to raise people's taxes. You know, I think we have to get more creative and hold people accountable to their words. When the mayor stands up during election time and say, when we build a new library, we're not only going to get 13 or 12.5 million, in a library fund grant through the state. I'm also going to find 12 to 13 million in private funds. I think we need to hold the mayor's feet to the fire and say, Madam Mayor, where are these private funds? Because guess what? When they come through, we won't be having these discussions. We will not be having these discussions. But now we're hearing, after we approve the library, well, we've got to set up this committee. It's going to take longer. We can't approach anyone yet. And the mayor, over a year ago, said that she had some donors lined up, Mr. President. There's a tape on it, something about a rich uncle. That's what she said at the debate. So there had to be some consideration. You don't just throw out a figure as the chief executive officer. It'd be irresponsible to say, I believe I can raise 13, 13 million is a ton of money. And if someone came to me and said, can you raise 13 million through private funding? I would take a step back before I made a commitment. So the mayor has to be privy to more than she's letting out there, Mr. President. And if that's the case, all this discussion is in vain because we can afford to move forward. And that's why we need to keep these dialogue and discussions going on. And once we sever this relationship, and that's what's going to happen, once we stop meeting, I disagree with my colleague. You know, I think meeting after meeting, and I've been doing this a long time, it may not seem productive, but as long as you're together discussing it, it's productive. And even if we're at the meeting, we feel nothing happened, we're together. For too many years, Mr. President, we went without meeting. You know, it was the laugh of the city, for 14, 15 years that the mayor, the former mayor never appeared before the city council ever for one issue. And that's not the way I perceive city government working. So the fact that we're meeting with the mayor and the mayor agreed to do so, I think is productive. Does it get contentious because we have different ideas? Yes, but that's healthy. We can't all have the same idea. And we haven't explored that exclusion. We got some feedback, and the feedback we got looked positive, but we haven't explored it. I don't think anyone behind this railing could say we really explored it, Mr. President. And we talked about polling residents to see if there'd be some support out there. We talked about a number of things. And I agree with the firefighter that got up, Mr. Flynn. He mentioned that, you know, we made a commitment to go out and view all the fire stations. Where is that commitment? It's more talk, and that's why you can see how people say, you know what, all they're doing is, they're only hot air. If we were concerned about going to each fire station, we should have made that commitment, Mr. President, and followed through with it. And we haven't. We heard Brian Cronin, he's presented information before this council about cancer rates. And I know we had the Board of Health Director out there, But I'm not that confident that whatever was done by the Board of Health is going to make sure that the brave men and women of the fire department don't have to eat their dinner within five feet of an apparatus that they could be catching cancer off of, or sleeping in a facility that fumes go up to the second floor, or putting their turnout gear or regular gear next to trucks that are pulling in and out of a garage. So these are the discussions. This is not merely simply about building a building. It's about life or death. It really is. And I don't think we can turn a cheek when they present cancer rates and show the cancer rates in this community. We're not looking at other communities. We're looking at this community. and draw a direct correlation between our old, outdated stations and how they build new stations and keep the men and women safe in new stations now. And that's why this council fought for dryers to clean the turnout gear. That's why they fought for a second pair of turnout gear and washers, Mr. President. All for safety issues. These aren't aesthetics. Like I said, they're not looking for a new kitchen with marble countertops. They're looking to be safe in a building that they're in seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I don't think that's asking a lot. And now's the time to do it. Again, before we take the vote, I ask my colleagues, just take a step back. Let's continue our dialogue and discussion. It doesn't stop anything. Yeah, will the police station take a little longer? Absolutely. But guess what? So's the fire station. And we're not talking a little longer, we're talking years. So I respectfully ask my colleagues, this is not easy. No one behind this reel, the firefighters, no. No one behind this reel is against firefighters. They know that, the police know that, believe me. There's a mutual respect here. Let's just take another step. Let's just take one more step. Let's look at this and let's continue to be at the table so we can have discussions. Because once this issue is voted on, the discussions are going to end. That's no secret. They only started up because we requested. The Board of Health only went down there and did stuff because the council requested. There's only a new police station because we went and did the walk of shame, Mr. President. We were on the council at the time. We did the walk of shame through the police station. There's only a new DPW yard. We did the walk of shame through the DPW yard. It showed the conditions of that building. and alerted the residents of this community. This building is no different. It's no different, Mr. President. I respectfully ask one of my colleagues to reconsider their vote, Mr. President. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we do have someone who would like to speak briefly on an issue of timing that you may be serving.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, Mr. President, if I could. Counsel Max. Thank you, Mr. President. The way the process, as far as I know, is outlined, is that once the Community Preservation Committee makes recommendations, it appears before the Medford City Council. So I don't want anyone at home to believe that we're circumventing anything. I do agree with setting up a Committee of the Whole, as you did, Mr. President. However, there are extenuating circumstances. And as my colleague, Councilor De La Russa, would know, there's been many times that my colleague has approved, when the administration comes up and say, we were just presented with this, we need a vote tonight, you know, and not able to move it to a subcommittee or committee of the whole, that that vote is taken because of extenuating circumstances. And this happens to be one. This issue, and I won't speak for the two women at the podium, but this issue has been presented not only to this council, but this community for several years now, actually, about refurbishing around the Roberts Elementary School playground. And it is in vital need. And I'd like to hear, because I'm under the impression that time is of the essence on this, and if it's a week delay, that could alter things, Mr. President. And I would be willing to support this tonight, Mr. President, as an extenuating circumstance.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Neill. Councilor Neill.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, would it be okay if we requested to vote on one portion of the paper? So I'd like a legal opinion on whether or not the 90-day rule would apply. We're only voting on one portion of the paper. I don't believe that would apply, Mr. President, to the five of the proposed items. So I'm not quite sure that does apply.
[Michael Marks]: It's presented as a whole paper, so this would have to be severed. I appreciate what my colleagues say, and I appreciate the fact that we're meeting tomorrow. If maybe the petitioner could tell us some more around how will this affect your deadline? I know you mentioned there's a deadline. So maybe if you could just clarify.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And we listen to residents when they come up.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I'd like to hear the sense of urgency. I know Cheryl did describe the sense of urgency. I'd like to hear a little more on that, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, just so I understand, approving it tonight, or waiting till tomorrow night, which may or may not be approved, who knows? We could leave it in Committee of the Whole, right? We could leave the paper. There's nothing that's forcing us to vote tomorrow night. I just want to make sure that if we did report it out tonight, what's the earliest, Mr. Clerk, that this paper could be before the administration?
[Michael Marks]: Right. Well, the allocation has to be made. It's not made by us. So, someone from the administration does the allocation and so forth. I would assume, right? It's not the CPC committee. So, it's got to be someone from the administration.
[Michael Marks]: So, I'm asking how long does that roughly take? Are we splitting hairs here?
[Michael Marks]: It's possible.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I would support what council and I just brought up, uh, tomorrow we're meeting. I, as one member of the council, we'll be pushing. Uh, there's a lot of items on here. But this will be one that I'll be pushing out of Committee of the Whole tomorrow, and I agree with his statement about if we're able to expedite this and let the administration know there's a sense of urgency, and if we can trim off a few days here and there, then we're splitting hairs. So if we're able to trim off a few days, whether we approve it tonight or tomorrow, I agree with Councilor Knight. So I would ask that this item go directly to the Committee of the Whole, and we'll relay our sense of urgency, as Councilor Knight mentioned.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, This is such a huge issue in the community and would impact a majority of the taxpayers. And to be quite honest with you, to bring it up under suspension, I don't think it's doing the whole transparency issue we hear about all the time any justice, because no one in the community is aware of us bringing this up now, other than the fact it was brought up under suspension.
[Michael Marks]: It's all right. No, it's all right. I appreciate you saying that because I think if we look at debt exclusion, there are a lot of needs in the community. And why should we limit it to just one issue? How many times do we hear about the roads in this community? And we're clearly not going to make any headway with how we do business through the operating budget. So we're going to have to get creative and get bold. and look at debt exclusion to repair our roads. Now, that's only one issue. I can go through a list of issues that probably need to be done and that we're not going to be able to do through the operating budget. This is a very slippery slope, Mr. President. You know, we hear from multimillion-dollar businessmen that don't have a problem raising taxes. But we have to remember that not everyone is a multimillion-dollar business owner in the community. And that the slightest increase, not only in taxes, but something outside of taxes, like the — let's take, for instance, Community Preservation Act. We heard, oh, it's only $45 a year, $50. Now we're hearing debt exclusion, oh, it might be $65, $70, $80. We don't know, $45. That all adds up, Mr. President. And in addition, everything else is going up — your cable bill, your electric bill. Everything else is going up, Mr. President, at the same time. So I think we have to be mindful when we want to get bold with the people's money. You know, it's great to get bold with someone else's money. That's, you know, let's get, let's get, let's think outside the box and charge everyone more taxes. It's not that creative to me. That's not, that's, that's not that creative to me, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Right. And it would go to the ballot, Mr. President. If we're unable to provide the city services, Mr. President, that we should be offering as a community to our regular tax base, then there's a problem. There's an inherent problem in this community. And I would submit to you, with the building boom that's going on and the increased revenues that are going on in this community, we can't afford the things that we need to do. And we have to prioritize. And that's not taking place right now. So, to go outside of the budgetary constraints and say we can raise money through CPA, we can raise money through, you know, we can raise money through debt exclusion, you know, we'll also privatize our electricity bill and try to save people money that way. This is all going to come home to roost. Someone has to pay for it, Mr. President. This is all going to come home to roost. And I'm not at the point right now that I'm going to be operating outside of the city budget, which I believe people are already overtaxed in this community, get limited services, which I see on a daily basis, and then ask for additional. Now we're going to be asking to send out the tax bill. Hey, in addition to debt exclusion, in addition to CPA, we also want to know, would you like to donate a little more money to build this, this, and this? I mean, where are we going, Mr. President? Where do we go? Why don't we just put our hand in the pocket of each and every taxpayer? We won't need to ask them. And that's the slippery slope. I realize what we're trying to do. But ultimately, Mr. President, I come from a different train of thought. That's work within the confines of the budget. We happen to be in a great economy now. There should be no reason that we're looking at debt exclusion to do the simple, simple task of maintaining our buildings and our infrastructure. That goes with a $160 million-odd budget, Mr. President. And if we can't operate within that budget, we need to take a look at some of the high-paying salaries around here and some of these no-show jobs, Mr. President, that are in the six-figure sums, Mr. President, if we want to get a handle on things. Not going back to the taxpayers. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: One information, Councilor Marks. Right, and that would allow the people to decide, but what if it's a 60-40 vote? Do you tell the 40 percent, sorry, you're going up anyways? So, it's not a clear cut just because it's Just because it passes, just because it passes that everyone's on board, Mr. President. There's a lot of hardships out there, people struggling day to day that, you know, will have to make decisions whether or not they're going to eat or pay their taxes, Mr. President. Those are life decisions that are being made. We may not experience it, but they're out there, believe me.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, did we all get a copy of that?
[Michael Marks]: Was it this week's package? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I have no problem approving this. However, the event at Circle the Square, it mentions various locations. And I, as one member of the council, would want to make sure that whatever is being done is not placed in front of an already existing food establishment. And would ask that the paper be amended to have the administration provide locations for this particular event, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I do want to thank the Method Community Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce. They held a cleanup day this past Saturday in many of our business districts, and they did a tremendous job. I believe we all received an email regarding trash from one woman that her and her daughter were out, and she noticed a lot of cigarette butts. So I would say that, in addition to a trash barrel, that the city also look at putting cigarette receptacles where people can place a cigarette in, Mr. President, because you don't want them throwing them in a trash barrel that could cause a fire. So I would ask that, Mr. President. The second thing is that I believe much of the debris we see around is because the fact that this community only sweeps our streets twice a year. It's inadequate for the number of businesses that we have, the number of vehicular cars that are cut through this community, that may dump trash. And I believe that we have to impact and put together a full-fledged street sweeping program, which would sweep our streets more than twice a year, and also our neighborhoods, which much of this debris, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, I can tell you firsthand, living off the Fellsway, that every day, indeed, I'm out there picking up trash that blows up the street. And you come out the next day, and it's more trash that's out there. And it ranges from Dunkin' Donuts to plastic bags to newspapers, you name it. Some of the stuff you see out there is pretty amazing. A second thing, Mr. President, and I don't want to seem critical, but waste management. If you happen to see when they dump the barrels, it's pretty amazing how much trash gets left behind. When it picks up, the arm picks up, it dumps the thing in there, and then you see paper fly out here and there. And it may not seem like a lot in front of your house, but times that by 30,000 households, And it's a fair number of trash that's somehow escaping from the truck and not getting in there. Some of it's due to barrels that are over strewn with trash, and the lids aren't closed properly, which was supposed to be a mandate in order to dump your trash. The lid had to be shut when the program first started. Now they seem to be very liberal in taking the trash, Mr. President. That's the second reason, I believe, you see additional trash. So it's the lack of street sweeping in this community. It's also the waste management pickup, which I believe could be done more efficiently and effectively. And the third point, Mr. President, and I had this discussion with the gentleman that called up regarding the trash along the sidewalks when he walks his pet. The dog's trying to eat stuff constantly that's left outside on the sidewalks. And, you know, we require by ordinance that people shovel in front of their home, even though it's a city sidewalk, that you take ownership and pride and you shovel in front of your home. And if you don't, you potentially could get a ticket. And someday we may need to expand that to also sweeping in front of your home and taking care of the public sidewalk in front of your home when it comes to cleanliness, Mr. President. I don't think it's a bad idea. I think it shows a sense of pride and a sense of ownership, you know, and a lot of people do it anyways. But, you know, I think this would go a long way to putting our best foot forward as a community. When people drive through, which many thousands of people do, they see a city that's clean and taken care of and not a city that's littered with debris, which I hate to say is currently happening right now in our community. Mr. President, so those would be my suggestions. Thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe we all received an email from a resident that was concerned about the living conditions of her parents living at Walkland Court. I happen to make a call and talk to the executive director, Mr. Driscoll, regarding some of the concerns that were mentioned, which was cleanliness of the building and we did receive several photos which showed a building that was in dire need of a sweep and some 409 and some heavy duty cleaning. It was also mentioned that in this particular location There's been a concern with bed bugs in several of the units within Walkland Court, of which I was assured by the executive director that the exterminator that's been called out has been doing the proper number of treatments to eradicate the bed bugs, which I believe has to take at least a two to three week span and at least three treatments. And also the fact that when residents are told that their apartment will be exterminated, there should be a step-by-step process that they need to follow. in order to eradicate the bed bugs, because if you take your sheeting and other items, clothing, and put it in storage, which may be in the basement of that facility while they're treating your apartment, and then after it's done, reintroduce all the stuff that was in the apartment, that may be the cause of reintroducing the bed bugs over and over, and also the spread of bed bugs within a particular housing unit. So I'm confident now that The executive director, Mr. Driscoll, is on top of this, that the proper professionals were called out in order to take care of the concerns. There is a cleaning crew that will be going through all the buildings. Another issue, Mr. President, was the dumpsters. According to this particular woman that contacted the council, that at any given time this furniture and a number of items that are left outside of this little alleyway, which is where they housed their dumpster. And the executive director assured me that he will have it monitored. It's not under lock and key. In my opinion, you probably have people dumping that don't live in the particular area and know there's a dumpster there and dumping items off. And depending on what the item is, it could be attracting rodents and infestation and other concerns. So he assured me that they were going to keep a close eye on the dumpster and potentially look at some type of locking mechanism that's only available to residents, which to me makes sense. The last concern which I discussed with Mr. Driscoll was based on what this particular Method resident reached out and said that when residents bring concerns, they're fearful that their concerns may be used against them or they may be told, well, if you keep on bringing these things up, you know, you're going to have to find housing somewhere. And that's pretty devastating when you're talking elderly and disabled people which occupy these 144 units, Mr. President. And I made it known to the executive director that any such action by any employee will not be tolerated. And he agreed with me and said that he was going to have a discussion with his staff. So there is proper protocol according to federal and state statute out there for housing that would require when you file a grievance. So if you're living in a state or federal building, there's a whole policy you can follow to file a grievance. And it actually gets to the executive director level. And if you're not happy with the executive director, Then you can go to either federal or state court to resolve your issues. So there's a number of avenues, and by no means or at any time should anyone be a fear that there'll be retribution or something held against them for reporting an issue of concern, which may be cleanliness, rodents, whatever it might be, Mr. President. No one should be in fear of that. And I let that be known to the executive director. I'm hoping some changes are going to be made. That walk-in court is the only state development we have in this community now. The federal government back, I think it was two or three years ago, moved to purchase all the state housing within the Commonwealth, and I assume across the country, but I know in the Commonwealth. And for some reason, that walk-in court, they were not interested in. They purchased some of the other state housing we had in the community, but not walk-in court. And according to the director, he said it's no excuse, but they are sorely underfunded by the state. And, you know, he's paying special attention to this particular unit because of the lack of funding and the needs that are in that building, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Locren.
[Michael Marks]: As I stated last week, Mr. President, during this discussion, that I am all in favor of correcting the error. However, I do agree with my council colleague that we found out about this error well over two years ago. And I, as one member of the council, you know, am very supportive of doing away with the use variance. You know, so I'd rather pursue it in that avenue, and we will cover that by a vote of this council in doing so. You know, either way, it doesn't matter to me. It's kind of semantics. But, you know, I hope we meet sooner than later regarding moving some of these important issues, Mr. President, with all this development going on, that we need to move some of these important issues to safeguard our residents.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, believe it or not, I have not examined the records yet.
[Michael Marks]: Hello, and welcome to another edition of Spotlight on Method. I'm your host, Michael Marks. I'm standing here at Channel 3 Local Community Access. Come on down and produce your own show. I'm very excited to have two new guests tonight. My first guest is State Rep. Sean Garbali. He's been a state rep for the past 10 years, representing our community in the state legislature. And my second guest is Craig Foley. He's an advocate for green energy and issues that we're going to push forward in this community. We'll discuss tonight surrounding how we can be more efficient and effective when it comes to energy conservation. So sit back, grab your popcorn, and enjoy the show. Hi, and welcome back. I'm here with my first guest, state rep, Sean Garbali. He's in his fifth term as a state representative who represents the Arlington and Method areas, and I'm proud to say he's here tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much for being here tonight.
[Michael Marks]: You know, my first question, Sean, is maybe if you can give us a little background. People know who a city council is. They know who a school committee person is.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I think it's fair to say that you've been representing Medford in such a great manner for the past almost 10 years that we consider you part of Medford.
[Michael Marks]: Well, that's great. And I think people appreciate the fact that you do a lot regarding constituent services. And it's important, as I know as a member of the city council, that when people call, you've got to get back in a timely fashion. And I hear good things about what you're doing on behalf of our community. So I want to thank you. I just wanted to get into briefly, I know the house budget is up and before you right now. If you can give us just a little feedback on the house budget and what, if any impacts there will be to the city of Medford.
[Michael Marks]: As you probably know, we've become so dependent on local aid as a community that when we set our budget, we rely on the money coming from the state in order to fund the things like you mentioned, education. Our education budget in the city is a third of our total budget, over a third of our total budget. So it's a big, important issue in the community, and it's helpful to know that you're on the Ways and Means Committee, which is an influential position, and that you're going to be fighting on behalf of our community to make sure we receive the appropriate funds.
[Michael Marks]: Speaking of education. I know you're the vice chair of the higher education house committee And I was wondering if you can give us a little brief background on what's currently happening before that committee and your role with that committee absolutely, so
[Michael Marks]: That's great and you just hit home with me because I actually have three students right now. I have two at Framingham State College and one at UMass Lowell.
[Michael Marks]: Proud Riverhawk. Let me tell you, all great schools And it's great to hear that you're talking about putting some money into a program that could potentially help those who may not be able to afford to get into college and so forth. And keeping our population educated is key in Massachusetts. And I'm glad to hear that there's a bill that you're working on. Where does that bill currently stand?
[Michael Marks]: And I know you're working on a lot. Criminal justice reform is also another issue I know that's been near and dear to you. Can you give us an update on how that's going?
[Michael Marks]: Wow, it seems like you have a full plate of issues.
[Michael Marks]: Another issue on the local level is, and I'm just throwing this out there, I've always had an issue with attracting people during election time. You know, because people don't get out and vote. And we find it on the local level, as you probably know, if you get 25 to 30 percent, you're extremely lucky in a local election. And it starts to build up. A state election, you get a little more. In a presidential election, you get, you know, a larger percentage. any thoughts on how we could, as a community, and I'm sure Arlington struggles with the same, how can we spur the interest of a community to get them out, let them know that local government is extremely important, we probably impact more that goes on in their life than the federal or the state government, and how do we get more people involved and interested in getting out and getting involved in the community?
[Michael Marks]: I actually like the idea.
[Michael Marks]: Absolutely. And to me, everything's on the table. So any way we can promote elections, that being one, I think is a positive thing. Absolutely. You know, again, I want to thank you for your time. I want to thank you for your effort on behalf of this community. I know that when we have crucial issues that we can count on your support. We can count on your being there. And I think that goes a long way in our community. Again, I want to thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Absolutely, and I thank you again for your time.
[Michael Marks]: Hi, and I'm back with my next guest, Craig Foley. Craig and I just spent several minutes discussing actually what he does, and I'm still confused. So Craig, if you can fill us in on exactly what do you do, Craig?
[Michael Marks]: Very interesting. So one of the big issues in the community is how do we become more energy efficient? And I know in the City of Medford we've taken some steps regarding solar energy, regarding wind power. We are in the process right now of putting LED lights in our business districts. Are there any suggestions that you can give, not only for a community, but a business owner or a local resident on how to become, ways of becoming more energy efficient?
[Michael Marks]: What else is part of the program? I know you mentioned insulation.
[Michael Marks]: I see Mass Save, they come out at a lot of local events promoting this, and you're right, if we were able to get it out in a way that people feel comfortable, a lot of people don't know about the program, what it entails, and especially if it's at no cost for just an analysis, I mean, that's a win-win.
[Michael Marks]: So the other issue I hear off and on is solar. Living in New England, do we have enough sun to make it feasible to have solar power and so forth? What are your thoughts of someone that may be going back and forth, whether they're going to go solar or not?
[Michael Marks]: I mean, those are real challenges. So living in New England, does that put a damper on things because of
[Michael Marks]: It's a very important issue. And we have a minute left. And I hate to do this to you, but. That's OK. Another big issue that recently came forward was municipal aggregation. If you could just give us a one minute thought on municipal aggregation. I know you were instrumental in Melrose in bringing their program to fruition. Just give us one minute that you think people should know about how this works for those that are out there.
[Michael Marks]: Well, that was a great answer, and I appreciate your time. I think I have a somewhat of a better understanding of exactly what you do. And again, Craig, thank you very much. And maybe we'll have you back on the show someday when things start to move forward. Thanks, Michael. Thank you. I want to thank my guest tonight, State Rep Sean Garbali. If anyone's interested in reaching out to the state representative, he is more than happy to discuss any issue you'd like. I thought it was very interesting to hear what is going on with the state legislature and how it impacts our city as a community. My second guest, I want to thank Craig Foley. Craig Foley is an advocate for sustainability, and I also found that very interesting and informative on ways we as a community can become more environmentally friendly. So thanks again for tuning in on Spotlight on Method.
[Michael Marks]: Hello and welcome to another edition of Spotlight on Medford. I'm your host, Michael Mox. I'm standing here at Channel 3 Community Access located at Medford High School. Anyone interested in producing their own show, come on down. You know, I have two great guests on tonight. I have Gary Roberts from the Medford Arts Council, he's the chair, and Jim Silva, who's a community activist and also the founder of SMADO, South Medford Residents Together. You know, we got together a while back and created a small working group of citizens interested in forming an arts collaborative in Medford. a committee to explore the creation of an arts center in Medford. The committee includes leadership of some of Medford's largest art organizations, including Caché, the Medford Arts Council, and Medford Arts Center and Corp., better known as MACI. Among the locations being reviewed is the building formerly known as the Hegner Center, located at 15 Maple Park Ave. next to Gillis Park. which was reacquired by the city of Medford back in 2016. So sit back, grab your popcorn, and enjoy the show. Hi, and I'm very excited to have my two guests on tonight who are representing the Arts Collaborative Method, which is a new collaboration of a group of concerned citizens who are interested in the arts in the community and that would like to see an arts center come to fruition in our community. My two guests, one is Gary Roberts. He is the chair of the Method Arts Council and has been so for the past five years. And I also have Jim Silva here, who is a community organizer and someone that's been very active in the South Medford neighborhood with the creation of SMARTO, which is South Medford Residents Together. So I'd like to thank both my guests. Mr. Silva.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Roberts, let's start off with just telling us a little about your involvement in the arts community and anything else you'd like to share with us regarding your community involvement.
[Michael Marks]: That's hot. Seems like you're very active and involved in the arts. That's great to hear.
[Michael Marks]: That's excellent. That's excellent. And Jim, tell us a little about what you've been doing in the community.
[Michael Marks]: I know firsthand being involved in some of those initiatives that you have been very successful with SMARTO in bringing and confronting some of the issues that face your particular neighborhood. And to be quite frank, I'd like to see that done citywide because I think it's been a great initiative and very successful. in getting some needs within the community addressed that sometimes otherwise would be overlooked. So I appreciate your effort. I know also, we won't get into it a lot, the Green Line Extension has been, you're on the committee now, and maybe if you could just give a minute or two about where we stand with the Green Line Extension.
[Michael Marks]: I'm on the working group.
[Michael Marks]: That's great. We all know transportation is key. It's the reason why people move to communities and I'm thankful for your effort on that. I know it's all volunteer, both volunteer positions and on behalf of the community. I want to thank you because I know a lot of time and effort goes into it, and it's all behind the scenes. It's not like being a member of the council when you have FaceTime all the time. People say, oh, look what he's doing. These are volunteers that are behind the scenes, actually the backbone of the community. So I want to thank you both. Let's talk a little bit about the, which I mentioned at the beginning, this new arts collaborative method, which I believe was initiated for the fact that we're looking to create an arts center, a home for the arts in the community, which I believe, and I know you both do, is long overdue. So maybe if you can both give me a quick rundown of how was this created, why was it created, the who, what, when, where, why of where we're at now with the creation of an art center in the community. Maybe we could start off.
[Michael Marks]: That's excellent. And maybe if you could just outline what the need is in the community for an arts center, why would a community seek out space for arts, and how does arts impact the community?
[Michael Marks]: So, Jim, if you could just tell us a little bit of how you got involved and what you envision in an art center. What do you think an art center would be like?
[Michael Marks]: So the general idea is for arts, but it's also a place where you can meet neighbors, make friends, and do a lot of things, not just the arts. So it's really a collaboration of not just arts, but drawing a community together.
[Michael Marks]: So I don't want to date myself, but back some years ago, when the issue came up, when there were a number of artists that were looking for space in the community, at that time, they said, let's look for an art center in the community. And at the time, we were moving from our old neighborhood schools to the centralized schools. And one of the buildings that were no longer being used as a school, the Swan School, was targeted as an art center. And there was a collaboration back at the time between some of the art groups and also local community access. That happened to fall down and never came to fruition. But I think what's happening now is there's a renewed interest. And from what I heard, that there were several sites in the community that have been looked at where we can have not only administrative offices, which I'm sure, Gary, you would appreciate, having a place to hang your hat and call the Method Arts Council, but also a place that could have workshops and trainings and performances and art exhibits. And I know one site that really piqued the interest of this new arts collaborative method was the Hegna Center, which is right next to Gillis Park, if anyone's familiar. And that, for many years, was not in city control. The city deeded out the building some time back for a purpose of helping people with developmentally disabled people in the community and outside the community. And it was just recently within the last two years that the city retained the building back. And I think it was a great opportunity on its location, its parking availability, and overall space that I believe would make a great, great area for an art center. And I know we've done a tour of the building, and I would like to hear what you perceive we can do with the building and how we can include that building as a piece of the neighborhood.
[Michael Marks]: Has there been any formal outreach by any of the groups regarding surveys or information or feedback from the community in regards to what the community would like to see if we did implement an art center?
[Michael Marks]: And just to get to the point where there may be people that say, you know what, that's great to have an art center, but I'm homebound and I can't get out there. Are there any ideas that you know of that do community outreach and bring the arts out to the community, maybe in local parks or somewhere that may be more reachable to people that may not be able to get to a site?
[Michael Marks]: I mean, I've even noticed on the electrical boxes throughout the community, art displays in the electrical boxes, which I think adds so much to a community. I know back last year and the year before, Mackie was doing what they call art bombs, which they put yarn around electrical lights and so forth. And just the addition, it makes it look like, you know, someone's there, someone cares. And I know I had the chance to go to Lowell back a few years back, and I think it's something that you talked about, Gary, about how they took a park that was in a drug-infested area and built a small performance stage and really took back the park from which was considered a downtrodden park and residents didn't want to use it, they were fearful, and created with wrought iron and a small wooden stage at a minimal cost. And I said, you know what? We don't have those type of parks, thank God, that are drug infested, but it would be nice to use some of the open space we have to invite people right in the neighborhood to get involved with the yachts, and at a minimal cost. And I really would like to see that concept someday implemented, and I know you probably both would like to see the same.
[Michael Marks]: So the next question naturally would be, we have a need for an art center in the community. We have several locations that we're looking at. And I guess the big question is, how would we fund an art center? What's the next steps? Do we go through studies, feasibility studies? Jim, I know you're an organizer in the community. I know that you were one of the members on the creation of the dog park behind the, McGlynn School on River Bend, and you were one of the people that led the drive to go out and find private funding through the Stanton Foundation that paid for a good majority, if not all, of the dog park. And what do you see your experience in that? and going forward with the art center. How are we going to move this forward? Naturally, funds are tight in the community, and there's a lot going on. We have a lot of projects, as you're probably both aware. So how do we make this happen, and what are the next steps?
[Michael Marks]: You know, I can't say enough. I want to thank you both for your involvement in the community. And really, I think this is a worthy initiative and I appreciate your volunteerism in moving this community forward that we all love and care for. And I think this is going to be a great asset when it does come to reality. And again, I want to thank you both. Thank you for putting it out there. Thank you for all your support. Thanks for your time. Medford has a large and dynamic arts community, with numerous individual artists and more than 25 arts and culture organizations. The Medford Arts Council funds more than 60 cultural programs throughout the city each year, and Caché's online arts and culture calendar featured over 600 events in Medford in 2017. And yet, the arts currently have no physical home in Medford. There is also a lack of space in the city for holding arts-related events and displaying the work of our artists, and organizations rely on temporary and borrowed spaces. An arts center could serve as a hub for the arts and method, and provide much-needed space for art classes, art exhibits, performances, art studios, and administrative space for art organizations. Arts and culture are important to building a strong community. Not only do the arts contribute to the attractiveness and livability of a city, they contribute directly to the strength of the local economy by supporting both our artists and our local businesses. In addition, arts education enhances student performances across all disciplines. helping to build motor skills, language, problem solving, and critical thinking skills in students. For more information, please visit www.acmethod.org. I want to thank my two guests tonight. I want to thank Gary Roberts, the Chair of Method Arts Council, and I want to thank Jim Silva, who is a local organizer, and also the creator of SMARTO, South Method Residents Together. I want to thank them for all their civic-minded involvement in the community, and I want to thank you, the viewing audience, for tuning in once again for Spotlight on Method. I thank you for your viewership, and we'll see you next show on Spotlight Method.
[Michael Marks]: Hello, and welcome to the first edition of Spotlight on Method. I'm your host, Michael Marks. I'm standing here today at the new community access station with brand new equipment, state-of-the-art equipment, all in this facility. I invite anyone that wants to come up in the community to host their own show and get involved. After all, this is your money that's paying for this community access. Spotlight on Method will host and highlight all people living in the community. This show is all about the city of Medford and the unique people and the many different talents that we have living in our community. I plan on highlighting civic organizations, businesses, and residents in this community. As a member of the city council for the past 16 years, you all know me. I've been very active and involved in this community. I also served for six years on the school committee. very active in the schools at that time. There are a lot of pressing issues that are confronting Method. I want to bring them to your attention, and hopefully this will be informative and interesting at the same time. I plan on having a great show. Our first guest is Fred Lasky, a local Method resident, and also he's the head executive director of the MWRA. Sit back and relax and enjoy the show. Hello and welcome back to the first episode of Spotlight on Method. I'm here today with my very first guest, Fred Lasky. Fred Lasky is not only the Executive Director of the MWRA, but also a Method resident. Fred also served in several capacities on a statewide level. He was the Secretariat of the Administration and Finance, and also served in the Department of Revenue as the Director of the Department of Revenue. On the local level, Fred served on the school committee two years, two terms, excuse me Fred, two terms. And he's also very active with the guiding club and also the local Boy Scouts. Fred, it's a pleasure to have you here today.
[Michael Marks]: Thanks very much. Fred, as the executive director of the MWRA, I'm sure you get a lot of questions. And I'm sure you're very involved with the day-to-day operations of the MWRA. But I found some interesting service figures that I think it's important to know. Most of us get up for work and decide what we're going to have for breakfast and so forth. But when you get up in the morning, you have to make sure that 2.5 million people get water and sewer every day. You service over 890,000 households, 5,500 businesses, and supply an average of 200 million gallons of water per day, and you treat over 350 million gallons of sewage per day for 61 communities. How does that feel, Fred?
[Michael Marks]: I think under your leadership over the last many years that I myself have noticed a big difference in the quality of water that we get to our house. One interesting fact that I remember reading somewhere online was that it takes roughly, it costs roughly one cent to get a gallon of clean drinking water to your house. And I found that very interesting fact.
[Michael Marks]: It's amazing, really.
[Michael Marks]: For the same type of water. You know, Fred, the number one question I get as a member of the council is, naturally, how can we lower rates? How can I lower my MWRA water and sewer rate? And I tell people water conservation is a great way. The less you use, the less you're going to pay. But is there any other things that you can bring us up to date and tell the viewing audience, ways that they can actually try to lower their water and sewer rates?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And how can someone get the dye tabs or the aerators?
[Michael Marks]: From a city standpoint, I know the city has taken action over the last several years, taking advantage of 0% finance loans that are offered by the MWRA. And we've tackled many projects such as I&I inflow and infiltration, trying to get a handle on where the leakage is within our outdated sewer system. and also leak detection. We recently purchased a leak detection system that sends out an acoustic signal. They're located on the mains throughout the community and it sends out a signal and is able to tell the city within a matter of two to three feet where there may be a leak. And these are some of the things that we've taken steps as a community to try to get a handle on lowering costs from the MWRA Is there anything else regarding the loans that you can think of?
[Michael Marks]: So there's been a lot of talk in the news recently, not right in this community, but in this state and across the country regarding lead. And what I try to tell people is that the MWRA has what I refer to as like a lead-free zone. There is no lead pipes currently that carries the water from the MWRA source. to homes, the 61 communities that you service. However, the lead that may be there is the connection between the city pipes and a homeowner's pipe, or the homeowner may have a lead connection. Is there anything that's being done now to help assist homeowners with possibly the changeover of their lead connections?
[Michael Marks]: That's a good suggestion. I believe on the city website there is a thing you can click on that will show that you can where you can get one of these kits from the lead testing kit yes and I believe the city will mail it out to you and I believe as part of the process the city then in return mails it to the MWRA and you guys do the testing is that correct yes and we've done you can hire a private lab if you'd like but we do those tests and we've done I think 38,000 tests on schools alone in our service area a lot of older schools and whatever and and and
[Michael Marks]: Protecting our water supply is key. Fred, bringing it to a local level, Spot Pond, the Mystic River, are there any new things that are happening that residents may want to be aware of or any innovations that are going on currently within our community that you can speak of?
[Michael Marks]: Well, not to get from the MWRA, but on a local level, I know you're involved in many community initiatives and activities. I was wondering if you could just speak briefly about the Garden Club. I know you've been very involved and near and dear to you regarding the Garden Club.
[Michael Marks]: I'm so happy to see that it's expanding. I know the original setup that we had at the McGlynn School, there was roughly a two to three year waiting list, which showed there was interest in the community. And now we're seeing it branch off into many of our 26 parks and open spaces throughout the community. So I just see this as a win-win for the entire community.
[Michael Marks]: If you could just, I know another aspect that you've been involved with is the Boy Scouts. Yeah. And I think it's Troop 416 in particular.
[Michael Marks]: You know what, Fred, I want to thank you for your community involvement and your involvement for many, many years on the state level. And in my opinion, you've taken the MWRA to another level. And I appreciate your time. And thanks for being a guest on the show.
[Michael Marks]: Well, thanks again. And I hope to see you soon.
[Michael Marks]: And we're back. I'm sitting here tonight with my good friend, Bill O'Keefe, a lifelong Method resident, Vice President of Corporate Securities at Bank of America, and just an all-around good guy. Bill, thanks for coming on the show. Thanks. Thanks for having me, Mark. Thanks. Appreciate it. Bill, you've been very active, involved. I know you're the president of Method Little League. And I was just wondering if you can provide us with any updates on Method Little League.
[Michael Marks]: Recently, Bill, I'm sure you're aware that Method just created a new recreation department and they just recently hired a head of the recreation department. How is that department going to be instrumental in combining all the efforts of all the youth sports and what do you foresee that recreation department to be? like in the coming future?
[Michael Marks]: That's long overdue and something needed in the community, somewhere that would act as a clearinghouse
[Michael Marks]: That's great to hear. You know, I played in my day for the West Medford Little League. I was on Gaffey's and Kiwanis, and was it a household name? Right. Needless to say, but I had a lot of fun playing Little League in the city. And did you have any time playing?
[Michael Marks]: There's a lot of moving parts when it comes to scheduling.
[Michael Marks]: I know another thing you've been very involved in, Bill, is the American Legion, Post 45.
[Michael Marks]: Thanks, Bill. You know, we do have a lot of great organizations, in particular veterans organizations in this community, and I want to thank you for your commitment to the organizations and keeping this going forward. I appreciate your time tonight. It's been a pleasure seeing you, Bill. I'm sure we'll see you again. And I'd just like to thank you for tuning in to the very first show on Spotlight Method. I'd like to thank my two guests tonight. We had Fred Lasky, the executive director of the MWRA, who is a Method resident, and Bill O'Keefe, a lifelong Method resident, very active and involved in the community. I'd like to thank Community Access Channel 3, Public Access. Come on down to Access Channel. It's open to anyone that wants to come in. You have an open mic. You pay for it. Like I say, use the community access. I want to thank everyone for watching Spotlight on Method, and I'd like to give a special thanks to my producer, Chris Donovan, who has done yeoman's work in helping put this together. Again, we'll see you next time on Spotlight Method.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It was roughly, I think, five or six months ago that this City Council unanimously put forward a motion to request that the broadcasting equipment here at City Hall be updated because of the age of the equipment and the fact that the broadcast itself wasn't going out properly to residents of this community. Shortly after that, Ben Brown, who is the Method Community Media Station Manager, reached out to us in November 30th, and this is his email, Mr. President, to us. I'd like to just read part of it, if I could. It's addressed to the council, and it's regarding the Alden Chambers video upgrade, meeting rooms, and video install. It says, hello, I've received a detailed quote to first upgrade the cameras and broadcast equipment in the Alden Chambers, as well as to install cameras in two meeting rooms in City Hall for the web streaming of meetings. In the first portion of the proposal, the quote details installation of four new cameras, as well as the installation of all new TV equipment in the control room. There are a few reasons why this would need to be such a large upgrade. But the primary one is that the existing equipment at the Alden Chambers is so far behind that new equipment can't interface with the old. So Ben did his homework and came up with a cost to upgrade our broadcast equipment of a cost at $39,707. He then went to go on to alert us about the web streaming that this council has met on. I know Councilor Falco has discussed this on many occasions, to install cameras not only here in the council for transparency, but also in the other rooms in the building where we might have board and commission meetings. And we had several meetings on this and discussed it and was part of the recommendation when the council voted on it to request that Ben also look into the cost to add these particular cameras in the rooms. So on that part, he says for the meeting rooms we would be installing a single camera mounted in the corner of the room. as well as two removable microphones that would sit on the table. These would interface directly with the Acela streaming equipment. The cost for web streaming is $7,058. So if you combine the broadcast equipment, which is our equipment here for government channel of 39,707 and 7,058, you come out with $46,765 to accomplish this. He also goes on to say, for future consideration, the Alden Chambers system could incrementally be upgraded going forward to prevent such a large upgrade in the future. The standards that are quoted should be around for another 15 to 20 years, which would allow for things to be swapped out rather than rebuilding from the ground up. I thought that was very helpful to receive that. You know, we've been talking about transparency, this council, for a number of years. And I find it ironic now what's going on in this community and the lack of transparency that's taken place. And here we are as a council, been asking just if we can upgrade our equipment so people that are unable to come to these meetings can view the meetings and see what's going on in city government. You know, we had for approximately three and a half to four years no cable access when it comes to government channel, I shouldn't say government channel, community access channel. And yet, the rate payers were paying a franchise fee each and every month to operate not only the government channel, the school channel, and the community access channel, but we only got a portion of that. So there was surplus money left in the account, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all we're asking for is a small amount to make sure people can view what's going on in government. We all talk about it. The second part of it, after that November correspondence we received from Ben Brown, the station manager, Councilor Longo responded back to the email and said that she received a number of complaints and that people can't hear the meetings and see the meetings and etc. Shahb Khan, who's our Chief Procurement Officer, came back and said, I agree. This vendor is on a state contract for video equipment. We must need to find the funds. Without this equipment, the software we bought for the streaming of meetings will not be of any use. So apparently we have the software for streaming the meetings in these other rooms, but we don't have the equipment to stream it with. So that was the Chief Procurement Officer stating that. And then recently, we got a final email from Ben Brown, the station manager. This is dated February 21st, 2018. And it's to Jen Dever, Ed Finn, Lauren Felch, the city council. It says, good morning. I've received extensive complaints about the quality of city council broadcast. And these quality issues are directly related to the age of the equipment that's in the room broadcasting the meetings. I'd really like to move forward with the installation of new equipment to settle this issue. Is there anything we can do to move forward with this purchase order? So here we not only have the council, we not only have residents that are contacting the station manager, contacting the council. I'm sure contacting the administration. And yet some four or five months later, we still are in the same position that we were five months ago. There's money there in the cable account to attend to this very important issue. And I would ask Mr. President, we took a vote already as a council, sent it off to the mayor. And I would ask again that we reinforce that vote and ask that the mayor allocate $46,765 to renew the broadcast equipment here at City Hall and to also purchase the web streaming equipment that's needed to not only view boards and commissions when they have their meeting, but also Committee of the Whole meetings and other pertinent meetings that are taking place here at City Hall that residents really should know what's going on, Mr. President. It's a small amount to pay for transparency. You know, I think that word's overused nowadays, but let me tell you, Mr. President, it's true that the lack of transparency in this community is astonishing. And this is only one aspect that we've been asking for for years to make sure that people can view these meetings. And you see what happens when people aren't forthcoming with information and a lack of transparency. You see what happens in the community, Mr. President. So I would ask that that be done in a roll call vote to the city administration.
[Michael Marks]: Right. She's been looking into it for at least six months now and four years prior.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I bring this issue up tonight, Mr. President, Because it's an issue that's been near and dear to me for several years now, and one in which I've discussed during budget times with the superintendent of schools, one in which I have debated the superintendent on, and one in which I believe firmly that in order for us to have a secure school facility, we must revisit our facility rental agreements. And I bring this up, Mr. President, because recently I took it one step further and took a look at the current Medford Public Schools facility rental agreement. And I went through it with a fine-tooth comb. And I was surprised to see a number of things, of which I am going to speak about tonight. I think when we look at a rental agreement, although it's stated in the policy that it should be used for community services and so forth, It's a valuable asset, which I agree. It also states in here that it should generate revenue. And to me, revenue is a side effect of us as a community and what we do with our buildings. And to me, the security of our faculty and our students should be the number one priority over revenue, over anything that's happening in our school system. And under this current facilities rental agreement, I don't believe it addresses security at all. And it doesn't mention at all the security of our buildings, the security of our students, or our faculty that are in these buildings, Mr. President. If you would indulge me, I'd like to read certain sections of this. And the reason why I'm doing it is, I know, I believe it was last week, the school committee voted to take a look at their policy. on rentals. And I don't want to say I told you so, but for the past five years I've actually voted against city budgets because of this very issue. The past five years I've had a dialogue and discussion with the superintendent And he assured me over and over again, my colleagues were present for a lot of this, that he would indeed look into this and see if there was a shortcoming within our rental agreements and how we can improve it so that our students are safe within our buildings, that our faculty are safe. And I'm very disappointed that in my discussions recently with the superintendent, that none of this was addressed. And this is only one part of school safety. I don't want anyone to think that if we iron this out with rentals, that now we have a safe school building. There's policies, there's procedures, there's lockdowns, there's oversight, there's a lot else that takes place within our buildings to provide security. And this is one component, but a very important component. So the first page of the facilities rental agreement, and by the way, this is, anyone can go on the city public school website and pull up this agreement, the Connor box just put in at the top, rental agreement, it'll pop up this particular agreement. One information, Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Sure, mine has personal comments on it, so I'm not gonna share mine, If you could email me the link, I'd appreciate it. We can get this on the city website. So at first it states, Mr. President, procedure for use of school facilities. It says rental applications should contact community schools for facilities and the pool coordinator for the pool. Or in the case of other facilities, the secretary of the school at which the facility is located to determine if the facility is available. Once an individual organization has determined facility availability, and has decided to proceed with the rental, the rental procedure at Medford Public Schools should be followed. And the very first thing says, you should go and complete the facility's usage request. And you can go right online, I printed it out, it's a two page request form. The request form asks for a name of applicant. That's a pretty fair question. Name of organization, your mailing address, your phone number, your email address, the city in which you reside. And the date requested, days of the week, the entrance time of the facility, and the exit time of the facility. The start of the activity, end of activity. And then you just have to sign it, leave a deposit. I believe it's a 25% deposit on whatever the cost is. And then at midway down on the page, apparently the Medford Public Schools is open for rental. It says organizations using school facilities must adhere to the time approved. And then it goes on to say the school requested. So under this application, you can request to rent Medford High School, McGlynn Middle School, Andrews Middle School, the Brooks Elementary School, the Columbus Elementary School, and the Roberts Elementary School. Then it asks you, within those particular schools, what facility would you like to have within those particular schools? You can have the Marsha Karen Theater. You can have Lecture Hall C2. You can have the McGlynn Theater. You can have MHS Foyer. You can have Lecture Hall C3. You can have classrooms, Library Media Center, Brooks Elementary Gym, Columbus Elementary Gym, McGlynn Gym, Andrews Gym, Roberts Gym, Medford High Gym, Andrews Middle School Cafeteria, Batting Cages, Pool, MHS Cafeteria, Lecture Halls, Batting Cages, Edgeley Field, La Conte Rink, In other, you can put in other. Maybe you can write, I'd like to rent the mayor's office. I don't know, it says other. Maybe that's, so you can request whatever you want to rent in this community. The next section is equipment services needed. Do you need a custodian? you check it off. Food service, you would check it off if you need it. A house manager, you would check it off. Theater technician, a microphone, overhead projector, video, LCD. Not one question about security. Not one question. And in my opinion, it shouldn't be a question, Mr. President, It should be mandatory that if you're renting out public schools, that Medford Public Schools provides the security on behalf of our community to safeguard our building that we have millions of dollars invested in, and also on behalf of students and faculty that have to attend these buildings the day after we have people from outside the community using our facility. It only makes sense. It also should be a requirement to have a supervisor. And as I go on to the next page of this, it should be mandatory that the Medford Public Schools says not only will you be required to have security, but you also will be required to have a supervisor that'll be supervising the event that's going on. Making sure that you adhere to the rules and the standards and the building codes and the capacity requirements that a community has. None of that takes place. So there's the first shortfall within renting our buildings. No security requirement. It should be mandatory, Mr. President. The next part of this, it also states, and this is back to the procedure for use of the school facilities, says the building principal and where applicable, the fine arts media director or designee, athletic director for fields and gyms, food service director will review and sign the application for the rental of the facility for the purpose stated and then forward it to the superintendent for final approval. Not one sign off by security, not one sign off. How do you not include security in this day and age? How do you not safeguard our buildings? How do you not mention that? How is that not a requirement? When I go to the principal, the principal says, yeah, it's available on the 30th, that Friday, you can use the building. And he signs off. The next step should be, it goes to security. whether it's Chief Sackle or the head of security at Medford High School. And they should sign off and see what the number of people are required, what they're doing in the event, what does the event call for? Does it need more than one security personnel? Does it need more than one supervisors? Another omission in this particular rental agreement, Mr. President, a very alarming omission. The conditions of use. All users shall agree to hold the Medford Public Schools, the city of Medford, the Medford School Committee, the superintendent of schools, their agents, officers, and employees harmless for all property damage or personal injury, including death resulting from the negligence of users relating to the use of the facilities, grounds, equipment, or furniture. Nothing about our students. Nothing about our faculty. They're saying, if something happens in that building, you're not going to hold the superintendent liable. God forbid, you ain't going to hold him liable, even though he signs off on it. You're not going to hold the school committee, who's responsible for this liable. So who do we hold responsible when we allow a 21-year-old, because that's what the agreement says, you can rent if you're 21, a 21-year-old to come in and rent to any one of our buildings, invite hundreds of people, and that's not a fabrication, it currently takes place now, hundreds of people with no ID, no quarry check, we don't know what purpose other than what's stated on the form they're there for, we don't know what they're leaving behind in these schools, And we don't have any security personnel to oversee this. Again, renters must be 21 years age or older to rent a school facility. No quarry check is required. Another omission. Right now, Mr. President, if I want to go up and put a local access show on Community Access, they quarry check me. If I want to go rent the McGlynn School, No quarry check, no security, and I can rent that building until I'm blue in the face. And I can invite whoever I want into that building and have access to all sections of that building. How is that security? We recently did a sweep because what took place? Are we going to do a sweep every weekend after these renters are gone? It doesn't make sense. The policy doesn't come from a standpoint of public safety and security. It comes strictly from a financial standpoint. And we're not that hot up as a community. We don't need it, Mr. President. We don't need the additional burden, aggravation, and security concerns throughout the entire community. If you want to hold a city event, fine. Sponsored by the city. If the schools want to put on an event, that's fine in their building. I'm not talking about school events. The superintendent was here two weeks ago or a week ago, and he said, well, what about the Cub Scouts? I mean, come on, Mr. Superintendent, we're not talking about the Cub Scouts in the community. We're talking about renting our buildings to organizations or groups or individuals that we know nothing about. We don't know what their intent is, we don't know what their purpose is, and we can't control them under this current agreement. It goes on to say, Mr. President, The user may not allow attendance at any event to exceed the rated capacity at a method facility as determined by the applicable fire and safety codes. Where is that in the policy? Where is it asking for the application? I just showed you that. Where is it asking to put a number? How many people will be here? I don't see it. So that's just language in there. It's meaningless. The sponsoring organization must take responsibility for ensuring that only the facility noted on the application are used and that the remaining parts of the building are not entered. That's like giving the fox the key to the chicken coop. Here you are, renter. You're only supposed to be in the cages. No one watching you. Don't go in any parts of the building. You're not allowed anywhere else in that building. We're going to hold you responsible, Mr. Renter. Makes no sense. This is when we need security up there. This is when we need a supervisor up there to monitor our facilities and making sure they're maintained in a safe and adequate fashion, Mr. President. No individual will be admitted to the school building before the arrival of an adult supervisor. So until that 21-year-old gets there, no one's going to be admitted. who must be at least 21 years of age, and no individual may remain in the building without such supervisor. Putting a lot of emphasis on these renters. These renters are now self-policing. They're responsible now for everything. Custodians have been given special instruction to enforce regulations strictly. Another responsibility for our custodians. The superintendent said that he used them to sweep areas for bombs at the high school. Now we have them overseeing all our facilities to make sure there's adequate people responsible that should be there for the building itself. The applicant will be responsible for all attendees involved in the function, i.e. participants, observers, and anyone who enters the building when it is under the control of the applicant. He's solely responsible. Any given Saturday, you can go up to high school, and there's events up there, not gonna mention names, that have 600 or so people that attend the event. It's well attended, and it's been going on for years, and it's a great event. But there is no supervision other than this group. They supervise themselves. They have access to every classroom. They have access to the cafeteria, the intercom system, all the lecture halls, you name it, they have access to it. They even have rooms under their own lock and key. That's how big the high school is. They will give them a dedicated room. Here, you can store stuff in this particular room at the high school. Welcome to Medford High School. We'll do anything we can to keep you as a renter. Security need not apply. Then it goes on to say, the custodial staff shall have no responsibility. So before they had a responsibility to make sure that someone was 21 that was there present. The custodial staff shall have no responsibility to the user group beyond coordinating access and assisting in the location of electrical outlets and light switches. No other responsibilities. So if the superintendent says, well, they're the eyes and ears when we have a function, and they're out there to make sure things are happening, not according to this policy, they have no responsibilities. Those who use school facilities must actively supervise all participants and attendees and enforce this rule. They're responsible, the renter, for enforcing the rule. Doesn't sound like a safe environment to me, Mr. President. Doesn't sound like a place that I would feel comfortable after using to allow our children, Mr. President, to go back into these buildings, knowing that we don't know what was brought into these buildings. We don't know what was left behind. Maybe something was mistakenly left behind that could cause injury to a first grader, a second grader, a third grader. We don't know. And we'll never know under this current policy. I would ask, Mr. President, that my resolution, which states that the Medford School Committee immediately review and revise the policy to the Medford Public Schools rental to only permit school and community sponsored events until there is a complete safety review, also be amended to include mandatory security personnel and school building supervisors to be present at all Medford Public School facility rentals. And at that point, Mr. President, I would hope that the school committee does their due diligence and homework to make sure that we don't have to worry when a building's rented on a Saturday or a Sunday, that when our students show up on a Monday, that that building is secure. And as far as I'm concerned, and this may sound like a hard approach, I don't think we should be renting our buildings. I really don't think we should be renting our school facilities. If you want to rent the pool at the high school or the gymnasium, they have security up there. They have someone that's in the front that acts as a supervisor. It's a community schools concept. I'm all in favor of that. But to wholesale rent all our facilities without the proper supervision and security, I think we're setting ourselves up, Mr. President, for a disaster to happen. And I'm not going to wait for that to happen. I thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. I just wanted to let it be known that this document is available on the school website. So it'd be like going on the City of Medford website. This is available for anyone to look at, not only this council, anyone in the community. So I just want people to know that that's out there, and it's as easy as clicking on their website to get a copy of it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Martins. Council Member Craig.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, my, my resolution, uh, does not say that the city council will craft a new request form. It doesn't say it'll craft a new facilities rental agreement. It doesn't say the school committee must do this. It must do that. We're making a recommendation as elected officials. And we have every right as a concerned, not only elected official, but as a concerned parent and a resident in this community to make sure that our wishes are also carried out, Mr. President, and our concerns are carried out. So by no means is this usurping of the school committee's authority. It's great that they waited for something to happen, and now they're acting. I brought this issue up for the last four years to the superintendent, to the school committee, publicly at this meeting, and it fell on deaf ears. And now they're acting. Great for the school committee. Great for the mayor. They're acting now. I just don't believe, Mr. President, that for us, we should be able to give guidance and our input on what we believe needs to take place. And that's what I did tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Counsel Box. Mr. President, the council's been on the council for a few years. He knows much of what we say up here are recommendations. And that's all that is. So he can go based on any wording he believes. But I could just tell you when I went head-to-head with the superintendent and voted against budgets, I wish I had that same support of some of the members of this council before anything happened, Mr. President, not after the fact. So to make a recommendation tonight to improve security in our schools is well under the purview of this council, and it's a recommendation, and that's all it is, is a recommendation, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It would be up to the school committee to decide what they consider security. We currently have security officers at the school department, we have police personnel in the community, so it would be under their purview to figure out who they want there as security. But having an organization or a group determine their own security and who they internally will report as security, to me is inadequate and not a prudent way of operating.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank council Longo current for bringing this up. Uh, this is a logical next step, especially because of the proximity to, uh, the Andrew school. And I support this tonight, Mr. President on the motion.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, just if I could, Councilor Knox. Just if I could, on Mildred Ionesa, I just wanted to say a few words. I've known Mildred for a number of years. And she's always had a smile on her face, a good word to say about people, and a true family person that family always came first. And she will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the gentleman and the young lady for speaking. They brought up some very valid points. I too have the same concerns as my council colleague has mentioned. And it was just recently, Mr. President, that this council took some a pretty big action to go against a potential development on Locust Street and to help alleviate some concerns that Director Butters had as well as neighbors in an area. And we went as far as to ask for outside legal counsel to help us with an issue. And we got to a point right now that the mayor just sent out a correspondent saying she no longer is going to fund that outside counsel. And here we have the mayor going off on her own Because as far as I know, the school committee met in the committee of the whole or whatever you want to call it. They can't take formal votes there. It's like us in the committee of the whole. We could take a vote in the committee of the whole. It has to come out on the floor for a formal vote. As far as I know, that never took place with the school committee. I don't think they're following their own procedures and protocol. And I don't know how the mayor can unilaterally make a decision to hire someone without going through the proper procurement laws and so forth that are requirements.
[Michael Marks]: No, I saw it on the news on several stations.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I think the mayor may have stated it as it was just mentioned, but it would be nice, what's going on in this community, to get some type of correspondence. Wouldn't that be nice for the mayor to reach out to the council and say, hey, this is what we're doing. This is what's happening in the community. This is what we're doing. We just had a sweep. We're doing X, Y, and Z. Not one correspondence in the last 12 days from this mayor to this elected body. Maybe someone else received it, and if they did, they could step forward. Not one correspondence, Mr. President. But then again, we hear leadership that works. We hear this and that coming from the administration. And this administration does not correspond with us, Mr. President. And that's a telltale sign of a government that's going in the wrong direction, let me tell you. So... Point of information, Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I stated what I had to state, Mr. President. Um, I'd like to see to the answers, uh, that, uh, former Councilor Penter and Councilor Longo asked for, so I would ask that be in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that we send that to the city administration.
[Michael Marks]: If the school committee never formally voted on it, how is it a school committee matter?
[Michael Marks]: Right, because the mayor hasn't communicated with us, that's why we're trying to get answers.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so I would recommend that this, or make a motion to be sent to the city administration, as well as the school committee.
[Michael Marks]: But I was at, through the chair. Mr. President, please, Mr. President. With all due respect, with all due respect about notification, we weren't even notified that there was a magazine found in the school. So you're saying that's not true? I mean, you know, the notification thing is out the window. You know, we haven't been notified from day one on anything. And I have to believe when I hear the mayor say she hired Martha Coakley, when I read in the paper, when I see it on the local news. We don't know of any cost or anything. I have to, you're right, we don't know that. That's why we're asking the question. But I have to believe there's some truth to it when I see it in all these, different media venues. I have to believe this. I'm true to it.
[Michael Marks]: I would just add that where the CPA now is in effect in the community, and one of the options for the CPA money that's available is affordable housing, that that also be looked at, Mr. President, to see what funding is available to assist in low to moderate and affordable housing within our community.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. And I hate to interrupt you, Mr. Superintendent. It'd be helpful if you can point out timelines. When was it brought to the principal's office as you make your presentation? Happy to do that. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, Mr. Superintendent, two points.
[Michael Marks]: The decision that was made that this wasn't a serious incident Who else was in consultation? Was the chief of police involved in this conversation?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and my other point was, at the beginning of your speech, you mentioned that the clip, the magazine clip, potentially had three to four bullets, which is pretty specific to me. And at any point, did you receive a picture of this, even though the principal stated he did not have the clip, or doesn't recall ever seeing the clip? At what point did you see the clip itself?
[Michael Marks]: So in your opinion, you just mentioned that you want to make the public feel comfortable. And in your opinion, finding a magazine clip in a K through 8 school doesn't rise to the nature of seriousness to notify local police department, notify faculty, notify parents, notify students that there is an investigation that is gonna take place? You didn't even feel it was at that level where you notify people in the community?
[Michael Marks]: That's debatable. We've had a bomb incident, Mr. Superintendent, that your own school committee created a policy where serious incidents had to be reported immediately by the administration, which clearly wasn't followed in this case.
[Michael Marks]: There's no debate, Mr. Superintendent, when you find a magazine, Mr. Superintendent, that there is a concern within a building. There's no debate. I don't see how you can say that it didn't rise to that particular level. I would question your judgment if you honestly believe that that doesn't rise to a level where you should be notifying at least public safety officials. And I say with all due respect, Mr. Superintendent, because we've known each other for a lot of years, but I really don't see how that doesn't rise to a level in this day and age that people should be notified, especially after the incidences that we've had in this community where there's been a lack of notification. I thought we were past that stage and the best policy is 100% notification. and then let the administrators and the police do what they have to do, Mr. Superintendent. So I'd like to clarify that. Thank you, counsel.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Superintendent, in my opinion, it's clear that if this wasn't brought to certain people's attention in the community, this would have never came out in public. That's my own feeling. And again, we can talk about best practices, we could talk about additional funding for cameras, we could talk about new policies and procedures, and all that can be negated by one bad judgment. All that, any policies and procedures in place can all be negated. And I think that's what happened. I do think we have policies and procedures in place that weren't followed. And I know you take responsibility now. You mentioned about coordinated and uncoordinated efforts. I would consider what took place an uncoordinated effort internally. Would you not?
[Michael Marks]: I don't think that was full coordination, but clearly part of part of coordination is notification, correct?
[Michael Marks]: My other point, and I'm not a Johnny come lately on the issue is year after year. I've been questioning you regarding the rentals of our school buildings, right? And year after year, we've had debates, many at this podium. And I'm not going to rehash all the different debates, but I do feel strongly, Mr. Superintendent, you promised me you'd look into this, that many of our buildings are rented out to outside organizations. that have no affiliation with this community. We do no background checks. We have no idea who are entering, exiting, what they're bringing into these buildings. And in my opinion, when it's mentioned to you, you kind of shrug it off and say, well, we can't crawl up and hide in a ball. We rent our buildings out. And I can appreciate that. But the safety and security of our children and our faculty should come first. And if it comes to telling a program that they're no longer welcome back in this community because we choose not to rent out our buildings to make an additional 25 or 30 grand a year, which is a pittance, to be quite honest with you, in the scheme of a city budget, to me would lend a lot more peace of mind to parents. We've had this discussion about the high school. After 3 o'clock, we don't have one security person on at the high school. After three o'clock, as you know, there's extracurricular activities, there's after school programs, and there's not one person at the high school that's there for security. I don't count custodians, I know you do, for security. I don't count having faculty around that they're security. And I think that's a real breach of a safe and secure building. And I just can't see why you can't see that, Mr. Superintendent. And again, it concerns me about a lack of judgment when it comes to having people. We don't know what they're bringing into these buildings. We really don't know. In this day and age, Mr. Superintendent, I think it's best to err on the side of safety. And I know you mentioned about Cub Scouts, and that's great. And we don't want to make Cub Scouts not come into our building. I'm talking about outside organizations that have no city affiliation, that you don't know who's going in there. Chief of Police doesn't know who's entering these buildings, and we don't know what they're doing inside these buildings, but they do have access to classrooms, to auditoriums, to cafeterias, and to a host of things within our building, and that's of grave concern, and something that no policy or procedure is going to cover. We have to take an internal approach. saying, is this what we really want out of our buildings? Is it worth the public safety? Is it worth the wear and tear? I don't believe so, Mr. Superintendent. And I don't think we could just shrug our shoulders year after year and say, you know what? We've had no incidences. We're doing fine. This could have been an incident. If you found some flour, sugar, and frosting underneath the seat in the auditorium, you would say they're baking a cake. Right? But you find a magazine with bullets, and you don't think there's any serious nature. That there's no affiliation. I really believe, Mr. Superintendent, that someone needs to be held accountable. Someone needs to be held. You don't want to discuss particular personnel matters, and I agree, this is not the forum to discuss it, but someone needs to be held accountable. How can you be cleaning your office the day after this took place? take a magazine off the shelf and say, oh, this doesn't look like my pocket pen or this doesn't, and discard it. How does that happen? Unless your office is a filthy mess. I don't understand how that happens. I really don't. And even if it does look like a cell phone, how many people throw cell phones out? I mean, I just don't understand. It seems to me the perfect, and I hate to use the words, the perfect coverup to something that should have been reported immediately. We're not here to alarm people, I agree with you, but having administrators, having faculty, having parents, having them make that decision whether this is serious or not, whether they want to send their kids to school, is up to them, Mr. Superintendent, and not up to you making an individual, standalone decision on whether you think it rises to an area of such seriousness that people should be aware of it. I really am very disappointed. I have to say, Mr. Superintendent, I know you're stepping down soon and I wish you well in your retirement, but honestly, I'm very disappointed in this. I'm very disappointed that it's taken seven weeks to come out. into the public and just barely come out, and only because I think people found out about it and raised awareness that it came out. Otherwise, I think it would have been brushed under the rug. And it would lead me to believe what else is being brushed under the rug that we should be aware of.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I don't think it's enough responsibility. But needless to say, at the beginning of your speech, you made mention, and you referenced it, that that building was rented prior to what took place. And I believe you mentioned that. And you can correct me if I'm wrong. You mentioned that to allude that this was probably brought in from somewhere else. This wasn't a student bringing it in. This was probably someone that came into our building through a rental. Is that not correct, Mr. Superintendent?
[Michael Marks]: So that leads you to believe that we should be looking at who's renting our buildings. Shouldn't that lead you to believe that we do need security, Mr. Superintendent? Do you have security when you rent these buildings there?
[Michael Marks]: I'm talking about the McGlynn schools. There's security there.
[Michael Marks]: We could talk as we've done in the past few years until we're blue in the face. We just don't see eye to eye on this issue. And I hope it never amounts to anything other than just talk. But I think we need to take a serious look at, Mr. President, our rentals, which the superintendent told me for the last, I think, four or five budget periods that it's being looked at. Is it being looked at? I don't know. Maybe it's being looked at.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, Mr. President. Paper of Council Resolution 17-795 was a proposed amendment to Chapter 94, Article 2, Division 1, relative to the expanded notification of certain public hearings. We received the response back in our packet, from the Community Development Board dated February 12th, 2018, and I would ask that a Committee of the Whole meeting be set up to discuss this particular response from Community Development Board, and this be a paper review referred to Committee of the Whole.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we received correspondence from the city solicitor in our packet tonight, dated February 16th, 2018. It's to Mayor Burke from Mark Rumley regarding Council Paper 18041, request for an opinion. This was, I won't read the whole thing, this was a request of opinion from Council and Knight regarding has the Board of Health exceeded their authority with the regulatory passage of a smoking ban in private clubs? where an exemption for smoking ban on private clubs is outlined in the city ordinance 58-43. The correspondence that we received back from the city solicitor stated that he believes that the Board of Health, and I'm not speaking on his behalf, this is how I interpret it, that he believes the Board of Health did exceed their authority in the passage of that smoking ban and what he refers to membership associations. And I would ask that this paper, because we were supposed to be following up on this, be referred either to a committee of the whole or some, be open to a subcommittee, whatever the council feels fit. And if there's any, I think we have someone that'd like to speak on it tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, in the spirit of cooperation, uh, as part of paper 18 0 dash, uh, 0 4 1, there was a B paper and I had a re recent discussion after the city solicitor issued his opinion. And if anyone recalls the B paper was requesting that, uh, these particular service clubs, or if you want to refer to them as membership associations, have a dedicated smoking area and we asked that as a B paper. In my discussion with the city solicitor, he thought it would be wise to put some language within our city ordinance is requesting that member associations have an alternative, which would be a dedicated smoking area within their facility. And as Councilor Knight mentioned, that would be up to the membership to decide where, when, and if they want to do it. But I think that's appropriate that we have a committee of the whole meeting to discuss this issue. It's a matter of crafting really a sentence of language into the city ordinance of 58-43. And I think it would, in my opinion, solve all problems for members that feel they have the right to smoke. And they do have the right to smoke, in my opinion, but in a dedicated area. Like any other establishment, we all have workplaces. There's areas even here at City Hall. You can't smoke anywhere around the building. You can't even smoke outside the doors. There's a dedicated area across about 30 feet from City Hall where is the dedicated smoking area. And I think that would suit well for Captain Brennan and some of the concerns he raises. Those numbers that he's mentioning are alarming. And that's only one particular establishment they're alarming of the number of cases of cancer. and people that frequent these particular areas. So I would ask that this correspondence from the mayor be sent to a committee of the whole meeting and to discuss the dedicated smoking area and membership associations.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would also ask that as far as I know, I know the city solicitor did an opinion, but as far as I know, these particular organizations in the community, have not received any formal correspondence from the city, whether it's the Board of Health or from the city clerk's office, and I think it's only appropriate to let them know what the opinion is, and if truly they are allowed to smoke now in the building, they should be aware of that. And it'll be up to the council to get together on this and try and iron out something that's amendable to all parties.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but he's more or less saying if you were stopping people from smoking there now, you can't do that according to his opinion.
[Michael Marks]: Right, and it's important that all the service organizations know that.
[Michael Marks]: I think we can solve this. I think with the Committee of the Whole meeting, get all the parties together, I think it's common sense.
[Michael Marks]: Committee to the whole, it's possible.
[Michael Marks]: I've been neglecting my duties, Mr. President, even more.
[Michael Marks]: Good evening. When I first ran for office back some 16 years ago, my slogan was, time for a change. Now I've updated my slogan to, experience counts. Let me begin by saying what I hope all of you already know about me. I love this city. It has been the passion for as long as I can remember. It is why I've devoted the better half of my adult life to public service here in Medford. We are poised on the threshold of a new and exciting era. A step forward, front and center, reaching into the 21st century. If you give me your support, your confidence, and your trust, we can soar. We can make our city the envy of its neighbors, the pride of its citizens, a legacy of generations to come. Let's make Medford the miracle city on the Mystic. What are your ideas, you ask? What have you accomplished? What can we expect from Michael Marks? All fair questions. So let me give you a broad overview of my accomplishments and what you can expect from me over the next two years in both style and substance. My agenda as your representative will be driven by you, the residents, and by public input. It will be a collaboration. My goal is to be both transparent and accessible. As your city councilor, I have never shrunk from the big contentious issues. I will continue to take them head on as I always have. My message to the neighbors is this. I am your voice. I will continue to hear you. You always have a friend in Michael Marks. I will yield to no one in my support of the neighborhoods. During the past 16 years as your city councilor, I have dedicated myself to doing the people's business. And to this end, I've worked tirelessly to be worthy of your trust. Over that time, I've become experienced in a broad and expansive range of issues, and I would like to think I learned what makes Method heart beat. The revitalization of Method Square is central to our success as a thriving community on a cusp of a new, innovative future. Economic opportunities abound, but we must reach out for them. Today, one of those opportunities exists in plain view. three city-owned parcels of land on the eastern edge of Medford Square. As your city councilor, I will encourage an invigorated Office of Community Development to take a more proactive role in attracting new investment and to charting the future of our community. Seniors. Seniors will always be on my radar. We forged a connection many years ago while I was a novice city councilor. And to this day, I actively support issues important to our seniors and will continue to marshal all the resources at my disposal to ensure that seniors always get a fair shot. You guys can count on it. As your city councilor, I proposed and want approval to reduce the speed limit citywide to 25 miles an hour to create Method's first raised crosswalk, improving pedestrian safety. I advocated for a complete review of our current zoning laws to encourage smart growth concepts and neighborhood protections. I proposed a resolution which resulted in an improved emergency preparedness procedures for Method public housing. I supported the hiring of a traffic engineer to review public safety, traffic calming initiatives, and roadway improvements. As your city councilor, I will continue to support and offer suggestions to reduce the unrelenting airplane noise over our neighborhoods. I offer the resolve which led to the home rule petition to create a charter review commission in order to review ways of improving how city government operates. I also organized a group of residents and established the Medford Dog Park Committee, securing a private grant of $250,000 from the Stanton Foundation, and we are in the process right now behind the McGlynn School and Riverbend Park to build Medford's first dog park. As your city council, I successfully led the charge to take back city ownership of the Hegner Center with the intent to create Medford's first art center. I sponsored resolutions to create temporary pop-up community space in our parks, business districts, and unrented storefronts. I was the originator of the resolution to have solar panels installed in the DPW facility, reducing our carbon footprint. As a daily public transportation user, I will continue to support programs to build and improve upon public transportation in Method, including public bike paths and walkway improvements. I offer the resolution which created Method's rain barrel program, to conserve and repurpose rain runoff water. And now that you know who I am and where I plan to journey with you over the next couple of years, let me finish with these words. I am and always have been motivated by a sense of duty.
[Michael Marks]: A summons to serve. What can I do for my community? And how can I improve the lives of my fellow citizens? And yes, I have an obligation to the people of Medford to get it right. I also would like to thank the Medford Firefighters Local 1032, and the New England Laborers for their endorsement. I thank you very much for your time tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, Mr. President, we have the petition in front of us. If you can just give us a brief synopsis on the sign itself.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, based on the paperwork submitted, uh, and the, uh, rendering of the sign itself and the location of the sign, I, too, see no concern with the size of the sign, even though it's nonconforming to existing zoning sign ordinances. And at this point, Mr. President, it's not internally illuminated. And at this point, I would move approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Motion comes from the sign chairman. That's correct.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'm happy that the council last week voted to invite all the appointments to this council. And I think we all realize that this is a good group of candidates. And it was nice to hear, Joan, that you appreciate the responsibilities of this particular appointment and also know that it does impact open space within our community. historic preservation, housing, and a number of really important issues. So I believe it's roughly a million dollars a year that'll be generated through the CPA. So it is an important task, and I know you as one person will take this very seriously. And again, Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues and move approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's nice to see Elizabeth and I welcome you to the community. Thank you. Two years. You're a rookie. So welcome to the community. Thank you for partaking on a very important committee. And I was just wondering if you had any feedback relative to the lack of funding Originally, this program started off with matching funds from the state, and over the years, it has dwindled down to, I think it's at 18% now, or maybe even less than that. Do you have any thoughts on that, or?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. And this may be a good opportunity for members of the committee to meet each other also, which is a great suggestion. Joe, knowing that you're in the field of real estate, what are your thoughts about what this community needs in regards to affordable housing? Do you think we're where we should be? Do you think that there's a need for additional affordable housing?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, so far, we've seen three candidates, and they all have their own expertise and style. And it's refreshing to hear Joe just mention the fact that with the housing market, as we know, in Cambridge, Somerville, and Method is experiencing right now, that there is a lack of affordability in this community. And I know with my children and other children in the community, that's a big concern that eventually someday they may not be able to afford to live in this community. And when you hear Joe mention that, that is something that's on his radar, and he's well aware of it. It makes me feel comfortable as one member Although a million dollars every year may not go far to adding a lot of additional affordable housing, but it's something that this committee will be responsible for. So, I also, Mr. President, move approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Vice president box. Thank you, Mr. President. Do we do we have any other properties in the city that are in a similar circumstance?
[Michael Marks]: And if the council were to vote on this tonight, do you know when it would become effective?
[Michael Marks]: Effective immediately.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. I too would move approval. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, this is such an important ordinance. And in my opinion, waiting for a legal opinion, waiting for the administration to move on something is long overdue. And I'd rather see something put forward and have us worry about maybe some ramifications down the line. I'd rather see some protections in place right now, Mr. President. And what makes this community so unique is the, and you hear it over and over again, is the very uniqueness of every neighborhood, Mr. President, and every style of home in this community. And slowly but surely, we're losing the style of this community to these large salt box type homes and condominium projects, Mr. President. all for the sake of adding additional units and additional money for the developers. And as was mentioned earlier, many of these older homes are on larger properties, like on Walnut, that have additional space. And the developers see this nothing more than a way of making additional money. And we as a community have to safeguard ourselves And I think this is a great step in the right direction. I'd rather see the 75 years extended to 100 years and beyond, to be quite honest with you. And the 12 month, in my opinion, is not long enough. I think what was offered as 18 month for demolition delay, or even 24 month, at least provides this community with ample opportunity to safeguard its historic homes. So I personally would like to see us take a vote tonight. I think that's what Councilor Lungo-Koehn has requested. The resolve says from six months to 18 or 24. I think we have to narrow it down naturally before we vote on it, because you can't have 18 or 24. It has to be one or the other. But I definitely think, and I'm prepared tonight to move this forward, Mr. President, because I've been around a while. and I'm not gonna wait to hear with an opinion that may be rendered down the line that we've been waiting on already for six months, because I'd rather move forward, Mr. President. This is long overdue, and I would support the resolution tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Procedurally, should we take the paper that's before the Committee of the Whole and report it out of Committee of the Whole? I mean, it's a paper of similar subject matter.
[Michael Marks]: If the council's fine with that, I'm fine. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: put us, Michael, put us, Michael.
[Michael Marks]: That's what I have.
[Michael Marks]: Right? Thank you. 75 years or older. If it says within, that means within now to 75 years.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We're in the midst of street sweeping, citywide street sweeping, and as I've mentioned in the past, Mr. President, it's Maybe if we could have a recess until everyone leaves, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of a street-sweeping initiative that's going on currently right now. And as has been stated in the past by myself and many members of this council, that this particular program that we have right now is just a shell of a program. And it's existed that way for a number of years, Mr. President. And the reason why I bring this up is the fact that right now, in my opinion, the city is not giving proper notification to residents. regarding when street sweeping will take place. I've recommended in the past, and will do so again tonight, that the city embark upon creating permanent signage indicating the date and time of sweeping on every road in the city, Mr. President, which provides residents with notification. It allows residents to know of a recurring patent of when streets will be swept, and it allows residents to plan ahead Mr. President. So permanent signage will accomplish the notification and the planning ahead of residence. Also, Mr. President, as I've offered in the past, staggering parking on streets, whether it's odd or even parking during street sweeping, allows residents in those areas that are congested to, that don't have access to a driveway or to put their car somewhere, it'll allow them to park on one side of the street, similar to what we do in snow emergencies. And then we can sweep on one side and then on the other side, Mr. President, allowing residents ample opportunity to park their cars. on either the odd or even side. I would ask that this recommendation or these recommendations be sent to the Public Works Subcommittee for full recommendations on the creation of a street sweeping program. This is not the first time I've asked that we take a long and hard look at how we operate and do business in this community, in particular regarding street sweeping. The fact we only sweep our streets twice a year You know, street sweeping accomplishes a number of things. It keeps our roads clean, but it also keeps the debris and clutter from going into our catch basins, which create flooding if they get filled up, Mr. President. So this is a very important initiative that, for some reason, this city has been lax on creating an effective policy of notification and permanent signage. And I think it's long overdue, Mr. President, If need be, if the city administration feels to act upon these recommendations, like they've done in the past, I would recommend that the city council, and in particular the Public Works Committee, create a city ordinance. Because it seems to me that the policy of street sweeping, which is created by the administration, is no longer effective in this community. When you see cars that are being tagged and towed, you know, and many of which do not receive the notification from the reverse 9-1-1. I think it's a shame, Mr. President, in this day and age, to hit residents up with a $175 bill before they even start their day off, if they're able to start their day off after their car gets towed. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that this be sent to the Public Works Subcommittee to review permanent signage with dates and times and a recurring patent on when our streets will be swept, and also to stagger the parking by aught even, allowing residents in congested areas to park on the streets during street sweeping. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Scott probably brings up a great point. I would envision something starting in April, ending the end of December. I know our business districts probably should be swept probably on a daily basis, maybe the neighborhoods streets once a month based on the permanent signage, giving dates and times and so forth, and maybe, you know, staggering odd even, but definitely at least once a month from April to December in the neighborhoods. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. As Roberta mentioned, she's well known in the community. Roberta has been an advocate for a lot of different issues, in particular our shade trees and our trees throughout the community. Roberta has been a real strong advocate. And, you know, based on the makeup of this committee, We have a project manager, we have someone that works in real estate, we have someone that has a particular interest in historic preservation, and with Roberta's credentials, this is going to be a very dynamic committee, and I look forward to their eventual recommendations, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I am not opposed to this particular paper. I think it's long overdue to have equipment in the Registrar of Voters Office as well on Election Day that properly reflects the will of the people and I think equipment is needed. I do, Mr. President, have to say that this council has voted unanimously on at least three different occasions requesting that our brave men and women of the fire department receive the two extractors, which are washing machines on steroids, Mr. President, and two dryers to clean their turnout gear. As I mentioned several weeks ago when I made a presentation before this council that was unanimously supported, I requested that the administration look into buying two more washes because currently right now, many of the brave men and women of our fire department are using turnout gear that is potentially in a fire and contaminates on the turnout gear that's leeching into our firefighters' skins, Mr. President. and could be causing risk of cancer. And I've asked this on several occasions. The administration said that they were looking into grants. I did talk to Bill O'Brien, the union president, and he mentioned they are pursuing a grant. right now for two washes and two dries that will be located at the firefighter headquarters on Main Street. And if the grant comes through, fine, Mr. President. There's nothing that precludes this council from allotting $29,700. That's what it's going to take to assure our men and women in the fire department have the proper equipment to wash their gear, Mr. President. That's all it's gonna take, $29,700. And if the grant comes through, Mr. President, that grant will pay back the money that was taken out of the free cash. So I would respectfully ask, Mr. President, as part of this paper, there'd be a B paper requesting that the mayor appropriate $29,700 to pay for two washing machines, which are two extractors and two dryers, Mr. President. for the fire department, which has been unanimously supported by this council.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I spoke about this issue, I believe it was last week or the week? Last week. Last week. Thank you, Mr. President. And this council voted to set up a Committee of the Whole meeting. That's correct. Which I believe is going to take place May 2nd. May 2nd. May 2nd. And I want to thank you for your quick response on that. This is a really important issue that's impacting every resident in this community that pays a water and sewer bill. I received additional information, and that's why I'm bringing it up tonight. I received a letter dated November 17, 2015, regarding Medford Water and Sewer Commissioners. And the letter goes on to state, Mr. President, that the Water and Sewer Commissioners voted to create what they refer to as a baseline charge on everyone's water and sewer bill. When I read on, Mr. President, they refer to it as, which I referred to it last week, as a connectivity charge. And the way I understand it is every resident will receive this additional charge on a bimonthly basis starting in August 1st, 2018. And the reason that I got for the implementation of this connectivity charge is that it will pay for infrastructure improvements and other water and sewer necessities. We all know right now there's over $8 million in the water and sewer enterprise account in surplus funds. And that money, by state law, is earmarked to not only reduce the rate, if need be, but also for infrastructure improvements. And it can only be spent on infrastructure improvements or reduction in water and sewer rates. And this particular charge, in my opinion, is nothing more than an additional surcharge on the ratepayers of this community. And the additional information I did receive and I can let my colleagues see it or I can make a copy for May 2nd, is that they actually went as far as breaking down the additional charge by the size of the water pipe that comes into your house. And most people in this community, in the residential areas, have a five-eighths pipe that comes into the house. And that additional connectivity charge will be $9.47 bi-monthly, which is six times, so it's roughly $60 additional a year. It may not sound like a lot, but you know what, when you have an $8 million surplus of ratepayer money, sitting in an account, that's a lot of money to additionally request, Mr. President, and also requested based on... based on the fact that it's for infrastructure improvements, and that's the money we're already collecting, and we already have a surplus. As part of the bill we currently pay right now, it goes to your water, it goes to delivery, it goes for the maintenance of the pipes, it goes for the workers within the city of Medford that are in the water and sewer department. So that's already built into the rate structure. This is an added cost that I am adamantly opposed to, Mr. President. I need to say, I find it ironic, Mr. President, that the Water and Sewer Commission would take a vote or be presented with a proposal in November of 2015, and then the city administration sit on it, not till last year when we had a mayor race, they didn't touch it then, not this year, I mean, last year was an off year. To not sit on it during the mayor race, which was in 2015, sit on it in 2016, the first term of the new mayor. No, didn't want any increases then. 2017, New May is up for reelection, let's sit on it again. 2018 sounds like a great time. Let's do it in August of 2018 when everyone's vacationing and not paying attention. That sounds like a great time to implement something almost three years after the fact, Mr. President. I really would like to hear from the administration to explain why this is being rolled out in August of 2018. What's the reasoning behind it? Also, Mr. President, you know, I mentioned $60, and people at home may say, ah, $60, that's not too much. That's $1.5 million they're going to raise from roughly a $60 surcharge. Now, not everyone has a 5-8 pipe coming into their home. We have condos associations that may have an inch pipe, a two-inch pipe. Their bill will be $75 bimonthly. You go up further to some of the larger corporations in our city that may have a six or 10-inch pipe. A 10-inch pipe, Mr. President, coming in, that's $1,087 bimonthly. That's $6,000 additional charge. Now, I don't know what businesses or how many have a 10-inch pipe. or a six-inch water pipe, which is $472. But all I can tell you, Mr. President, there's nothing worse than a hidden charge. You know, we've been paying for the last three or four years a franchise fee to get local access cable. Local access cable, Mr. President, we've all been paying, and we haven't received local access cable in almost four years. And I stand to be corrected, it may even be longer than that. So all these little additional fees that are out there, Mr. President, do add up. Do add up to the senior citizens on a fixed income that can't afford an additional penny on their bill, let alone another $60 for a charge, Mr. President. They're already charging us. You already have $8 million of the taxpayers' money, Mr. President, in an account. What more do you want? What more do you want from the ratepayers? It's easy picking. That's what it is. It's easy picking, Mr. President. So I would ask, Mr. President, that when we meet with the Water and Sewer Commission on May 2nd, that the administration is also represented, and also that Ron Baker, which I mentioned, I'm not sure if you added him to the list. He's on the list. Is on the list, so we can have a thorough explanation on, not only from the Water and Sewer Commission, it's from the city administration, who's been sitting on this for several years now, for the opportune time to present it when no one's paying attention. That's what this boils down to.
[Michael Marks]: I'd like to hear it from the Hoss's mouth, instead of from the other end. I'd like to hear it from the Hoss's mouth. We will invite the administration to the meeting. Okay, I'd appreciate that, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Max. Just if I can also amend the paper. If we can also, before the May 2nd meeting, get a copy of the minutes which the vote of the Water and Sewer Commission took place that voted on this connectivity charge. If we can have a copy of the minutes for that.
[Michael Marks]: of the meeting where the vote was taken for this connectivity charge.
[Michael Marks]: Right.
[Michael Marks]: Council, Vice President Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe it was about six months ago, uh, during the council meeting, uh, we had the new border health inspector, uh, before us and I asked the new health director, Where do we stand with border health inspections? And I believe they were seven or eight months behind. And the reason why I knew that is because I had a number of businesses that said, what do I do? My health inspection ran out six months ago. Can I still operate my business? And that's why I asked the question, Mr. President. And, you know, I think the larger question is, what are we doing right now? Are we up to date with our health inspections? Do we need more staff in the office? To me, that's the larger question. If we want to create a rating system, which I'll be quite honest with you, I don't know if I'm opposed or not to it, but if we want to create a rating system, that's to make sure at least we're doing our due diligence. and making sure we have the appropriate staff, and making sure our business has their inspections in a timely fashion, so they don't have to wonder whether or not they have to close their door because they don't have a border health inspection. So, I think that's the larger issue, Mr. President. I'm not willing to vote on any paper tonight to move any issue forward, Mr. President, until we find out where we stand with the Board of Health, where we stand on with the inspections, and why is it taking so long for our health department to inspect these businesses in the community, because as we all know, as Councilor Penta mentioned, that the Board of Health goes out there and makes sure that the businesses are adhering to code, state and city safety codes. That's what their business is. And when you get your inspection sticker, that means you're up to par. And that means the resident that's going into your restaurant knows your food is prepared in the right way, know that your preparation is right, know the heating requirements and refrigeration requirements are right, and all the cleanliness stuff that goes with a border health inspection. So that is important, Mr. President. At this point, grading a business, I think we've got to go back to fundamentals in this city and making sure we provide the basics, which is a timely border health inspection for all our businesses. So I'd like to see that happen first, Mr. President, before I vote on- Would you like to amend the paper to-
[Michael Marks]: We asked for it, and I believe she gave us a verbal at the podium, and honestly, I don't remember the exacts, but I want to say that 30 or 40% of our businesses back some six months ago didn't receive their Board of Health inspection, and they were in the process of doing so.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could. If the Board of Health's gonna put that little thought into it, then I don't even think it's worth asking the question. If they sit back and say, well, we can't do it. That's not even worth asking the question. Or if they sit back and say, We can do it. I'd like to know why they can do it. I'd like to know if they have the personnel. Knowing the fact that they can't get to their regularly scheduled health visits now, how are they going to be able to take this on? They're in a depleted staff up there. So I think there's more to this. I'm not saying it's not a bad idea, but I just think there's more to it. And, you know, if it comes from the council, and we're saying, well, you look into this, then it may mushroom into something else. And we're gonna be sitting there saying, well, we didn't want you to go that far with it. We didn't want you to move that, because as far as I'm concerned, once this takes place, this will be an administrative policy. I don't see this as a city ordinance, unless Councilor Knight sees it differently. I see this as an administrative policy, and that's not under our purview. So we may initiate the ball rolling and not be able to stop that ball. And I'm not prepared to do that at this point, not knowing where we stand with the Board of Health presence in our community, the staffing, and the fact that they're not fully equipped to get out in a timely fashion for inspections.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Nice.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank Mr. Capucci for getting up on this subject. I think he hit the nail on the head when it comes to this issue. Just so you know, the issue was referred to the Energy Subcommittee of the Council, and we plan on having a meeting very shortly regarding this paper. But I just want to let it be known, Mr. President, that the city has been going out on its own on the school side for a number of years doing municipal aggregation on the school side. And back in 2014, it was reported in the Medford transcript that, and the article reads, Medford unplugs on electricity contract cost schools more than $100,000, Mr. President. The city, when they went in and purchased on behalf of the schools, failed to renew the contract and had to go back out on the open market and wasn't able to obtain a rate like they had when they had a contract. And it ended up costing the schools, which is you and I the rate payer, $100,000 because they failed to do their job. So after that glowing recommendation, now they say, you know what? Let's do it on behalf of every resident in this community. Look at our track record. Now we want to bring in every resident, and we'll go out on your behalf. Anytime the government wants to get involved in your business, Mr. President, as far as I'm concerned, is not a win-win. When the government says, we want to save you money, that should be the biggest red flag, because the government is not in business to save you or I money. They're not in that business, Mr. President. So, you know, this will get its proper hearing in the Energy Subcommittee, Mr. President. But as far as I'm concerned, I agree with the Speaker. You know, when the state legislature created this, They created a clause where it says it's voluntary in the law. This is voluntary. However, once your city council votes for it, it's no longer voluntary. Everyone is subjected to this new municipal aggregation. Then you have the ability to opt out. And we all know when we changed our meters over, it took us several years just to change our meters over in this city because people weren't properly informed. And to say that there'll be community outreach and so forth, they made a big mistake with the legislation. They should have had it as an opt-in. If you're interested, you want to go green, you want to reduce your carbon footprint, and you want to belong to this municipal aggregation, so be it. And I think the city should offer it. But don't include me in something, Mr. President, and say I have to opt out. And then don't say, well, you know, we're gonna decide how much green energy you purchase. If you don't like that, you can opt out of that too. It's the big opt out program. You can opt out of that too, Mr. President. So I'm not fully sold on this, Mr. President. I appreciate Mr. Capucci coming up here. And like I said, this will definitely get its fair share of a hearing within the Energy Committee, and it will be reported back out to this council to make a full decision. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: John Brewers?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Counsel. Counsel Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to receive and place on file. Second by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All in favor? Opposed? Ayes have it. Motion to revert back to regular audit business by Council Member Knight. All in favor? Opposed? Ayes have it. Motions, audits, and resolutions. 17, I'm sorry, 17-317, offered by President Caraviello. Be resolved that the rules of the Medford City Council be amended to allow video recording of the Medford City Council meetings in accordance with Massachusetts general law and that it be sent to the Rules Committee for adoption. Council President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Council. On the motion by Council President Caraviello, amended by Councilor Lungo and Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: And as you stated at the beginning, that's up to the discretion of the chair. Exactly. So it's an unwritten rule by the discretion of the chair. Exactly. And I think it would be important that we do add it to our rules to further clarify.
[Michael Marks]: I would ask, and I think that's why I think we do need to have a committee on the rules so we can get together. And there's also a sign at the entrance to the Alderman Chambers that says no cell phone usage or electronic devices, I believe it mentions. And that is also something that I think we need to look in as a council. So on the motion by Council President Caraviello that this be sent to committee on rules and further amended by Councilor Falco and Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion is adopted.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few days ago, I received a call from a resident that resides in one of our housing developments. And the resident brought up a very valid concern, stating that during the snowstorm we had two weeks back, a little over two weeks back, that she is a handicapped resident of this particular development. She resides on, I believe, the fourth floor. And during this latest snowstorm, the power went out at the building for several hours. And she happens to have a lifeline that she uses, a medical alert. When the power went out, her lifeline no longer worked. And the elevators in the building don't have a backup generator. And her phone, based on the type of phone you have, her particular phone wasn't working either. So she was confined to her floor of the building for a three or four hour span with no communication. And she was very concerned that First of all, her building did not have a backup generator for the elevator. There is a small generator that has the capacity to handle small lights at the entrance to each doorway inside the building. But other than that, there is no backup generator to handle the elevator capacity. So I made a call to Medford Housing yesterday. I talked to Joseph McRitchie, who is the interim director, executive director. For those who are not aware, Mr. John Coddington, the executive director, decided not to seek reappointment to the position, and right now the housing board is currently looking at three different candidates for the executive director position. Mr. McRitchie is here in the interim for about a month from what he told me. I asked him, Mr. President, what is the, first of all, which of our eight developments in the city have backup generators for the elevators? And he mentioned that the only building is the main high rise in the square. The Salt and Stall does have a backup generator. It's an 11 story elevator with 200 units in that particular building. So if power does go out, residents from any of the floors can get down to the main floor if need be in a time of concern. So I went through the list of buildings, Mr. President, and You know, this may be helpful to some of the new colleagues, because when people hear about method housing right away, they think, Oh, that's under the guise and control of the city of method. And it absolutely has. nothing to do with the city of Medford. And people are astonished when I say that, but the Housing Authority is a quasi-agency that's run by the state and federal government. And right now, out of the eight developments we have, we only have one state unit that's funded by the state, and that's Walkland Court. The other seven are federal-funded buildings. And if you would just indulge me, Mr. President, I think it's important to go through the list of housing that we have in this community, and then in order to move forward on a resolution that needs to take place, I think it's helpful. So we have the Salt and Stall building. It's an 11-story development here on Riverside Ave. It has 200 units. of elderly and disabled units, and it's federally funded. LaPreece Village is on Riverside Ave. It's a family development. It has 142 units, and it's federally funded. Fells Way West, there's the Doherty Apartments. It's a three-story elevated building, which is elderly and disabled, and it has 17 units and it's funded by the federal government. Weldon Gardens, which is on Bradley Road, five-story elevated building for elderly and disabled. It has 75 units, funded by the federal government. Tamponi Manor, Alston Street, it's a three-story elevated building, with elderly and disabled residents, and it has 100 units, and it's funded by the federal government. Canal Street, Phillips Apartments, it's a two-story building. It's elderly and disabled, and has 15 units, and funded by the federal government. And we also have Willis Ave Development, which is a family development that's on Barnard and Willis. It's 150 units, and it's funded by the federal government. And as I stated, Walkland Court, It's a two-story building, elderly and disabled, 144 units, and it's funded by the state. Combined total, we have 843 of housing units in our community, of which a lion's share are dedicated to the elderly and disabled. And the reason why I brought up this resolution is Upon inquiry to the Medford Housing, I asked what is their emergency plan in times of power outages with people that are on these elevated floors that are disabled and don't have a means to gain access to the first floor, and secondly, may have a medical condition that requires them to have electricity. And I was told that they were going to look into it. And to date, I still haven't received a response, but I'm hoping tonight through this resolution that my first motion, Mr. President, is that this council receive a response from Medford Housing Authority on the emergency plan, evacuation plan in times of power outages or other catastrophes in this community to deal with the disabled. that are living within the buildings in particular, and an emergency plan in general for everyone living in the building. And secondly, Mr. President, the fact that only one building out of one, two, three, four, five, six buildings that have, I'm sorry, one, two, three, four, five buildings, only one has an emergency backup generated for the elevator. So my second motion is, out of the five buildings that have elevators currently, why are only one building equipped with an emergency backup generator? And what are the plans to address needs of residents that are in the building that may or may not be disabled, Mr. President, in time of power outages or other safety needs? So those are my two questions, Mr. President. I know the interim director, MacRitchie, has only been around for a short period of time, and he was very prompt in getting back to me. I have to thank him. And I told him I was gonna be offering this resolution to address the needs of the 843 different units we have throughout this community, and the safety concern that potentially could exist, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor, Vice President Marks. Just if we could, if we can also get the name of the person, if anyone behind the railing knows of the Civil Defense person. I thought the position has been vacant for several years now. So, I'd be curious if... Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a very important subject. On March 20th of this year, National Grid came out to the McGlynn Middle School to talk to residents about their natural gas bills and concerns and any questions they may have. And at that particular meeting, Mr. President, residents raised a number of very valid questions, but one that kept on coming up over and over again was natural gas leaks within the community. And at the meeting, it was explained that natural gas leaks contain CO2 and methane, and a result of corroded pipes which we know many of the pipes that are under our roads and streets are many, many years old. And after a while, the joints become faulty and they end up fractioning. And it's typically caused by heavy trucking that may go up and down streets. It's caused by digging in particular areas. But National Grid has a report, and that's why I offer this resolution tonight. They categorize the type of leaks that are in every community, and they categorize them as grade one, which is eminent threat of explosion, grade two, threatens the health of property, and grade three, no threat to health or property. And according to National Grid, Medford currently has zero grade 1 and 2 leaks, which I guess is great news, but has over 260 plus grade 3 leaks that, according to them, are decades old. And the reason why I offer this tonight, Mr. President, is that knowing how the infrastructure works in the community, knowing how water and sewer and the pipes that are underground as they age don't get less leaky, they become more leaky. And knowing that we have over 260 leaks currently in the city, many of which may be decades old, I would venture to say that these leaks are no longer grade three leaks, but could be grade one or two leaks. And how often are we looking at these leaks? Are they re-inspected every year? I don't know. So that's my question tonight, Mr. President. If we could get a report back from National Grid on how often grade three leaks in the city of Medford are being monitored, if we can get that particular reporting on how frequent they are monitored, and also, Mr. President, I think we have to talk to our state delegation because as part of the meeting that was held, they said currently grade three leaks are not prioritized by National Grid because they don't receive any type of reimbursement on grade three leaks. Grade one and two leaks, they receive reimbursement either from the state or federal government. I'm not quite sure on that. So grade three leaks are not a priority. We happen to be inundated with grade three leaks. And knowing they're not a priority, knowing that many of these leaks have been out there for decades, I'm very concerned, Mr. President, that if National Grid is not on their game, these leaks could be turning into grade one and grade two leaks, which pose an imminent threat to health and safety and property of this community. And so that would be my motion tonight, Mr. President. reporting and potentially also if a representative from National Grid can come before this council to give us an explanation on the current condition of leaks within our community. Thank you, Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor, Vice President Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, another point that I didn't bring up is the fact that, you know, The gas that's coming into the community is meted in outer parts of the city. So they have giant gas lines. They know exactly how much gas is coming into the community. Then it's broken up by the individual businesses, homes, and so forth. What is not going into your home or your business is unaccounted for gas that's leaking, these 260 plus It could be 300, 400, who knows? But that cost is not picked up by National Grid. That's picked up by the consumer. That's picked up by URI, all these different leaks, similar to the water in sewer. We have unaccounted for water in this community. And that's not water I'm using or any other rate payer. It's water that's leaking directly into the ground that we're paying for. So this is not a win-win for our community, the fact that These are low-grade leaks. It's costing us, Mr. President, to pay for the leaks, and it's also costing us, Mr. President, as we heard, within our environment, and also the potential threat from these decade-old leaks that we have in the community.
[Michael Marks]: Be it resolved that the Medford City Council adopt the following... I'm just gonna read the beginning of it.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting both these resolutions on. I would just, you know, I need to state that I think what's being offered now on our council agendas are no longer resolutions. In particular, when we receive a two-page ordinance, that's really not a resolution. I think we can get the same outcome by putting on a resolution that we need to explore drop-off boxes in the community, and then discuss it in the council, and decide if we want to send it to subcommittee. But to get a two-page ordinance, I think, honestly, it does an injustice to, first of all, our process here as a council, because this is not the process in the way things should work. An ordinance doesn't appear the first time on the council as a motion or a resolution. That happens down the line. And I think what we saw just with this, and I'm not saying anything about the council or in particular, because I've probably been at fault doing this myself, but people read our agendas and look at it and say, Oh my goodness. It says the council, uh, be resolved that the city council adopt the following ordinance. They're talking about this tonight. They may adopt this tonight. I haven't even been able to read it. I haven't been able to discuss it. And I think it's alarming people to see this type of, uh, in depth, um, ordinance creation on the council agenda. And my just humble approach would be, I would respectfully ask my colleagues that in the future we can discuss issues of ordinance change or anything we want without presenting, you know, a two or three page ordinance on the council agenda. So I would just state that I think these are worthy things that we should be looking at and discussing. I just don't want to alarm people in the community that something, because potentially, this is on the agenda tonight, potentially if you had four members of this council tonight, that's all we require, can move this to a first reading tonight. And the second reading is a newspaper and the third reading is down the line. So I think that's where some of the concern comes in. And not to say that's gonna happen because this council's been very thoughtful about sending things to subcommittee and vetting them all properly, but I would just caution my council colleagues that really the agenda is not the first place a two or three page ordinance should appear, Mr. President. That should be released from subcommittee or committee of the whole and not on the council agenda.
[Michael Marks]: It's senior member in length of service, not age. Mr. President, Thomas Howell was a longtime Medford resident. He was a staple in this community in the West Medford area. He worked for the Department of Revenue, don't hold that against him, for a number of years in this community, and he was married for 50 years with his lovely wife, Mary Ann, and recently passed away, and we really lost a good gentleman in this community, and he will be sorely missed as a great guy, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I remember the vote that Council Lungo-Koehn is speaking about, and it was a 6 to 1 vote requesting that we meet with the administration, in particular the mayor, and discuss not only the building of the police department, also the feasibility and capital improvement plan of where we're going for future projects. And as we'll hear tonight, we have the superintendent of schools here. And we're going to hear about a need for improvements within the Medford Public Schools. As was mentioned by Councilor Longo, we already know the public library is in need of some repairs or total rehab. And there are a number of other issues, Mr. President, that I'm sure will be addressed when the superintendent gets up. But we should have a master plan, Mr. President. And I know Councilor Falco has spoken about a master plan in the past and I've raised the issue to give at least a direction on where we're going to go. And we can't continue to operate and do business with the mayor's draft proposal of a capital plan. It's not even a capital plan, it's a draft proposal that the mayor is still working from. And many of the issues in the draft proposal are not present in the letter that she wrote on March 17th to this council stating what the public schools needs. needs are. So I'm not quite sure, Mr. President, where all this dialogue and debate is happening. It's probably happening in a vacuum in the mayor's office, but it's clearly not with the elected officials in this community and with the general public in this community. And I would agree, I think one week is not too long to wait to get some feedback on where we're going with the capital plan, Mr. President. And as the council president, I think you should be wary of the fact that we're receiving things piecemeal again, and we've stated in the past that we refuse to do business like that. I wouldn't operate my business, or I don't run my home that way, and we shouldn't operate a city government that way either, Mr. President. So I support Councilor Lungo's motion to table for one week. Councilor Lungo, go ahead.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Superintendent Belson for being here tonight. As the superintendent stated, Mr. President, This council, over the last several years, has approved many building programs within the Medford High School and the Medford Public Schools. And I think we've been very supportive as a council. My question tonight, Mr. President, is not regarding whether or not the high school needs improvements. I have two students that attend Medford High School, and I can speak firsthand that Medford High School, indeed, needs improvements. But my question to the superintendent is, my first question, back in September of 2016, the school committee, along with Mayor Burke, formulated a priority facility improvement list, of which they outlined $13,787,000 worth of repairs in the high school and our other school buildings, of which $10,100,000 was earmarked to Medford High School. Of that 10,100,000, Mr. Superintendent, what percentage of that 10,100,000 is in the current SOI?
[Michael Marks]: So, so, and the reason why I asked Mr. Superintendent is, and I'll get into this a little bit later on, but, uh, we were recently told three weeks ago that, uh, in order to build a combined police and fire center, that we were told this by a treasurer collector and also by the mayor that, uh, the amount of money we were looking to bond would cause the city to have to go into a proposition two and a half override. And that was one of the factors the administration stated why we couldn't bond for $38 million. So the reason why I'm trying to get some facts and figures tonight is I want to make sure that we're not going down the same avenue that the mayor and the treasurer-collector were so adamantly opposed to three weeks ago. And I'm hoping to get those answers from you tonight. So as part of the SOI, from what I can see, The capital plan that was put forth by the mayor and the school committee back in September of 2016 did not include a 500-student cafeteria, did not include a performing arts center for 1,000 students, did not include a fitness center, and did not include, from what I can see, windows and boilers. Now if I could just finish. So based on the $10 million that was out there for other renovations, which included Medford High School flooring, which you mentioned had asbestos, which I would agree needs to be removed. Roof replacement for $2 million. Fire alarm system, which we know has been on the blink for a number of years, for $1,200,000. And $1 million to deconstruct the skateboard area and install modular units in the back of the high school. So at what expense is the addition of a cafeteria for 500 students, a performing arts center for 1,000, fitness center, windows, and boilers going to add to the $10 million that the school committee came out in September of 2016? OK, so let me try and answer this way.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah. And I appreciate what you're saying, but doesn't that just muddy the waters? Because when I look at the SOI request, I'll be quite frank, it looks like we're building a brand new building. I mean, if you go through the list from roof to boiler to windows to flooring, I mean, it looks like we're building a brand new building. And I think to add stuff into the SOI that maybe you didn't agree upon as superintendent or thought it wasn't a priority, I think muddies the water. And what we have here, in my opinion, is a project that is probably closer to $30 or $40 million if we were to get total funding or total approval, I should say, from the state. And I know there's reimbursement. The number 55% has been tossed around. I talked to the State Building Assistance Program. Don't bet your bottom dollar on 55%. In the past, we've received upwards of 59% for the science labs. But there is nothing set in stone. I know the mayor put that in her letter, but according to the school building assistance, they have not arrived at any funding percentages as of today. So in a good predicament, we could get 50%. But my question, Mr. Superintendent, why throw everything into the mix? Shouldn't we be looking at our major priorities? We should be looking at the major deficiencies in the school? Because that's what the SOI calls for. It calls for the major deficiencies. And you yourself are saying, I don't think our deficiency is adding a 1,000-person performance center or a 500-person cafeteria. but it may be the alarm system or it may be an issue like Councilor Scarpelli talked about, other building improvements that need to be done immediately. So I think that's the question. Why are we throwing everything at the wall right now?
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. Superintendent, if I could. So based on the laundry list that we're submitting in the SOI, and it is a laundry list, wouldn't it make more sense for us to prioritize what our needs are so we don't count on or have to count on some state bureaucrat coming back saying, you know what, Method, we know you need a fire alarm system and a sprinkler system and windows and an HVA system, but we're gonna give you a cafeteria for 500 students. They're not gonna do that. Mr. Secretary, we don't know what's going to happen. But why not put together a list of what our priorities are and not just put together a list of, it sounds great. You put everything in there in the kitchen sink and say, hey, look, we're looking to get funding. It sounds great in theory, but it's not practical. I don't believe it's practical to put everything in the SOI. And I'd rather see, like Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, a list of what our top priorities are. and have them go through our top priorities, Mr. Superintendent, and then make a selection from our top priorities. And if a 500 student cafeteria is not on the top of your priority list as superintendent of the school committee's priority list, then that should be at the bottom of the list. Or not on the list at all, Mr. Superintendent.
[Michael Marks]: And if we were so concerned of having every stakeholder seat at the table, why don't we see the middle school and elementary schools as a separate S.O.I., Mr. Superintendent, which can be done. I'm sure you know that as superintendent. There is no mention about the needs of, as Councilor Lungo-Koehn mentioned, the secondary schools. within this, and nor should it be, because this is a high school proposal. But there's also proposals that are in need, as you know, in our other schools, in dire need. So my question is then, my second question, Mr. President, is the fact that I realize the order which takes place as you submit the SOI, I didn't realize after you submit the SOI then you go sit down with the state people. I didn't know that. You're telling me you now then go sit down with the state people and you, what do you do, compromise with them?
[Michael Marks]: So if I could, Mr. Superintendent, I know you're probably not prepared tonight to put a dollar amount onto your deficiency request. But you were able to put a dollar amount back in September 2016 on the laundry list of items that you mentioned needed repair at the high school. Are you prepared tonight to put a dollar amount on your SOI request to the state?
[Michael Marks]: But I do know... Now, I'm not talking about funding.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so what you're asking then is the council to let you go forward, and then in deliberations, when you submit your SOI with the state, you'll go back and forth with the state, and they'll determine what projects will be done or approved, And if they come back and say, you know what, Method, we like everything in your SOI. There's been a lack of requests for school building assistance this year. And we're going to fund you for $60 million, Method. Congratulations. And we're even going to give you half. We're going to give you $30 million. So you're going to have to bond for $30 million. Are you prepared to come back to this city, Mr. Superintendent, with a $30 million bond request within the next two to three years?
[Michael Marks]: And who's going to make that decision? So let's just say, in a perfect scenario, the state comes back and said, Medford, we're giving you everything you wanted. Who ultimately is going to make that decision? Are you saying it's this council that's going to sit there? School committee, mayor, and council are the arbiters of dollars and cents. Right. But we ultimately have the final funding say, Mr. Superintendent. So you think this council is going to sit back after the SOI is put in, and if everything works out perfectly, and they come to us and they pay for half, And we're getting everything we want. You think the city council is going to sit here and start slashing different items in the budget to make sure that we don't have a proposition two and a half override? Is that what you expect this council to do? That's my questioning, Mr. Superintendent. Why are we throwing everything at the wall when we know what deficiencies we have? we should prioritize them right now and move forward on them. This program is going nowhere. So to make people believe that, hey, that's, you know, let's get a partner today. We can get a partner today, tomorrow, next year, the year after this program has been around for years and we've taken advantage for many, many years, Mr. Superintendent, you know, uh, we, we got, uh, for a core program, uh, 59.79%. Um, uh, it doesn't give the year 2008, I'm sorry. Then the science labs, we've got 59%, $6 million reimbursement. Then the accelerated repair, $2,409,000, they gave us a million dollars. So I know we've been great partners with the state. My concern is eventually, because I've been on this council a number of years, is that eventually the issue's gonna come back before this council. And we're gonna be the ones that are gonna be sitting there saying, geez, you know what, the state wants to give us all this money, but the city council doesn't want to approve it. They want to pay half of this and this and this, but they don't want to approve it. And we know what the purse strings are, Mr. Superintendent, when we hear from the mayor three weeks ago, say that she can't afford to do a combined center for police and fire, because according to her and the treasurer collector, that the school bonds will be coming offline in the year 2022, which is five years. And she said we can't afford the spending that we want to do for a combined center until 2022. Now you're telling us that this project they could be looking for funding maybe two or three years. Is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: Correct. And that is the reality. And that's why I'm bringing this up. There is a reality behind this. And when I hear from the administration and the treasurer-collector saying, that we can't afford any more bonds other than what we just did for the police department until the year 2022, unless we want to look at a Prop 2.5 override, I think every member of this council and every citizen should be concerned about it. And we should have a handle on what we're potentially looking at. And from what you're telling me now, the process is you just submit. You really don't know what the dollar amount will be. You just submit it. You hope for the best. And when it comes back, it comes back. And then at that point, you look at the financials. And what I'm telling you is, the mayor just told us three weeks ago, we're looking at five years down the line. And that doesn't seem what we're looking for for these schools. I mean, I read the SOI. It says an SOI should only be filed for a facility where a district has the ability to gain the proper local approvals and to fund a project in the next two years. So they're putting, you know, they want to see commitment, that's why they're asking for a vote, the school committee and the council, and they want to see a funding commitment.
[Michael Marks]: With all due respect, you just stated that you put things in this SOI that you didn't want in there because you were hiding from dealing with other people at the table. So don't say people are hiding, Mr. Superintendent.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. Superintendent, just getting back to some of the building deficiencies, would you agree that the restrooms at the high school are a deficiency of Medford High School?
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, you brought up a good point. So after the April 7th deadline, you're stating that we can add stuff to the SOI? We can talk to them about it, yes. Not talk, we can add stuff after the deadline.
[Michael Marks]: With all due respect, Mr. Superintendent, I've been an advocate for a number of years regarding the cleanliness and the deplorable condition of the bathrooms at the high school. And there's been some headway made, I have to give credit, there's been some headway made with the water bubbles and so forth, but many of the restrooms at the high school are locked down, not because we don't have the manpower to supervise them, it's because they're in deplorable condition, Mr. Superintendent. And this is coming from first-hand knowledge. And I can tell you that the fact that it's not addressed in a deficiency in this program and say, well, it's covered under other things, I think is not adequately addressing the deficiencies that we have at that school. It may not be educational in nature, but what I can tell you is that there are kids at the high school that will hold and going to the restroom a whole day because they're so filthy dirty and you can't get toilet paper. There's no soap. There's no paper towels. There's no doors on the urinals. And I'm just telling you reality, Mr. Superintendent, because you have your own private bathroom and probably don't frequent other restrooms in the building. And I could just tell you that from what I hear from students, Mr. Superintendent, is that's what's happening up there. And I'm saddened to see that it's not addressed in the SOI. But if you're telling me it could be added at a later date, that's fine, and I hope it does get added, because that would be my addition.
[Michael Marks]: That's my exact point. I know you don't share them and that's why they've been in deplorable condition for so many years. That's my exact point, Mr. Superintendent.
[Michael Marks]: And also, Mr. Superintendent, you were here several months back when we were talking about safety at the high school. We had a great debate going back and forth. and I see you mentioned in the SOI that you have the inability to close off certain parts of the building and have the inability to keep it cordoned off to people from outside and so forth. I'm glad to see that you're finally admitting that there is a security issue at the high school and that there is concern, Mr. Superintendent, with access to that building throughout the course of the day and that we've been unable to control the access And I'm glad to see that you're offering some solutions to that effect, Mr. Superintendent.
[Michael Marks]: That's all for now, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Non-debatable motion.
[Michael Marks]: Why aren't we in the debate? We just got the paper tonight. We're in the debate now? We just got the paper tonight.
[Michael Marks]: That's what we're here discussing.
[Michael Marks]: Why do you want to end debate? Where are we going with this?
[Michael Marks]: Oh, maybe to you it doesn't. The rest of us have questions. Well, there's a motion on the floor. It's an undebatable motion that requires a two thirds vote. Mr. President. Again, you want to stifle the people's speech again.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So for the last question, the chair is just giving, I let you speak. Okay. Do I, or do I not have the chair? I have the floor. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I call for it.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I had the floor before that, Mr. President. No, Councilor Dullos, you... No, no, no, he said it was undebatable. He said it was undebatable.
[Michael Marks]: I do, mister, I have a question for the superintendent.
[Michael Marks]: Are we here tonight? Speak. To discuss, the superintendent came up here, took his time out of his busy schedule. No one's denying you an opportunity to speak. We're just trying to deny freedom of speech. I was not trying to deny you.
[Michael Marks]: The board spoke is right, and I'm thankful for my colleagues that know what this legislative process is all about. You have the floor, Vice President. I know I do, thank you, keep them interrupting. And I wanna thank my colleagues, that had the gumption, Mr. President, to allow this dialogue to keep going on and not be rubber stamps. Mr. Superintendent, are you willing to put together a priority list, as Councilor Wendell Kern mentioned, in the SOI? It seems like this is an ongoing, fluid discussion with the state. Are you willing to do that?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Superintendent, if I could. And I don't think anyone behind this reeling, and I'll speak for myself, was looking to stop this tonight. We were looking to ask questions, Mr. Superintendent. And that's not confused questioning with being in opposition. It's part of the process. It's part of the process. I know this is an early step, and it's the first step, and now we're hearing April 7th is the deadline. No surprise, not for you, but no surprise to this council, because we're always presented with, oh, the deadline's next week. Make a decision. You can't table it for a week, because the deadline's next week. So we're always presented that way. But I'm not going to stand in the way of this tonight, Mr. Superintendent. I think what Councilor Lungo-Koehn offered about going back, and if you need to go back to the school committee and get a priority list, I think that's a great suggestion, Mr. Superintendent, to do that. And I would ask that that be done. And I would also ask that this council be privy to any discussions that you are having with the state regarding projects, of which projects may be taken off the board, which projects may be added to the SOI. So we're up to date and not just presented something on the last hour again for approval. And I would ask that you keep this council privy to that information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I was told, just so you know, there's no priority according to when the SOI is received. So whether the last one in the door, first one in the door, second one in the door, I was also told that they're not going to look at applications or make any recommendations until December. of 2017, so there's plenty of time, and I'm just asking that we be part of any discussions that are ongoing. You will have my support here tonight, Mr. Superintendent. I could just tell you eventually, and as a longtime member of this council, eventually when something comes before us, whether it's a year, two or three years before us, and if it does, if and when it does require, maybe require a proposition two and a half override, you will not have my support. And I just want to let that be known right now because I'm not going to hold back any punches. You know, I voted not to have the combined center because we were told that it would require a proposition two and a half override for the police and fire. And, you know, we have a library coming down the pike pretty soon with some grant funding. We're going to have this project, and eventually we're going to have the fire department coming down. So I would just ask that whatever's done, that it stay within the confines of our budget without a proposition two and a half override.
[Michael Marks]: We could put in the document, or the superintendent says he sits down and meets with the state, so I have no problem with him presenting the priority list. So it doesn't, I don't care about the avenue it gets to the state.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Will there be any limitations for people using the driveways?
[Michael Marks]: So when will they receive notification?
[Michael Marks]: And are there any expectations regarding the traffic flow? Are you going to have to close a partial lane? Or is there any consideration with that?
[Michael Marks]: So you already have a detailed plan from the police department?
[Michael Marks]: Say that again?
[Michael Marks]: So prior to Monday, because you said Monday the construction is going to start?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but that traffic impact of mitigation will take place prior to the start date. Yes. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: As amended. On the motion, if I just could add, Council President Caraviello is absolutely correct. The thermoplastic crosswalks are highly reflective, they're slip resistant, they have a life expectancy of four to five years, and they're cost effective in the long run.
[Michael Marks]: Six years. The state uses them for the state highway and many of their projects. So it's a very effective and efficient way of laying down a painted crosswalk. without the upkeep year to year of repainting. So on the motion by Councilor Dello Russo for approval as amended by Councilor Scott Peli, as further amended by Councilor President Caraviello. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Marks. Just so I understand, this is a connection fee for new construction you're talking? Only new construction. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Right, because as part of that paper you offered two months ago, we also asked if the, as a separate, I think it was a paper A or B, that if the water and sewer commissioners were looking at a sewer connection for existing homes. And we never really got an answer on that. We got an answer that there is a sewer connection for new construction.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So we amend the paper to say new construction. Sure.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I must say, even though the weather is getting warmer, that the last snowstorm that we had on Tuesday, the plow trucks had gotten many complaints. They weren't plowing to the curb. And the next day, the city of Medford removed the restriction of parking on both sides. And cars were literally parking two or three feet from the curb itself because it was all snow there. And trash trucks, emergency vehicles couldn't get down many of the roads. And it maintains consistently a problem in this community about plowing to the curb. And I would just ask as part of this paper that we once again ask the administration and the DPW commissioner to make sure that if we're going to have cars be removed from one side or the other, that the trucks plow to the curb. so the cars have a place to park after the snow emergency is removed.
[Michael Marks]: provides services to the disability community. And this council requested that that property was given to the Hegnon Center for $1 back some many years ago. And when it changed hands to Bridgewell, and Bridgewell was looking to sell the property, we asked that the city solicitor meet with Bridgewell and state that because it was no longer being utilized for the purpose of the deed, which said it had to be used for disabilities, that it revert back to the City of Method. And I'm proud to say that has happened, and there are dumpsters out in front there that are being filled up with items, and residents are concerned with what's taking place in the area. So if we can get an update, I don't know if it's Bridgewell that's cleaning out the building, or if the City of Method is doing something with the building, but if we can get an update, Mr. President, for next council meeting regarding what is the status of the pharma-hegmas at the site and what's taking place.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sad to say that a good friend of mine Steve Honeycutt passed away just recently. For any of us that know Steve, he was always around the community, served on the Disability Commission for a number of years, and was Method's disability monitor for a number of years. And Steve was just an all-around good guy, someone you could talk sports, politics, electrical, because he was an electrician, and just a great guy, great family man. And he will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe it's lifelong Method resident. I might have wrote it down wrong, but Jane lived in the city, born and brought up here, went to school here, and was a nurse for many years. She was a very active member of her parish. She was a loving wife, mother, grandmother, And again, she will be sorely missed by her family, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This was a real tough week for Method. Norma was a staple in this community for many years. If anyone know the Andres, they used to own the movie theater in the square back some many, many years ago. And Norma and her late husband, Frank, shared life for 70 years together, 70 years married. And her focus was always on her family. Anytime you saw her, she'd talk about the grandkids or her son. And, you know, everything was family oriented and, again, Truly a remarkable woman, and she'll be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. I think the, uh, the last amendment that was offered was that, um, a copy of the current, uh, city occupancy ordinance go out within the tax bill itself, not a copy of the ordinance that we're working on now. I just want the record to reflect that.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Lococoon.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could, maybe Alicia can shed some light on this. It said $50,000 was transferred from the highway materials and supplies. That account, what was the initial appropriation in this year's budget?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So, so the, the account that you're saying this is 0 1 0 count 4 4 2 4 2 2 highway materials. What, what is that currently used for? What, what, what do we get with highway materials?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So by taking it out of that account and putting it into an overtime account, are we depleting that one account? Are we running the red in that account right now?
[Michael Marks]: So why wasn't it put in the personal account immediately?
[Michael Marks]: So is it fair to say there's $50,000 left in that account?
[Michael Marks]: Right. So what's currently left after you pull the $50,000 out?
[Michael Marks]: OK. And Commissioner Kerins, Do you have an active working list of what catch basins need to be done in the community?
[Michael Marks]: I'm not interested in the completed list. I'd like to see a list of catch basins that you have record of that need attention. Sure.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Do you know roughly how many are on that list that need to be attended to?
[Michael Marks]: Totally rebuilt.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Yeah. If you can provide the council with a list of currently what needs to be done, um, because, because the number sounds awfully low to me. And I realized you just said 12 need to be rebuilt, but in just going around the city, I see a lot of sunken catch basins.
[Michael Marks]: And while we're talking about catch basins, we still currently contract out for the cleaning of the catch basins, correct?
[Michael Marks]: And where do we stand with that currently?
[Michael Marks]: But are we a certain percentage through our list, or you said, I'm sure when the budget comes out in July, we start working on catch basin cleaning, right? That's correct. So how far do we get into the catch basin cleaning before the winter came?
[Michael Marks]: And it's all being done by the subcontractor? That's correct, sir. And at any given year, do they get through 100% of the catch basins, or do we just subcontract for a certain percentage of what we have?
[Michael Marks]: So every year, we're getting through 100% of the catch basin cleanings?
[Michael Marks]: And is the process still that this company will mark each catch basin? different color when they are completed?
[Michael Marks]: So so they'll use some type of marking.
[Michael Marks]: Can you provide us with a report on the number of catch basins that have been done this fiscal year?
[Michael Marks]: I don't need to know the exact number, but if you could tell us how many streets altogether and how many have been completed, that'd be great to date. Certainly. Thank you. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: OK, perfect. Thank you. Vice President Box. Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the speed monitors for twenty five thousand, are we getting one or two chief? How many speed?
[Michael Marks]: And currently, how many speed monitors do we have within the department?
[Michael Marks]: OK. And the police cruisers and the EMAC vehicles, are they going to be fully equipped with the latest computers?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And I know within the budget chief, you put in for some additional civilian personnel to do some computer work and also some crime statistics. Is that still something that you could use in the police department?
[Michael Marks]: Are you going to be making a recommendation for that manpower again or?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Do we expect to see it during the budget time or before budget?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mux. Thank you, Mr. President. And my question is regarding DPW. And I see that there are a lot of new pieces of equipment that we're moving forward with. And I don't think anybody behind this reel would say that there isn't a need. However, I do question, Mr. President, in the future would be helpful. when we do put a request out for such a dollar amount. And by the way, just recently, the linkage committee, which you happen to sit on, Mr. President, just expended $435,000 on new equipment for DPW also, in addition to what's being spent here tonight. So I think it would be helpful as one member of the council If we're going to put on a number of items and say, well, we're going to purchase a F-250 pickup truck, I think it would be helpful to know how many we currently have. Is this replacing a pickup truck or is this adding to the fleet of pickup trucks? That way, at least we can make an informed decision when these things do come before us, Mr. President, because honestly, I have no idea whether we need a 10-wheel dump truck or whether we need a 550 four-wheel drive dump truck or a cemetery backhoe. And it would be helpful to get a little bit of narrative other than just the line item itself. But if you can maybe go through them just rather quickly, Commissioner Kerins, just to let us know the particular piece of equipment, if it's replacing a piece of equipment or if it's just adding to the existing fleet.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. That's very helpful. And maybe a narrative like that in the future would be very helpful. Certainly. At least myself. And just the last point I have, Mr. President, There was a narrative at the end that said, with exception of the police items, the remaining were presented in the draft capital budget presented in the fall. I assume the mayor is letting us know that this was part of the draft plan that was presented, capital plan. And I would only ask, when are we going to get the full plan? I don't think we should be working on a draft plan still this far into the fiscal year. And if there are any plans for a full capital plan, out there, Mr. President, I think it's important that we find that out now, rather than working on a draft plan. So I would ask that that be part of the committee.
[Michael Marks]: But I would also ask that it be part of the committee paper, Mr. President, that we get a response back from the administration regarding when a full capital budget plan will come out and why are we still working off a draft budget plan.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to correct the record for a minute here, Mr. President. It was in June of 2016, we as a council started meeting with department heads. uh... prior to uh... the budget and we sat down in department heads came before us with wish list what they wanted to see in the budget and uh... if i'm not mistaken every council behind this reeling brought up these same exact concerns that we're seeing here tonight eight months ago but now we're hearing tonight it would be an injustice if we waited another week to move this forward But these issues were brought forward eight months ago. So was that an injustice for the past eight months? Why these issues weren't moved forward? I don't know, Mr. President. But this party, Mr. President, has stated time and time again, and I have stated time and time again, I refuse to do business piecemeal. And we've been saying that year after year after year. It doesn't make sense. from a financial standpoint or a managerial standpoint to do business piecemeal, Mr. President. I will support these items here tonight only for the fact, Mr. President, is that these issues have been on our agenda and on our plate, turnout gear for almost two years now. So these aren't new items. And I appreciate Councilor Penta coming up and Councilor Camuso Um, it's great. We have, uh, how many councils? We have nine councils in the room tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, Mr. President, we should get all the other past ones to come down also. But I would state, Mr. President, that, um, moving forward and to me, it doesn't matter the state of the city speech tomorrow. That's great. And I hope it works out for the mayor. But I'm not hinging my vote on the mayor's speech. tomorrow night, because these are items I believe we have to move forward. But after this, Mr. President, I do believe, as was mentioned by Councilor Penta, we have to have not just a draft capital plan, but a plan on the direction we want to go in. Because at some point, we're going to be pitted. Hey, you want to spend for this, or are you going to spend for that? And I think we should have a vision as a council. We may not share the same vision with the mayor, but as a council, we should have a vision and the direction we want to see this city move. And, you know, like I said, I'm prepared to vote on this tonight. These things are well warranted. We know the DPW, you see their trucks driving around, their blades are all chewed up, Mr. President. The equipment is old and outdated. And this is a way to replenish it. I've talked to the men and women in the police department that are driving around in cruises, as I referred to a couple of weeks ago, Fred Flintstone vehicles, where you could put your feet through the floorboards. That's how bad some of these vehicles are getting, Mr. President. And that's not a joke. So we do need relief in this way. I think this will go a long way, the turnout gear. We heard from the chief of the fire department stating a few weeks back that when these firefighters are in a fire, they come back with the same gear. They have to wait for one washing machine that is specially used to wash this equipment. So they have to wait in line to use the equipment and they don't have a second gear, God forbid, there's a second fire. And we all know the carcinogens and so forth that from a fire that can, the soot and everything else that goes on the uniform, it's very dangerous for the brave men and women of the fire department. So, you know, I don't want anyone to believe that if this council did sit on this for a week, that we're sitting on public safety. because these issues have been out here for months, and if not years, and it's not this council that's been sitting on anything. This council has been the advocate on behalf of the police, DPW, and fire department in this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Chief Sack?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Chief. Motions, orders, and resolutions. Paper 17-061, offered by President Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the Mayor allocate funds so that we are able to put names of the seven Method veterans on the plaques at Honor Roll Park. We would like to attempt to have this done by Memorial Day in May so that a ceremony could be held the day or by the Veterans Day in November. Council President Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of Councilor, President Caraviello. Second. Seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, further amended by Councilor Knight, Falco, and Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And just to touch upon what Councilor Knight just mentioned, there is a parking ban for commercial vehicles after midnight. Yes, there is. So I'm not sure I would consider these postal trucks commercial vehicles. They may not have a commercial plate, but they are indeed commercial vehicles. And maybe that may be our plan of attack, Mr. President, is to, you know, start tagging these vehicles like we tag any other commercial vehicle that's overnight and see what the response is from the Postal Department. As was mentioned by Mr. Costas, this has been an issue for a lot, a lot of months, many, many months. And I thought it was resolved some months back when the mayor intervened and offered the parking out here behind City Hall. I'm not sure how postal workers that walk for a living can say they don't want to walk behind City Hall from Forest Street, but You know, maybe if that's too far, maybe we can look at the public lot right on Salem Street, Mr. President, where many of the postal workers park during the day with the business permit parking. So, that may be an alternative to park the trucks in there overnight, which is a little closer than behind City Hall. So, maybe we can offer that also, Mr. President, as a... Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Falco for offering this tonight. You know, I think this does apply across the board. I know comments were made. It's not just the Zoning Board or Community Development Board. It's every board and commission. And I might add, including this council. There's been a number of meetings we've had in our council room in 2007. where there was an overflow in the hall. And I didn't hear an outcry about the members of the council saying, make sure everyone's in here for transparency. So I think we have to be very careful. And I've been to these community development boards and the zoning boards. And in these meetings, they look at site plan. They look at schematics. And this is a tough setup to do in that type of format. And that's why they have a lengthy table in front of them and so forth. So I think what we can do is make a recommendation as a council that with any board and commission, including this council, if there is overflow, that they move into a larger capacity area. And I think that covers everything, rather than saying you have to move here, you have to do this or do that. I think that covers everything. So if there's an overflow, Mr. President, I think common sense should prevail that you move into a room where everyone can participate. That's what Councilor Falco is getting at. This is a participating resolution. It is open and transparent, and I agree with that. But I'm not sure we solve all that by just having people come into this chamber, because they may have meetings with just a few people, and it'd be a difficult place to sit down with a few people, because it's not set up for that. That would be my recommendation, Mr. President, if an overflow takes place, that a suitable room be found by any board commission or Medford City Council.
[Michael Marks]: Why can't we make it for all boards and commissions?
[Michael Marks]: I think that's the way to go. No one else feels that way? No. It constantly locks them out of the center.
[Michael Marks]: All right.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We lost just recently a longtime Method resident. And anyone that knew Josephine Panico and got to know Josephine would know she was quite a spunky woman. And, you know, you knew where you stood with Josephine at all times. And I appreciated her for that. And, you know, as a loving grandmother, mother, wife, she is going to be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I didn't have a chance to review the records. Can I lay them on the table for one week?
[Michael Marks]: Come so much. Thank you, Mr. President. Chief, can you just explain the necessity of replacing a piece of equipment? How old is that piece that you're going to be replacing?
[Michael Marks]: So where will you be storing the truck that you're replacing?
[Michael Marks]: So that that truck's going to go on engine four?
[Michael Marks]: So we don't contract for any outside maintenance?
[Michael Marks]: Now, regarding, uh, you mentioned you purchased the washers. Yes. And they're going to be located at the headquarters. Correct. And we did not purchase any additional dryers.
[Michael Marks]: So dry, when they put those in the dryers, those heavy-duty dryers, it takes up to six hours? Sure. Depending on how many turnout gears go into the unit? Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: And with the plans for the police station, that building is still going to maintain? Yeah, that portion, yes. That portion of the building is still going to be there? Yeah. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: It'd be helpful just as one member. Yeah. And I know there's a lot of discussions going on.
[Michael Marks]: Well, we've got two of them. Actually, they're out there. So, so do we have a timeline when, when this, I, I have, we don't have a timeline established.
[Michael Marks]: And the firefighters were promised that this would be a work in progress. And it has been. It really has been. You just said there was nothing's been done. It's been dormant.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Personally, Chief, I think we should have a timeline. We should have something that we can look at and say we're meeting our target goals, because we have no idea other than to say, well, things seem to be going on.
[Michael Marks]: So come this June, just a hypothetical, come this June, no movement. What happens?
[Michael Marks]: I don't understand, Chief. If your plan is to take state property and rely on the state, which you just said, well, it's the state, that's your plan.
[Michael Marks]: We have our own city property, too, that we don't have to rely on the state. But it's not ideal for our use. It really isn't. I'm just saying, as part of building the new police station, the firefighters were promised a bill of goods. I think we all heard it behind this reel. I know exactly. And I just want to make sure that we're following through.
[Michael Marks]: If you could just keep us updated, Chief, on what's happening, because surely we don't get anything from the administration.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but we should be receiving some type of communication saying where we are in the process. That's all I'm asking, Chief. I don't think that's a big request. You know, to find out where we are in the process. That's an important training tower. Otherwise, we wouldn't be trying to find a building chief to do it.
[Michael Marks]: At least I would know nothing's going on. So when I don't get anything, I'm not sure what's happening, and I have to hear scuttlebutt from different people saying, some people saying all the process is working well, other people saying... It is, it is, but don't listen to scuttlebutt.
[Michael Marks]: So we're all on the same page. My last question, Chief, and I'm sorry to throw all this at you, but... It's all right. We don't see you too often, so... I'll take advantage of the opportunity. That's a good thing, isn't it? I guess. Chief, we're bonding for a new truck and that's great. We still have many, many needs in our fire stations. Many, many needs. That's true. From heating, windows, air conditioning, kitchens, subfloors that are still sub-par. I mean, the list goes on and on. Showers, locker rooms. And I have yet to see, and I know you did a lot of homework a few years back on putting together a capital improvement plan, and some of it was implemented, but I've yet to see any request Well, I haven't seen anything, Chief, from you requesting that we start putting some money into these stations that we know, you know, we don't have a plan to rehab all our stations right now or rebuild our stations. So I think we really need to put together a capital plan to start addressing some of the needs.
[Michael Marks]: Right, as you know, the budget is the budget is the budget, it's been the same way for 30 years. We're looking at a capital plan to address the needs.
[Michael Marks]: Well, unfortunately, we don't appropriate that. That's from the city administration. I don't need them. So we need to sit down, like this council's been requesting, and put together a capital plan to start addressing some of the needs. And, you know, I don't think we can go much longer with some of the conditions I saw, Chief, honestly. I mean, you're in the buildings, you see them. I do. And they were 100% correct. Some of them are health and safety concerns. That's true. We're talking fire alarms in a fire station that aren't working. You're aware of that, Chief. Of course I am, but they are being fixed. Well, they're being fixed, but, I mean, we're talking fire alarms at a fire station. Chief, Chief, you know, these are important issues, and I know you know the report. Nobody knows that more than me. Right. And I'm hoping maybe if it's a lack of the administration to address the issues, maybe we should sit down with the Public Safety Committee, the subcommittee of the council, and start looking at some of these issues that need to be addressed. Otherwise we're gonna be facing, like we did with the DPW yard, all of a sudden it's condemned. Because the place, you couldn't have anyone in the building. And then you're looking at a police station that, quite frankly, probably should be condemned also. And now we're gonna be looking at individual fire stations.
[Michael Marks]: We're not there, but we're getting there, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but they're firefighters, they're not maintenance people.
[Michael Marks]: I understand that, but this goes far beyond paint and washing of a floor. I'm talking about structural, I'm talking about the replacement of windows and doors and a lot of things, Chief. I understand, I understand. I'd like to have a conversation. Beautiful. You know, with this council regarding capital plan. Sure. Be glad to do it. Thank you, Chief. You're welcome. Councilor Nice.
[Michael Marks]: In the form of a motion that we also meet with the chief to discuss a capital improvement plan for the fire department.
[Michael Marks]: No, that's the two separate issues. Right? Yours is for the land. This is the capital.
[Michael Marks]: That'd be probably the best.
[Michael Marks]: If we could, we have a resident that would like to speak, that's actually me tonight, so Andrew will allow the resident to speak.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you Mr. President. I too want to thank Todd and a number of other people that have contacted us on this very issue. The only thing I would disagree with Councilor Longo-Curran, almost every year for the past 10 years that I can remember, we've brought up as a council requesting the city administration set up a full-fledged street sweeping program. And it was because of these very incidences that we found out that the lack of notification, although the city believes 911 is proper notification, in my opinion, the city now is abusing 911. And most people, the minute they hear Barry Clemente, they hang up. And if that's gonna be the method that the city uses to notify people to move their car, or otherwise they'll be towed, it's not proper notification in my opinion. And as we requested year after year, permanent signage is the only way to go. I mean, this is a large city, seven square miles. 800 streets. I mean, we need a proper program that residents, because residents, when I talk to them and say, you know what, if we knew what's going to happen, we'll move our car. It's the inconsistency over the years that residents don't know what's happening. We heard from Todd. Todd said if there's a sign out there, you know, the third Wednesday of every month, my car will be off the street. And if it's not, shame on me. And he's right. But one year when you have the posting on telephone poles and trees of paper signs, the following year you have just the police going around with blowhorns, the following year they're only using electronic signs in certain locations around the city. It's just not consistent, and I can see why residents are confused. I'm on the council. I'd like to think I'm in the know, and I get confused. This is not rocket science. They do it in every other surrounding community, and they're successful, Mr. President. We only sweep twice a year, and we can't get the program correct. Imagine if we swept once a month in the summer and spring months? What would it be like then? We can't even get this correct. So we really have to start off with a program that makes sense, proper signage, proper notification of residents in this community, and once everyone's on the same page, they'll know, Mr. President. And, you know, I hear from the city administration saying, well, if we do the third Wednesday of every month or whatever it might be, then it's difficult for residents to find parking. Other communities, they do odd-even street sweeping. So you're not taking 100% of the parking away from residents. You're still giving them the ability to park on one side or the other during street sweeping time. So these are the things, really. I'm not sure why it takes so long to implement. I'm not sure why this administration doesn't see this as a need in this community to implement a full-fledged program. You know, we started a pilot program back some, I think it's 8 or 10 years ago, to sweep major thoroughfares. That was a pilot program. You know what? It's still in the pilot stage. It's been 10 years. We haven't progressed at all in this community. So, you know, I feel your frustration. I hear what you're saying. The city administration runs the day-to-day operations. This falls under the day-to-day operations of the city. And we're a legislative body and people are welcome to come up, but really this is an issue the city administration should be working on. And to get a reverse 911 call that you may not be, you may be a new resident, not have access, whatever the issue may be. You may just have gone on vacation. There's a host of issues, like Councilor Scarpelli said, you may be a visiting nurse. There's a million different reasons why you may come into the city and not be aware of the program that's taking place. And that's unfortunate, Mr. President. So, I agree with Councilor Locco's sentiments on this about the permanent signage around the community. I think that will solve most of the issues that I hear from residents, and I would support that, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Just if we could, I know Councilor Falco, did you ask for the number of appeals every year?
[Michael Marks]: So, so, so Mr. President, I think that's going to be very telling because prior to Park Method, as if anyone's been in the city for a number of years, we had no parking enforcement at all for all intents and purposes. And the appeals process, if and when a ticket was handed out, That person that was responsible used to be the assistant city solicitor back some years ago, and he would handle all the appeals, even though we didn't hand out a lot of parking tickets. And then at some point they moved it from the legal department to the Office of Diversity and Compliance, and that person who has a full-time job is now responsible for also doing the appeals. And when Park Method came into the community, one of the questions we asked, and I remember it vividly, was the fact that now we're going to have an outside company come in and start doing ticketing, it's going to increase the ticketing tenfold. And as a department head that already has a job that's doing hearings kind of on the side because we don't do much ticketing, now going to be inundated with the appeals process,
[Michael Marks]: In my opinion, Park Method shouldn't even be involved in any type of appeal process because they're the ones issuing the ticket. So I don't think they should be involved. But needless to say, we have a department head now, in my opinion, that's probably not able to keep track of The number of appeals that they're getting in that office, and that process, I think, will be telling when we find out how many appeals that that particular department head is handling. And I think we're going to find out that's the reason why they can't get back within 30 days, which is unacceptable. But I think that was the main reason why we wanted this to be a separate entity and a separate body. That's a position in itself. Go to any other community, the hearings offices, that's their job. Go to Somerville, go to Boston, that's what they do. Over here, it's the department head that handles appeals also. So I think you're going to find the reasoning why these appeals and the communication is because It's kind of an adjunct to a role that someone already has, you know, full-time position. That's all I want to say.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information. Councilor Marks. I just want to clarify. I believe that the committee reported out to be sent to a committee of the whole, so there was a recommendation to send it to a committee of the whole. Right. I hope the records reflect that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could? Yes. We did ask, I hate to interrupt you, we did ask the city solicitor who did report back to us whether or not that we could file a home rule petition to make this whole process an opt-in rather than an opt-out process, and we did get a response back from the city solicitor, so we did have questions and got responses back from the city solicitor that attended the meeting.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Well, thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, we did have a vote on this. So, this hasn't been an issue that was voted down as Councilor Knights at six to one. So there was a vote on the issue, and then we had subsequent other meetings with additional information, and that's, I guess, where the council stands now. I don't know if Councilor Knight spoke to Martha recently in Melrose, but I just read an article that I don't have with me tonight, that the town of Melrose has put the program on hold. until at least November of 2000, October or November 2018, they're unable to get a rate that's lower than the basic rate of National Grid. And they thought, the article I read said that in the interest of the rate payers of the town of Melrose, that they thought it was best that they put the program on hold, and I assume from what I read, everyone reverts back to where it was before, and then at some point, They're going to revert back, I guess, when the rates are more acceptable for that town. So I'd love to hear what Martha has to say because these are the very things that I've been speaking about for the last two years. I'm all in favor, Mr. President, of having people have a choice. But in my opinion, when the state legislature created this law and had everyone automatically opt into the program, I don't buy that, Mr. President. If this is such a great program, and it may be, you know, aggregating and so forth, then why not have it voluntary that people opt into the program? And once word gets out there that, hey, look, I saved and so forth, the numbers will start to increase. And that's the one concern I had. The other concern I had was the outreach. You know, we have probably the fifth highest, fourth or fifth highest percentage of seniors in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts living here in Method, Massachusetts. My concern is I represent everyone in the community, not just the advocates that want to go green or reduce their carbon footprint, which is great. I represent the seniors also and the people that may not have a grasp when they get something in the meal. That tells them they have to opt out, and this is how you opt out, and this is what aggregation is, and the kilowatts, and they're not going to understand, Mr. President. And, you know, depending on the outreach, and the nature outreach, and knowing how this city works, that we can't run a street sweeping program and basic city things, I don't see this. I don't see the outreach working in this community, and I have a lot of concerns regarding those that may not be in the know to opt out of a program that they may not want to participate in. Those are the, I think, legitimate concerns that I have as a member of the council. I'm not opposed to this. I think we should do a tri-city. If it's so great to have aggregation, why just Method stand alone? Let's join with other communities. Let's make it even cheaper for our residents. Let's take it a step further. I've heard enough on this issue to know where I stand on it, and the reasoning that I have is the opt-out, which I think is un-American to be quite honest with you, and I also believe The notification, how we do community outreach, has always been inadequate in this community, and I can't see this being any different unless someone could tell me otherwise. And for that reason, Mr. President, I don't support the municipal aggregation, and I've been very consistent on my opposition to this from day one. So I haven't wavered on this at all, and coming to find out that Melrose, from what I read, now is who came before us and said, this is such a great program, now it's not part of the program. I think that should raise some eyebrows.
[Michael Marks]: I believe if you go under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this is how I found it, it wasn't in the newspaper. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, if you look under municipal aggregation, there's a section that lists all the cities and towns. They have to file an annual report. And as part of this reporting package, there was a blurb, it was only a paragraph or two, that explained that Melrose, for at least the time being, is out of the municipal aggregation business because the rate was not one that was acceptable to their community. Thank you. How's the knife?
[Michael Marks]: People opt into the program again. I mean, if they're coming out of the program right now, they're going back to national grid becomes the distributor becomes the carrier. What happens?
[Michael Marks]: In particular, both on the Winchester line up by the high school and also on the Boston Ave area of Winthrop Street needs to be looked at. Grove Street is a complete nightmare with some huge potholes. Salton Stall to High Street off of Grove Street. Again, some giant potholes in that area and throughout the community. So I understand from talking to a member of the DPW that it's difficult this time of year to buy the asphalt. And when they do go, there's lines to purchase it. And I guess you can't pre-order or so forth unless you have an area within your DPW that you can do your own asphalt. And I'm not sure the cost and so forth with that. But this is an important issue. The weather is warming up now. We'll probably still get some cool and, you know, Inclement weather and snow, but we need to really fix those potholes that are out there. It's becoming a dangerous commute for residents and pedestrians.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. That's a great suggestion Councilor Scarpelli offered, and maybe when this year's budget comes up, we can stand up as a council and let the Mayor know what we'd like to see within the budget, and that may be a good idea at that point also. I just want to make part of the report, Mr. President. I happen to live near intersecting State and City Road. And I can tell you firsthand, every year, the state and the city debate on who's going to fill the potholes because the roads intersect. And the potholes just stay there all year. And there's many roads like that throughout the community. And this city has to do a better job in communication with the state highway and so forth to make sure that whosever responsibility it is, we pay taxes, both state and city taxes. Whosever responsibility it is, it has to be done, and it has to be taken care of. I don't think as a community we should turn a blind eye and say, well that's a foot onto the state road, which happens to be Middlesex Ave, which happens to be hundreds of people that pay taxes in this community. We can't go back to them and say, sorry, that pothole is eight inches onto state road. That's unacceptable in my opinion, and those particular areas need to be addressed. If the state doesn't do it, the city better fill them, Mr. President, in my opinion.
[Michael Marks]: We're going to have a two-minute recess to discuss this.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President? I would ask in this paper that the paper fully be read. This is an important paper that deals with the expenditure of city funds. So I would ask that we read the paper on this one.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you Mr. President. This council, just for the edification of the council and the viewing audience that this council back some time ago has been on record not to waive readings which was the way it was done in the past, Mr. President. And the firefighters that came before us, I think it was roughly a year and a half, two years ago, requested the same thing of waiving the readings. And I believe it was a unanimous vote. I could be corrected if not. But what happens, Mr. President, and this body, and I'm sure the police department could agree, as well as the residents of this community is, you know, when we talk about transparency, it's not just the word transparency. It actually means something. And to waive readings is, in my opinion, doing away with the public process. And the first reading is when it appears on the council agenda. The second reading is when the city clerk puts it out for notification in the local paper. Which makes it open and notorious for people in the community if they're interested in the issue. And the final and third reading is for public input and approval or not by the council. And by waiving the readings, You're doing away, even though you still have to have the second reading, which is notification, which is required by state statute in the local paper. You're doing away with the final reading, which allows residents of this community, and even members of the union if they want to come up, and address the council before they vote on it. And it's doing away with the public process. And I offered that statement back, I believe it was about two years ago, The protocol for this council would always be to waive the readings, and the theory was that the unions would get their check a little quicker. And that sounds great in theory, and I want to make sure that the brave men and women of the police department get their check, but I also want to make sure that we follow the proper protocol. and process, Mr. President, that we're bound by as a council to this community. And I think the process, the way we want to work it with going through three readings will take roughly two and a half to three weeks by the time it comes back to us after it's published in the paper. And I think after two or three year bargaining session that the unions had with the mayor and so forth, that to wait and follow this through the entire process, which is another two or three weeks, is not much to ask, Mr. President. I think it sets good... protocol in this community to follow the letter of the law, and the letter of the law states three readings on a paper of this magnitude, Mr. President. So I could not support that here tonight, Mr. President, based on that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. One of the major complaints that I've received over the last few days is the fact that our corners are not being shoveled out or plowed out. Most of the plows are bringing the snow up to the corner, and you'll see snow banks five, six feet tall. It makes it very difficult for residents who want to get out there and do the right thing to shovel these giant mounds. I think the city has to do a better job in connecting our streets and our walking paths. I, as one person that commutes on the MBTA every morning, can tell you that You can't make it down many roads now. Riverside Ave, there are literally some paths down Riverside Ave that seem to be, and I don't know how you shovel like a six inch path, but the path is literally, it's six inches wide. I don't know how it gets like that, but some of the frustration that I hear from residents on main roads is the fact that they'll go out there and shovel, and then within an hour, a truck comes by and throws three times as much as they've already shoveled back on their sidewalk. They have to constantly be out there, and I don't know, maybe with this new piece of equipment, we can try to address some of the major roads, High Street, Winthrop Street, Salem Street, Main Street, you know, Fulton Street. We need, and it's great to have one piece of equipment. But in a city this size, really, you know, I know they made a big hill of blue about this one piece of equipment they just bought, but you need probably five or six of those in a city this size to do the job in our business districts and around our schools and on our major thoroughfares. So those are the complaints I received, Mr. President. Temple Street was a mess. There were a number of streets out there that seemed to be forgotten. And I'm not sure what happens when plows don't go down a street at all, if it's just an oversight or if it's something larger. The second point is that there was a number to call regarding if you had a complaint that was sent out on reverse 911. And I can tell you that that number wasn't minned around the clock. At least from the calls that I received, it wasn't manned around the clock. And when you have a snow emergency, you really have to have a 24-hour hotline, you really do, that residents can call and feel that they have someone to speak to, and at least the person on the other end is listening and letting them know, you know, ma'am, we're in a major snowstorm and, you know, we're gonna get to it, it's on our list. And I think that's extremely important that we have that set up. And I would ask that we recommend to the city administration that a 24-hour hotline during snow emergencies, so if the emergency is in effect for three days, it's three days of a 24-hour hotline that residents can call and get a response on the other end and at least know that this situation will eventually be addressed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. I think it's important also if we find out how many tickets were issued during this previous snowstorm. for residents not shoveling, and I had a brief conversation because he was so busy with the foreman for Highway Steve Tanaglia, and I asked him why the state highways seemed to be down to the pavement after it snowed, and why some of our streets were not. And I asked whether we were using the same mixture that they put down prior to the snow. And he said that we don't use the same mixture. And it's something that him and the DPW commissioner are going to review and see whether or not they should go closer to the formula that the state uses that they put down. In my opinion, just from living near the Fellsway, whatever they put down works miracles. It does a tremendous job keeping the snow from building up, the ice, and I think whatever they're using, we should follow suit, Mr. President, on many of our side streets and roads and main roads. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. Just also if we could follow up. Many of the schools now have safe routes that are part of their schools and how children walk to school in safe areas. And I would ask that whatever is done by the DPW that they also follow These routes to make sure the intersections and corners are all available to make sure kids can get directly to school. It's great that most of our schools now have been plowed out and many of the intersections directly around the schools look in great condition. The problem is that not every kid lives next to their school. and they're walking from three, four, five blocks, and that's where the problem lies. Getting to that particular school is where the problem lies. So I would ask that DPW also look at the safe routes that the schools have, and make sure those areas are plowed out also.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, also maybe if we can make part of this report if the President doesn't mind. We've been waiting for an investigation on the lights in the square for over two years now. Two years. They did a section of Salem Street across from Alamo Roast Beef in that area, and they were reviewing the illumination to see if that's what the city wanted to go with, and then the issue fell off the map. I'm not sure what happened, but it really needs, we need an update from the Office of Energy and Environment to find out where we are in this process. There's no reason why it should take two years to figure out what we're going to do with the lighting in the square, Mr. President. I think this resolution speaks volumes for the fact that we've been waiting to get increased lighting in the business district. And I might add, not just Medford Square, in all our business districts, they all have the same low shabby lights that really illuminate nothing, not even the road, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. The turnout gear, which we all thought brave men and women in the fire department are wearing, they still have yet to get their second suit of turnout gear. I'm not quite sure what the holdup is, but I'm asking. That the city administration report back immediately on what is the time frame for the firefighters to receive the gear regarding the training towers. I know there's meetings going along between the city administration, the fire department and other. I think it's only appropriate that we get an update now on where we stand regarding the training towers and the dryers. From what I've been told today, they are not ordering dryers for the turnout gear. They ordered washers, which we all spoke about within the budget. We all asked that dryers be purchased also to be installed at the headquarters and now being told that they are not ordering the dryers, they are going to just have them held up and blown dry by fans. Which to me seems kind of outdated and archaic way of drying turnout gear, which is a very piece, heavy piece of clothing. And to me proper drying would be through a recognized heavy duty dryer that's used throughout this country in fire stations. So I would ask Mr. President that we receive an update why dryers, after a vote of this council, in funding that was approved by this council, uh, dryers have not been, uh, purchased, and from what I'm being told, are not going to be purchased, Mr. President, uh, from this, uh, city administration.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. The resident that lives at 91 Warren Street brought this tree which is ...in terrible condition to the attention of the city warden, Aggie Tudin, back in January of 2017. Aggie Tudin went out, looked at the tree, said, indeed, this tree needs to come down as a public safety concern... ...and where there are electrical wires that are mixed in with the branches of the tree, it's protocol by the tree warden... to reach out to National Grid, which Aggie Tudin reached out in January to National Grid of 2017, requesting that they go out and remove the tree in the interest of public safety. Nothing was done, Mr. President. In August 10, 2017, Aggie Tudin then reached out to National Grid again. This tree is of concern. It's in the neighborhood and it needs to be addressed by National Grid. National Grid did nothing again. And just recently in December of last year, Aggie reached out for a third time to National Grid and they have yet to respond, Mr. President, or yet to reach out. I would ask Mr. President that we immediately send a letter to National Grid, and I can tell you as one member of the Council, I'm getting tired of these utility companies, and I know Councilor Scarpelli has spoken about it on many occasions, Mr. President. running roughshod in this community. And when we have a request, a public safety request to ignore it for a year, in my opinion, coming from a department head here at City Hall is unacceptable. It's totally unacceptable. And I can tell you right now, any petitioner that comes before us, in particular for National Grid, they're not going to get my vote on, I don't care what the proposals are. until they start addressing issues in this community, Mr. President. We asked for a report regarding the double polls in the community several months back. Has anyone received a report regarding double polls in this community? Nothing at all. We have received little to no correspondence at all, Mr. President, and I think it's about time this council stands up on behalf of the residents of this community and the people that are paying the bills. National Grid's making a lot of money in this community, along with the other utility companies, and it's about time that this council stands up on behalf of the residents. And I would ask that that treaty be reviewed and taken down immediately, Mr. President, where it's a year-old request. and the tree water deemed appropriate that that tree needs to be removed immediately in the interest of public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Francis is a lifelong resident and was a great community person, a great friend, and he will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Ricketts. Councilor Marks. Yes, Mr. President. Just briefly, we all received an email today regarding the broadcast equipment that's located here at City Hall and how outdated the equipment is. And the new gentleman, his name escapes me, that's operating, Ben, The community access station put together some figures and facts on what equipment we need and the cost. This would also include the equipment that this council supported regarding having cameras televise our hearing rooms and be part of that process. And I would ask that we as a council request the city administration submit to us a funding paper. So we can move forward on these two very important issues, changing the outdated equipment here at City Hall, so people viewing this can actually make heads and tails of what's going on at this meeting, and also the meetings that are taking place in other rooms that are currently on televised, Mr. President. So I would ask that we send a correspondence to the Mayor for a funding paper.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, uh, I couldn't be more happy. Uh, two years ago, uh, this council had a big borrow and steal to get $10,000 allocated in the budget to fix what I refer to as two prison bathrooms in the library. And, uh, they were painted and some, uh, fixtures were replaced. Um, and now we're talking about, uh, possibly a $27 million brand new library, complete with community gathering spaces, which I believe is going to be a home run. This library will not only be a library, it'll be a central gathering place for all of the city. And I have big expectations for this building now.
[Michael Marks]: I'm glad to hear. I know there's been talk about, uh, putting in a small cafe where you can get a scone and a cup of coffee, and I think that's a great asset. I've had people in the community come up to me and say, you know, in this day and age, do we really need a new library? And what I tell people is that this is not the library that we all remember, where you go pull out old microfilm and sit down and maybe rent a video or so forth or a book. This is going to be a state-of-the-art community gathering space. um, and equip with the latest in technology and someplace that, uh, you want to say, Hey, I'm going to go down to the square to go to the library and, uh, it'll become a destination place. So I am so ecstatic to see, uh, the plans, uh, moving forward. Uh, I know the, uh, friends of the library been working, uh, with this building, uh, for a number of years and the new library building committee has done yeoman's work. and gathering the information needed and such a short period of time. Uh, the question I do have is that, uh, I don't want to be a Debbie downer, but if the grant does not come through for some reason, do we have a plan B in place? Uh, because, um, I want to see something happen. This is great. I want to see this happen. But if this, for whatever reason doesn't come to fruition, I think we need to have a plan B and start moving on that plan B. immediately, so has there been any discussion?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Um, now you mentioned, I think council Longo current asked about the construction timeframe. What is the total construction from, uh, putting a shovel into the ground until we actually do a ribbon cutting?
[Michael Marks]: So as part of the plans, what is going to be done to temporarily relocate the library for possibly almost a two year span?
[Michael Marks]: So has there been any consideration of potential sites?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And the Magoon Room has a number of historical artifacts. Is there any discussion on using some of the Amelia Hart artifacts that are in there to enhance the library and enhance some of the educational tools that we might have.
[Michael Marks]: That's right. Almost in the same theme that you have now, when you walk into the library, you have the display cases where you have stuff similar to that, where, uh, we may be able to turn a section of the library into, come and display your old political buttons like you had in there at one point.
[Michael Marks]: That's, that's great. That's great. Um, so just, just the, uh, the last point I have, um, regarding, uh, is, uh, there any stipulation regarding the city's, uh, budgetary requirements, uh, in regards to, as you know, I don't have to tell you, Barbara, that, uh, over the last several years, the city has underfunded, uh, the library. Um, and, uh, is there any requirements when we apply for the grant that we have to maintain that funding at a level so that that is written into the grant document itself?
[Michael Marks]: That's great. And I, and I liked the suggestion. I realized there's no funding within the grant for the exterior landscaping. Is that correct? Or, uh, that council Scarpelli brought up about having interactive, um, uh, similar to what we're doing out here at the, uh, on Salem street. I'm sorry. I'm Riverside F as you probably know, we're doing the bus shelter over, and that particular area to turn it into an outdoor gathering space. And we're going to have a number of interactive exhibits for young and middle-aged children. And I'd love to see something around the library. They do a great project in South Boston. My kids just went recently. And they have these lit up, I can never remember the name of it. If anyone knows, if you could help me out. They have these great lit up things that you can sit in. And it's a big attraction.
[Michael Marks]: Lawn on D. Lawn on D. And let me tell you, it's a great attraction. I'm not sure what the cost is, but kids go from all over, all over to go there and be pictured with these outdoor seating, illuminated structures. And it's really just, you know, an excellent take and something that would serve as an attraction, as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned. and maybe something outside where we received a grant for the Riverside Ave, $250,000 for this project. It might be something that we can look at for the exterior of the library. But Barbara, I want to thank you in your short term as the director. We seem to be on the move.
[Michael Marks]: Well, it takes leadership. And I want to thank you for your leadership and the board of the library and also the building committee as well as Councilor Caraviello, I think it was about a year and a half ago, you mentioned about doing the library over and looking for grants. And I think everyone looked at you like you had three heads and now we're looking at him as he has one giant head. And I mean that in a good way. I mean that in a good way. Lots of brains in it. And so I want to thank Councilor Caraviello for his leadership on that too.
[Michael Marks]: Just if we could, cause Mr. Cassidy brings up a great point and maybe if Barbara can answer it as part of the grant proposal, does the city have to clearly define what its maintenance will be of the building?
[Michael Marks]: So, so that is part of the grant proposal.
[Michael Marks]: It is one of the questions. So, and I agree with Mr. Castagnetti that there's been a lack of oversight for many years, but we have to move on forward now and that shouldn't prevent us from creating these great new structures for our residents. So, um, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I think we should offer it as a council. Yes, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to thank, uh, Councilor Penta for bringing this to our attention. I did see something in the news recently, uh, regarding Mr, uh, Simons. And, um, I think the, um, uh, movie producers did put out a statement saying at the end, They thanked all who were involved and who had some type of involvement or hardship with the Marathon bombing. And that was the way they presented it as covering everyone. So, but I want to thank Councilor Penta, Mr. President, for bringing this up.
[Michael Marks]: And Mr. President, too, I'd be remiss if I didn't say something about Jean Barry Sutherland. I have known Jean for a number of years, and she was truly a dedicated professional in our Medford Public Schools. She was well-liked by everyone, as Councilor Caraviello mentioned. She always had a smile on her face, even when she was going through very trying times over the last many years, she was there to give a positive note and positive advice. And, uh, she will solely be missed in this community.
[Michael Marks]: I said that is to benefit the business owners in each of our business districts. And I think we should get an answer before we take something off our agenda, Mr. President. Because it's been on there a year. It's certainly not bothering me, Mr. President. And I think it deserves, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and every business in this community, to get an answer on it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: There was several questions asked, Mr. President. That's why the paper was put on the table. I remember like it was yesterday that we asked that if there was $250,000 reserved for the business districts that we find out who would be responsible for giving out the money to each business district. Was it going to go to the West Medford business community or was it going to go to the chamber and so forth? So we had a number of questions and maybe we have to just revisit to find out what the status is rather than just doing away with the paper. Well then why don't we have a motion so we can get an answer?
[Michael Marks]: Have we ever received the full policy, Mr. President? Because that was what we asked for.
[Michael Marks]: Can we ask that we receive a copy of the full policy, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, so if we can get a copy of the policy, that's all I'm asking.
[Michael Marks]: So, what was the question?
[Michael Marks]: I don't know what the question was.
[Michael Marks]: So that was the question that we couldn't get out to the administration.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'm a little confused. The, the fact that a paper is before us as a, as a resolution and we may have a question on the paper itself, right? From what I'm hearing from some of my colleagues, it appears that, we have to approve the paper in order to get questions answered. And I don't think that's necessarily true. Mr. President, I think we can request as a council to get answers. Uh, we had a Councilor Knights resolution a few weeks ago about setting up a reserve account in the city and we didn't support that as a council, but we did support sending it to the mayor to see if the mayor, um, uh, thought it was appropriate, uh, for, uh, the setting of, a reserve account. So I'm not quite sure the fact that we don't approve something necessarily means that we can't get something answered. And if it is, then we have to change our council rules because that, that doesn't make any sense to me that we have to approve something before we can get some answers or in order to get access that has been here.
[Michael Marks]: It's the petitioner reached out to the city clerk. Have you heard from the petitioner?
[Michael Marks]: We didn't take any vote. How do you know majority of the council was opposed to it?
[Michael Marks]: This has nothing to do with the petitioner, but more to do with BJ's. And you may or may not be aware, but BJ's has been a good neighbor for a number of years in that particular neighborhood. And of recent, I've received a number of calls from area residents regarding the trash on the property at BJ's and how it is sneaking under the fence into surrounding neighborhoods. And I would just ask as part of this paper that we as a council send a paper to BJ's asking that they maintain the trash on both sides of the fence at BJ's and that they stay vigilant regarding that. very important neighborhood concern.
[Michael Marks]: What is the information you have to share with us, Councilor? I'm going to share it right now. I agree with Councilor Long and Kern. I think it would be helpful to have that in advance of the meeting. So then I can go over it myself and come up with some questions that I may have. So I thank the gentleman, Councilor Knight, for all the due diligence on that committee. They've done a lot of work. But in order for me to make an educated decision, I'd like to have ample time to review it ahead of time rather than right at that meeting. It would be helpful to have a comparison. You know, this rule number one, we're adding the word the and changing it to the, you know, it is difficult to follow.
[Michael Marks]: The one thing I was asked actually by phone and by email today was if I can get a resident a copy of what the proposed rule changes are. And because I don't have it electronically, it's difficult for me to relay six pages of changes. So is there any way we can get this electronically so we can get it out to our constituency? I believe all our documents that we get are also posted on the city's webpage. Is this posted on the city webpage?
[Michael Marks]: I'm talking about the meeting notice.
[Michael Marks]: The City of Medford website. I couldn't find it, unless someone else is aware where it is. If you could give me a heads up where it is, just so I can point people in the right direction.
[Michael Marks]: Right, and where would you find those records on the city website? On the council records. So the council records and we don't know what?
[Michael Marks]: Can you find out and send us an email just so I can point people?
[Michael Marks]: I think the woman at the podium raises some great questions, and tomorrow will be a very fruitful meeting. However, I do agree that although Councilor Knight mentioned that this will allow ample opportunity to speak, the way I understand it is, other than the 6 p.m. prior meeting, that you would have to speak on something that's offered by the Council. And in the past, we have allowed residents to get up and speak on any issue. And that's always been the uniqueness of our body. Unlike the state legislature, unlike Congress, we invite public participation. And my discussion will be made tomorrow night, but I agree. I will not support anything that narrows any type of public participation or makes residents jump through hurdles in order to speak before this body, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: If you just want to... Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Can I speak once or twice? Thank you. It'd be nice to get equal time. It's great to offer a public session prior to our meeting. We're opening it up at 6 o'clock. We assume that people don't have families. We assume that people aren't working. We're taking a lot of assumptions here that a 6 p.m. meeting, first of all, that's not televised, and that, secondly, just say 20 people do want to come up and speak under this open meeting. The first person comes up and speaks on sidewalks. The second person comes up and speaks on the roof. The third person comes up and speaks on sidewalks. How are we going to keep a quorum, Mr. President? Because I'm not sure what order things would be taken if people are here. Are they just going to rattle off what their concerns are and fall on deaf ears? I mean, to me, what better to have someone from the public speak while the debate is happening? I don't want someone speaking two hours before a debate, because that's no good. I want to hear what they have to say during the debate, Mr. President. And I think we all should be eager to listen to residents that are taking the time to come up here out of their schedule. We always say, I wish more residents would come up, and now we're making it more difficult for residents to come up and speak before this body. So that's the only point I want to make, and I appreciate you allowing me.
[Michael Marks]: And an electronic copy is already available, but we'll add that as well, amend the motion.
[Michael Marks]: Council Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. This is not new to the council, but I've received a number of complaints from not only area residents, but business owners that now that the daylight savings time is here, that at 5.30 it gets quite dark and square is pitch dark. And it's becoming a problem, Mr. President. I know roughly about 12 to 14 months ago, many of the lenses were changed within the lighting fixtures with the hopes that that would improve some of the lighting in the square that failed to yield any benefit, in my opinion. And there is a pilot program, if anyone's interested, that's being done in front of the old theater, Medford Theater on Salem Street. You'll notice that they enhanced the lights and two of the street lights. And in my opinion, they give off great light. And I'm hoping that we really don't need to spend much more time on this in the interest of public safety, in particular, when we have trick or treat coming in our square very shortly and in Haines Square and West Method, that these lights be changed over immediately, Mr. President, in the interest of public safety. There are many sections in the square. If business owners didn't leave their lights on overnight, it would be ultimately dark in the square. And that's not good for business, and it's not good for public safety. So I would ask for a response back from the mayor regarding when this new lighting is going to take place.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Press, I typically don't like to bring up one street or another because I know Many of our streets are in deplorable condition. But I must say Riverside have, in particular at the corner of Riverside and Park and going down Riverside towards the Fellsway, there are a number of good-sized dips in the road. And they're unavoidable. You can't swerve to one side or another. And they really cause a public safety concern. And we've asked, I know I've put it on and other members of this council have put it on a number of times. Some of it's due to work done by the utilities, but really the city needs to step up, find who dug these particular trenches, and get them to repave the road in the condition it previously was. And I would ask once again, I know we received 400,000 in safe streets grant from the state. However, I don't think we can ignore the existing streets. It's great we have seven projects. that are coming to fruition, but we can't ignore the existing streets. So I would ask that Riverside Ave be looked at again by our engineer.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, actually the next street down and the street escapes, the name escapes me. There was some bushes that were eight to 10 feet tall. En a building department went out and kindly asked the owners to cut them down because it was blocking the view of people trying to get onto Riverside. And the residents were kind enough to get out there immediately and trim the bushes down. I've never had something of a fixed structure like a fence, but I think it's something we should ask the building department. You don't happen to have a number, do you? Of the home that you're talking about? Yeah. So if we can get that, I think we should offer for the building apartment, maybe just to go out there, take a look at the area, because that is a tough area to pull out of, let alone with an obstruction in the way, so. On that motion as amended. Can you provide that to the city clerk, the address?
[Michael Marks]: I review the records, Mr. President, and find them to be in order and move approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was approached by SMARTO, which is South Medford Residents Together, an organization that was established some many years ago by Jim Silver and a number of South Medford residents to have a group that discusses issues in the South Medford neighborhood. And they've done yeoman's work on bringing up many public safety issues. many quality of life issues within the South Method neighborhood and have extended their tentacles to not only South Method but to also help other parts of the community. There has been an issue in South Medford for a number of years now. As we all know, parking is very tight and congested in the South Medford neighborhood as well as other parts of the city. And the way that we currently do our resident permit parking is outdated and antiquated to say the very least. In order to get resident permit parking in the city, you have to get a majority of the residents to sign a petition that petition then needs to go to the traffic commission, uh, for approval. And, uh, in my opinion, what's currently happening now is you have some streets that being approved other streets that aren't moving forward a petition or have been denied resident permit parking. And all we're doing is pushing a problem from one street to another. Uh, I did a little research. There's currently, I believe, uh, 133, resident permit parking streets, which is roughly 20% of the 655 streets in this community. So as you can see, there are a fair number of permit parking streets, uh, throughout scattered throughout our community. And, uh, it's long overdue in my opinion to create a citywide permit system that will look at citywide or possibly zoned, uh, permit parking. And it works in other communities. It's quite successful in other communities. It serves dual purpose to not only make sure that when a resident comes home from a busy day at work or comes home from picking up their kids at school that they should be able to find a spot on their street and not worry about people that are coming from other communities parking on our street for eight to 10 hours and going into town, Mr. President. So, with that being said, I'd like to invite Jim Silver up to the podium. I know there's a lot of other issues involved with permit parking. And how do we create permit parking citywide? But, uh, I don't think we have to recreate the wheel here. And, uh, I'm hoping that we as a community can move forward with a sensible approach to a permit parking citywide. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just, just if I could on that, Mr. President, And I appreciate the linkage committee. A lot of people might not know what the linkage committee is, but, uh, in this city, if businesses want to do a business within this community and their project, uh, is over a certain size, um, they are required to pay the city a linkage money. And that linkage money can be used for a number of particular purposes. Uh, in this case, uh, the committee, which consists of the president of the council, The mayor and also the head of community development.
[Michael Marks]: the linkage money that's available. And although I'm not opposed to studies, Mr. President, I would just caution my fellow colleagues, even though it doesn't require approval from us, the previous history with studies in this community is one of three studies from 2005 to revitalize Method Square. that costed a couple of hundred thousand dollars for three studies to revitalize Medford Square, and we're no closer in revitalizing our square from 2005 to current. Governor Zav's feasibility study for the garage that fell down. A study was done for the Governor Zav garage. We don't have a garage now. The Mystic River Water Taxi Service, a feasibility study to study taxi service from the Mystic River. Not quite sure when it freezes over in the winter, unless they're gonna have an ice cutter in front of the taxi, how it's gonna get down the Mystic River, but that was a study that was commissioned by the city. The Wellington Circle Traffic Improvement Study. Now, anyone that's been in the city for a lot of years will realize Wellington Circle's been that way for 75 years. And there's been a lot of talk and discussion, a lot of lip service, but, you know, overpass, underpass, but nothing has been done to improve pedestrian safety. Take it from someone that lives 30 yards from Wellington Circle. Nothing has been done to improve pedestrian safety at Wellington Circle, even after the study was commissioned. Then we also had the police station feasibility study back in 2013. So that was three years ago. Nothing has been done to date with that particular study. I'm not opposed to studies. Studies could be very helpful. But in this case, Mr. President, I have an article from February 2015 where Chief Sacco stated on several occasions that Uh, this is his quote by as early as next year. And this was again, February of 2015 by early of next year, which is January of 2016 police Sacco said the city plans to adopt a new system for residential parking. So that leads me to believe, although he's not timely, he's working on something. And that's what we've been told by the chief. Another quote, the street by street enforcement as it's done now is age old. Sacco said during a January, Medford City Council meeting, we either will go to zone or citywide residential permits, but I don't see that happening before next year. And again, this was January, February of 2015. And then it goes on to say, Sacco said the traffic commission would likely meet in June to develop a new residential parking system with the intent of implementing it at the start of next year, which would be January of this year. So we have Chief Sacco and the Traffic Commission, by the way, which is responsible for the oversight of parking in this community, saying they're working on the issue unless they recommended that The mayor commissioned a study for $20,000, which they might have. I'm not privy to that. Why would we issue a $20,000 study when we have our own traffic commission, our own chief of police looking into an issue? And why do we need to spend $20,000, Mr. President, on a report that you can get three sensible people to sit around a table for two nights and figure out. I don't understand that. It really makes no sense. But again, it's what this city does. You know, if there's an issue, commission a study. If there's an issue with the square being dead for 20 years, issue a study. If that doesn't work, issue a second one. If that doesn't work, issue a third one. And just keep on issuing studies, and maybe the people will forget. So I'm not sold on this $20,000, Mr. President. I'd like to hear from Chief Sacco about where he stands with permit parking in this community. And I would like to hear from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. not just from a bureaucrat saying that we need to have another study in this community. Another study. It just doesn't sit well with me, Mr. President. And, you know, I'd like to hear from Jim Silva from SMARTO on the issue, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, um, if, if we can have the, uh, the gentleman that just spoke last, if he can leave us a list of the questions, I think those questions should be answered by the city administration. So if you can leave a list of the questions with the city messenger, uh, we'll make sure that it's read into the report and we get those questions answered. Um, also, Mr. President, Mr. Silver and his group have done a lot of work in compiling a lot of information that I believe the administration as well as Park Method should find very useful. And what better to have residents that get together with a common cause and present not only a gripe, but how to resolve an issue. And if you heard from Mr. Silva, he's laying out how they can resolve some of the issues that are confronting residents in particular in Salt Method. And, um, if we could, uh, by a vote of this council, uh, pass that along to the traffic commission for, uh, for their next meeting, um, that would be very helpful, Mr. President. And if we can also, um, have a park method, which Councilor Caraviello was called for a number of times now, uh, come to a council meeting to discuss some of the issues that we've had, uh, on the program itself. Uh, I think we should reiterate that. So if we can have, uh, everything that was stated by Jim Silver and Mr. Clark, did you get any of that? You didn't Jim, Jim, would you mind when your mind just coming up to the podium one more time? And, um, cause I wrote down some, I don't know if I captured all of them. I wrote down, uh,
[Michael Marks]: Well, that, well, that's, I don't know what his written testimony looks like, but, um, I think it's always helpful with, would it be helpful to give bullet points or the written testimony to, uh, I believe we all received an email some weeks ago. Did you have a list of the bullet points? Okay. So Mr. President, if we can accept the bullet points, uh, and I have the bullet points forwarded to traffic commission for review and, uh, answer the questions also that were presented, uh, regarding, um, uh, park method would be helpful. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Motion for approval, roll call, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, I know captain Clemente doesn't oversee the crossing guides, correct? You don't oversee them.
[Michael Marks]: Does that number seem a little low, three reserves?
[Michael Marks]: Remember in previous years we used to have maybe a dozen.
[Michael Marks]: So what happens if a police officer is acting as a crossing guy and they receive a public safety call?
[Michael Marks]: Now do our traffic supervisors have a way of communicating with the police department when they're out on the streets?
[Michael Marks]: So their own personal phone, right? Is there a reason why we don't give them some type of walkie talkie or communication directly?
[Michael Marks]: That's that's what I was told by the chief a couple of years ago that that that was going to happen. Well, they'd look into it.
[Michael Marks]: And I think at the time you were getting an upgrade on your walkie talkies. And it was mentioned that maybe some of the older ones could be used, because I've had crossing guards come up to me and say, you know, we have cars that aren't stopping. And I'm able to get a license plate, but, you know, by the time I pull out my phone or do what I have to do, you know, it's easier just to let the car go by. But I think if we had quicker communication, you know, with some of these people that are disregarding kids in the crosswalk, disregarding a traffic supervisor that's out there with their hand up saying stop, You probably hear the stories. I'd like to see greater communication in cracking down on these people that are paying no attention to traffic supervisors.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was the member that called for Rule 20 last week, which allows on any spending paper that comes before the council for the first time for the paper to be laid on the table for further review. And as I stated last week, and I still feel strongly, Mr. President, it was back, I believe, in June of this year when the administration came before the city council requesting $500,000 appropriation for the repair of sidewalks and tree stump removals, uh, throughout the entire community. And, uh, some four months later, uh, the bid went out and it came back at, I believe it was a 30 something thousand dollars above the $500,000. It was roughly around 30,000 above the 500,000. And, um, I'm not quite sure the administration just didn't go back and request that the city receive $500,000 worth of tree stump and sidewalk rather than amending the original amount that came out. And we were told last week that there's roughly about three weeks left to pour cement and So I'm not quite sure what we're really gonna get right now. So I know it sounds like this needs to be done immediately. And that's what we heard back in June, that the money was gonna be spent immediately to start replacing sidewalks and remove tree stumps in the community. And here we are four months later, and we haven't done, at least through this appropriation, haven't done one ounce of work yet. So based on that, Mr. President, based on the money that we did receive, is for an emergency snowstorm that happened two years ago. And as we all know, in the past 14 years, 13 years, we've been in a budget deficit with the snow and ice removal. So year after year, we severely underfund snow and ice and come out in a deficit. And here we had money that came back because of a snowstorm. And in my opinion, that money should go towards the snow and ice removal, which I can guarantee it will be in the deficit this year once again. So, for those reasons, Mr. President, I cannot support this additional money here tonight. And I voted for the $500,000 for the original stump and sidewalk work four months ago and refused to add another penny to that at this particular point. And I believe the appropriation should be taken from the Water and Sewer Enterprise account. or some other account within the city, Mr. President. We have over $8 million in the water and sewer account. And so for those reasons, Mr. President, I will not be supporting this motion tonight.
[Michael Marks]: If we can also get an update on the cemetery board, where they stand with the mausoleum I know there's been a lot of discussion and research done by the cemetery board of trustees, and I would ask if we can get it just an update to the council.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with Councilor Lungo-Koehn that, you know, if I were to list the top calls that I receive, I would say that pedestrian safety and speeding are in the top five as well. And it's a major concern. And, um, you know, I'm not happy to say that over the many years that I've been on the council, that I have seen very little progress, uh, in, uh, traffic calming approaches in this community. Although, uh, recently under this new minute, uh, administration, uh, the mayor signed a complete streets, uh, program that, uh, currently, uh, there's, uh, a complete street stakeholders committee that was set up, uh, I guess several months back. And it consists of a number of department heads as well as someone from the bicycle, um, advisory committee, which I believe is Bruce Kulik and someone from walk method. Uh, Jack's, uh, Jeff Buxom, um, is on that committee also. And their mission is very similar to what I want to set up. A major difference is that I believe there should be more citizen input. And I believe that in addition to a member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Walk Method, there should be a resident from every section of this community. Because who best knows their neighborhood than someone that lives in the neighborhood and experiences firsthand the situations of pedestrian safety and speeding and which streets may require traffic calming approaches. So my motion tonight, Mr. President, is not to replace by any means the stakeholders complete street committee. I think they're doing yeoman's work and bringing to the attention of the administration as well as the police department areas that are hot spots in this community that need to be addressed. With that being said, I believe there was 70 locations that this complete street committee sat down and looked at a number of spots throughout the community and said, you know, if we had a wish list, what needs to be attended to in this community? And they came out with 70. In my discussions with Jeff, I'd say I said to Jeff, Jeff, I could probably come up with 170. And he says, I agree, but it's a starting point. And I think it's a great starting point. What I'm hoping by this resolution tonight is to draw attention once again to public safety concerns in this community. And I attended last Wednesday night, as well as Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Falco, the police department's public safety meeting, which, due to Councilor Falco, is being held in neighborhoods throughout this community, and it was very well attended. I have to thank the chief, the officers that attended, as well as Councilor Falco for bringing up this very important issue and bringing it out to the community. But the Brooks School, as we know, is on a state highway, and that particular road has been a concern for a number of years because the only true set of working lights from the square on down to West Medford Square is, I believe, in Medford Square. There's a blinking set of lights at Pedestrian Operated in front of St. Joe's Church, but there is no other light all the way down past West Medford Square. And the next set of lights is I believe, another pedestrian control light in front of St. Raphael's. So it's a long stretch of road that really tends to pick up speed and cars, in my opinion, see this as a place where you can pick up speed. But I wanted to throw out some of the recommendations, Mr. President, just so for the edification of the general public. things that are currently being worked on at High Street in front of the Brooks School, and things that will be addressed over time because they involve more engineering study and so forth. But the installation of two rectangular rapid flash beacons to be actuated by push button, the beacons have been audited and expect them to arrive this coming week. So that should be installed very shortly. They're also talking about shortening the crossing using painted curb extensions. And I think that's something that was mentioned at the council meeting a few weeks ago when residents and parents came from the Brooks School. They're going to install a flexible pedestrian yield stop sign in the center of the crosswalk, along with striping to further narrow the road. They're going to paint stripes to delineate the parking lanes on both sides serving to narrow the road and slow traffic. And they're going to clarify much of the existing signage in the area to help with traffic control and pedestrian safety. One of the major recommendations that was made was to lower the speed limit on High Street. And I realize because it's a state road, and I think at the meeting that was brought up at the Brooks School, is the fact that it's a state road that we need the Department of Transportation to act on this request. It's not something we can do internally through our own traffic commission. So it's my understanding that is in the works to lower the speed limit to 25 miles an hour, and with the hopes that if you lower speed, streets become safer. And, you know, it's been said here a thousand times, you can have all the signage, You can have all the traffic markings without enforcement, without strict, consistent enforcement. We're not going to move forward no matter what signage we put out there. And I was a little dismayed to hear from the chief that when residents were concerned for the lack of enforcement, that the chief over and over again said, well, if I had a full complement of police officers, I'd be able to do some of the enforcement. And I can't see why, Mr. President, with the existing amount of manpower that we have in this community, that we can't provide basic enforcement from our current staffing as it is right now. And in my opinion, it's a matter of priorities. If pedestrian safety and taking back our streets is a priority in this community, the police department will find the manpower to accommodate that task. You know, it was also mentioned that the Traffic Division only has four personnel right now. There are four officers in the Traffic Division. And, you know, to cover — don't forget, we're not open nine to five. We're open seven days a week, 24 hours a day, our streets. And it requires a significant input of manpower, not only by the patrol, but also by a Traffic Division. And, in my opinion, we lack the proper personnel to provide the safety that's needed, Mr. President. And again, I would say that's a matter of priorities and shifting of personnel to accomplish that. During the budget, the chief asked, as one request, he asked for CAAS, which I'm hoping are going to come to fruition, which in the capital improvement plan the mayor is going to be offering. But he also asked for some additional civilian manpower. And part of that was to keep crime statistics in the city and also do some basic reporting. Because if you go onto the police website, it's very difficult to get any information on any type of reporting that's been done regarding analysis, crime analysis, pedestrian safety, accidents within this community. And the chief asked for that particular position and it was denied by the administration. But I can tell you firsthand, without the proper reporting, because there were a lot of questions asked Wednesday night regarding how many accidents, where are these accidents located? Are they in this particular area or are they around the city? And we did get some information, but it was very limited. And I think a position of that would pay for itself 10 times over. in regards to a sense of confidence, a sense of peace of mind that it is being looked at, and that problem areas are being addressed. If you don't know where the problem areas are, then you can't address them. So the first step is to identify and isolate the areas that need to be attended to. And without someone that's gathering this data, I think it makes it that much more difficult for our police department to do its job. Then there was talk also about quicker response time when it comes to a neighborhood safety concerns. The Brooks Hobbs or the Brooks School, I should say, there was a quick turnaround, but I think residents expected to see a little more, a little quicker. And some of the quick things that were asked for to put out as maybe a couple of those orange safety barrels on High Street just to let people know that there's something there and something impeding them coming down the street. There was also talk about putting up the electronic speed sign that we have to let people know, hey, we're out here, we're present, we're looking. Even to take a couple of our cars that have been sitting behind the police station unused for a period of time, they may not be in great condition, but they still say Method Police on them, and they still have a set of lights on top, and you park one of those out on High Street, let me tell you, that's gonna deter people. The minute they see it, they're gonna slow down. So these are the few quick things that could have been done, and I think residents were concerned that the response wasn't adequate enough after, first of all, the child was struck on High Street, and secondly, after the several accidents that happened, car accidents, right around the perimeter of the school. There was also mentioned that the lighting throughout the entire community, this is not just within the high street area, throughout our entire community is poor, Mr. President. There's been upgrades to the lighting here in Medford Square, but it's been, in my opinion, not adequate enough. And I know they're doing a pilot, I believe, in front of the old movie theater on Salem Street. If you go by there, I believe they've put some different type of lighting in a few of the lights out there. And they do appear to give off more light, a greater distance, but I think more needs to be done to improve lighting within the community. If I could just briefly talk about the pedestrian advisory committee that maybe will roll up into the complete street committee that's already formed, or maybe it could be another committee comprised of just residents in this community that give input. No different from a police advisory committee that would be set up within other communities. So I would just ask Mr. President that, and I'm sure the mission statement from the Complete Streets is very similar, but I would ask that the mission statement consist of reviewing new projects that affect pedestrians to ensure they meet local and state design guidelines, advocating for safe access for pedestrians, supporting education, outreach, and advocacy of pedestrian issues, Developing policy and plans to better meet the needs of pedestrians. Advise city staff on issues related to promoting pedestrian safety and education. Promote walking as the most environmentally friendly form of transportation. Assist the Medford Traffic Commission, Mayor, City Council, and all city departments in setting priorities for pedestrian safety. Work with law enforcement and other city departments to promote enforcement and education about laws, policies, regulations pertaining to pedestrians. and review and make recommendations on capital improvement projects to ensure that pedestrian needs and pedestrian facilities are given full attention. So like I said, I know the stakeholder committee, Complete Streets, is very similar to this. If the mayor opts not to set up a separate advisory committee, I would ask that she expand the current stakeholders Complete Street committee to include residents, preferably one from every neighborhood and section of this community. Like I said from the outset, what better to have the eyes and ears of someone that actually lives in a neighborhood to give direct input. And as far as I'm concerned, there are more than ample neighbors and residents that want to get actively involved. I receive a lot of calls from people saying, how do I get on a committee? How do I get active? And I'd like to see, it's great to have department heads on these committees, and that's useful because they're the ones that you want to be your advocates when they approach DOT or when they approach other agencies. But it's also helpful to have residents that are driving and living in the community and walking our streets, bicycling on our streets, and walking their children to school who best know the neighborhood and what needs to be done. I would ask Mr. President that, uh, this be approved, uh, based on, uh, the need, uh, throughout our community. And, uh, if so, if the mayor sees fit that the current advisory, uh, safe streets, uh, be included to, uh, include one resident from each neighborhood of this community. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, Mr. Speaker.
[Michael Marks]: Joe, just if I could, have you ever reported this to the police department? Have you ever made any C-click fix? Have you ever reported it? I have, yeah. And what response are you receiving?
[Michael Marks]: Absolutely. This is public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, because. Thank you. I've asked for a public safety summit for the last five years. And we had it. And, well, we haven't had a summit that addresses the needs of the community. And I still believe a public safety summit. I know Councilor Lungo said that we should have the chief and the mayor and so forth. That is well needed, Mr. President, and long, long overdue. The second point that I wanted to raise is I have a copy of Walk Method. It's September 2015. And I had the opportunity to talk to a member of Walk Method, and they said back a few years ago under the McGlynn administration that the mayor gave the approval to erect pedestrian neon crossing signs. And for a period of time, we saw a few of them pop up here and there. And I said, wow, this is great. We have some neon signs showing where Pedestrian Crossing is. The only problem is that we got maybe one-fifth of what the mayor promised. And I think what we need to do, Mr. President, is, in addition to, you know, bringing forward the public safety concerns, we also have to hold people accountable in this community. And if there's a commitment from the mayor saying he's gonna install 70 sets of pedestrian crossing signs, neon crossing signs, we as a council have to hold the mayor to that commitment. And the fact that a new administration comes in doesn't relieve all the commitments that were made. Those are commitments that should be kept. We were promised back some four years ago when they created, after myself and many, many members of this council pushing for raised crosswalks in this community as a traffic calming approach, we were promised a pilot program by Mayor McGlynn. He said, we're going to start off with three. Now, was I happy with three in a city this size? No, but I said it's a starting point. Four years later, we got one out of the three. One out of the three. I've asked the administration a dozen times, this new administration, to give us a report on where we stand with the Harvard Street and the Central Ave raised crosswalk. And we have yet to get a response, Mr. President. yet to get to a response. Now, I realize it wasn't this current mayor that created this pilot program, but this current mayor agrees with pedestrian safety. She sent her chief of staff at last Wednesday's public safety meeting, and it seems to be a priority of this mayor. And a priority to me is keeping forward the commitment that was made even by a previous administration. And, you know, so I would ask that this paper also be amended to find out, Mr. President, if we could, these are important issues, find out where the commitment stands with the mayor, with this current mayor, regarding the commitment Mayor McGlynn made with neon pedestrian crossing signs that he made to walk Medford back some years ago, Mr. President. I also would ask again for the 22nd time that the current mayor give us an explanation why that the pilot program for raised crosswalks has only experienced one crosswalk on Winthrop Street. In my opinion, it's been effective. It needs to be painted again because you can barely see it when you're driving upon it. I realize there's signs on both sides of the road, but it's not visible enough in my opinion. But it's an effective way of slowing down traffic. And I don't know why, Mr. President, we were told, well, they're doing work on Central Ave. So as soon as that work's done — that was a year and a half ago — we'll move forward on the raised crosswalk. Then we were told on Harvard Street, oh, they're working on the bridge. When the bridge work gets done, we'll be able to — and nothing, Mr. President. Nothing. So, you know, I'm just tired of talking about the same issue over and over and over again. And I'm hoping we can move forward now with this new administration. But we have to tie up the ends of the last administration, Mr. President. You know, people want to give a lot of accolades, this and that. Well, let's tie up what wasn't done, what wasn't completed. And pedestrian safety is a major concern. You know, I hear time and time again, oh, God forbid, wait till a major accident happens. I don't want to tell anyone, but we've had a number of deaths on our street to date, pedestrian deaths on our street. Mr. President, we've had bicycle death on our street. We've had a number of pedestrian accidents on our roads. So the horse is already out of the barn. We can't say, well, wait till something happens. It's happening. It's happening now. You know, it's not funny when a loved one is lost, Mr. President. We had a woman that was struck and killed in front of St. Joe's not too long ago. It's not, you know, it's a very, very serious situation here. And that incident, Mr. President, as I explained with the poor lighting, If anyone's familiar, when you go by St. Joseph's at night out there in front of the church, it's very dark out there. Very dark. And we've asked for National Grid to go out there and create some additional lighting, but that never happens. So, I don't know, Mr. President. Until we take control of our streets, until we demand more from our police department in regards to enforcement, You know, we know how to give out overtime. We know how to give out details. We know how to give everything out. Let's give out some public safety enforcement in this community. Let's provide some enforcement. You know, I'll rehash it over and over again. There was a spotlight story on Channel 5 or 4 back some four or five years ago. There was a couple of spotlights. But one, they did 10 surrounding communities in this area, north of Boston, and they looked to see how many communities are writing moving infractions, speeding tickets, and so forth. Method was last on the list. This is not me saying it. This was a spotlight investigation. Method was last on the list, Mr. President. So, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, I know you've asked for the number of tickets given, and I hope you get it someday, but in my opinion, Uh, that number could have been given to you very easily, uh, because I don't think there's many moving violation tickets going on in this community. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank councilor Falco for offering this resolution. Uh, at that meeting also rep gob Ali mentioned, a piece of legislation that he co-sponsored, I believe, regarding having local municipalities take local control of roads, and in particular roads that may be dual jurisdiction, as Councilor Knight mentioned. And I guess it made it as far as the governor's desk, and the governor either vetoed it or sent it back, removing state roads from the language. So it really did nothing to accomplish what we were trying to get after. But needless to say, Mr. President, you know, I come from a different train of thought. You know, and I've offered resolutions like this for the last probably 10 years, that there's no reason why any road in this city — I don't care if it's state or city road, Mr. President — that when a resident comes to us and say, I have a concern of a sidewalk on this road, and the road happens to be under state jurisdiction, but we can't touch the sidewalk, we can't trim the tree, but that taxpayer is paying thousands of dollars to this community and property tax, to me, is ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous, Mr. President. So, in my opinion, if I were chief, I'd go out, I'd take DPW, I'd change all the speeding signs on High Street to 25 miles an hour. Knowing how the state works, it'll take them about 10 years to catch up with it. Right, Mr. President? And we'll have public safety for the next 10 years on our streets. So the fact that the state says, oh, don't go ahead and move forward with that, to me, public safety should supersede that, Mr. President. And we're not doing it. We're not putting tollbooths up. We're not putting gates up. We're saying that we need to reduce speed based on reported data of accidents, pedestrian safety in our community. And in my opinion, that should take priority and wait for the ramifications down the line with the state someday, Mr. President. But I thank Councilor Falco for offering this.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it would also be helpful to find out who has ownership of that particular rotary. I know we refer to it as a Winthrop Street Rotary, but High Street runs right along it too, and if that's a state road, you know, so I would ask that we also find out uh, what jurisdiction the city of method has on that complete rotary in that area. And if we were going to make changes, do we need to involve D O T?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Knight. You couldn't meet two gentler, kinder people, in my opinion, and in this day and age to celebrate 50 years of anything is an accomplishment. And, you know, they're a great couple. And I want to wish them well and many, many more anniversaries.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. They have 10 more than Thomas and Mary Ann, and as I stated, Bob was a mail carrier in Arlington for a number of years, just a great guy. And Marie, if anyone remembers, worked for the Medford Transcript back some many, many years ago. She was the office manager and always a friendly face within Medford Square. And I just want to congratulate them. They have three children, seven grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. And they're truly a great couple. And I know they spend a lot of time in Florida as well. And when they're back here in Method, it's great to see their face. And I wish them well, Mr. President, in their 60th wedding anniversary.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the DPW commissioner, Mr. Karen's for coming before us tonight. Um, Uh, I gotta say I'm a little disappointed because it was several months ago that, uh, the mayor requested from this body that we appropriate $500,000 for the immediate repair of sidewalks and tree stump removal. And when did that happen, Brian?
[Michael Marks]: So, so early June, uh, we were told as a body that we needed this money immediately. Cause I remember some members of the council and you probably remember the night, uh, wanted to get a little more involved with what exactly we were going to do for this 500,000, which sidewalks were going to be replaced, how many sidewalks, how many stumps. And we were told at the time, Well, if you let this go on another week, uh, it's going to be a week longer before we get to the sidewalks. And here we are in October and, uh, I'm dumbfounded that the city would come before us for a half a million dollars. And you must have had a plan saying we want to accomplish this many sidewalks and this many stumps. And then for the low bidder to come back at 543,000, $43,000 above what the city was requesting either tells me one or two things. That your list was unrealistic, meaning the amount of money you were looking for for the type of work you wanted done could never be accomplished. And that's one thing. And the second thing is that I'd like to see, and I don't know if you have a copy with you, but when we originally asked for a listing of what was going to be done, and I remember specifically asking you about what was the cost per panel, and you gave us a cost, I think it was kind of on a low end of it, we figured out afterwards, but I don't understand where the miscommunication is. If you presented a list or a request for proposal, whatever went out to the bidders, and it said we want what? How many sidewalks done? Is that how it went out?
[Michael Marks]: That's correct. And how many were asked? How many panels were asked?
[Michael Marks]: I understand that, and I can appreciate that, because I know for a period of time the city did not have a purchasing agent, and that was a problem. But on the flip side, if the bid went out and the lowest bid came back at $543,000, why as a city couldn't you go back to the drawing table and say, you know what, rather than doing 300 panels and 40 stumps, do 270 panels and 36 stumps?
[Michael Marks]: Because we didn't have someone in the office. Well, exactly.
[Michael Marks]: I think it's fair to say, as you just mentioned, we have about a three week window to pour cement. It's fair to say, I don't think we're going to be pouring much cement within that three-week window.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so that leads to my other point then. Year after year since I've been on the council, and it's been a number of years, we run a deficit in the snow and ice. I mean, you can almost bet on it. that our budget does not match what we spend for snow and ice removal every year. Now, here we have some money coming back based on a particular storm that we received some funding for, and we're taking the money from snow and ice that we know that account is going to go into a deficit. I bet you right now that that account will be in a deficit, and we're spending it on catch basins, which we need. I understand that. We're spending it on sidewalks. We're spending on other tree planters and so forth. Why wouldn't we, as a city, saying, knowing the history of this community, not funding fully the budget for snow and ice, why wouldn't we take that money and put it back in snow and ice?
[Michael Marks]: You've been around a lot of years, too. And that was the first time I've ever seen a surplus. So, in the 15 years I've been on the council, one year there was a surplus, 14 years we were in deficit. If I was a betting man, I'd say we're probably going to be in deficit. And I've been in New England a long time, as well as you. And, you know, the mild winters are few and far between. So, you know, I don't know. I just, you know, I'm having deja vu again. I'm having deja vu with the sidewalks. You know, you request a half a million dollars, And I've asked the administration. I talked to the mayor a couple of weeks ago when she called me on something. That was the first thing I asked. I said, how many sidewalks and stumps have been done with the 500,000? And she said, we are in the process of awarding the bid. This is months after the fact. And now we're coming back before the council saying, give us a little more money. It's not a lot, but give us a little more money. I really have a problem with that. I really do. I'd rather see this go back out to bid. Or I'd rather see you sit down with the low bidder and say, you know what? And I don't know if you can do that. Maybe it has to go back out to bid. But sit down with the low bidder and say, give us $500,000 worth of sidewalks and stump removal. That's what I'd rather see done. The second piece you mentioned about catch basins. You mentioned there are 4,500 catch basins. And I think you remember a couple of months ago, I said you can go down any street and see a sunken catch basin. That's correct. That's how bad it's getting in this community. You provided a list to us which seems to be probably calls that were made to the mayor's office within the last year or so requesting a catch basin on the street. Do we have a full list of catch basins that need repair? Okay. Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And, you know, and I realize you just started doing that check throughout the city.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if you were going to give an estimate of how many catch basins need some type of repair, and I realize it could vary from 1,500 to 5,000, what would be your thought out of the 4,500?
[Michael Marks]: I know, but I'm not talking about being flush. I mean, our streets are riddled with potholes, our sidewalks are cracked. I'm talking about catch basins that when you look at, you say, wow, that catch basin is sinking. I mean, the average person looking at it could spot it out. Not talking about a lip between the street and the catch basin. Roughly, what do you think we have? OK, at the most. So we're looking at probably 450 catch basins that need some type of repair?
[Michael Marks]: So when will this list be done?
[Michael Marks]: So, so, so we have a private contractor that's going around currently cleaning the catch basins. That's correct. Why, why wouldn't we ask the private contractor as part of cleaning the basins to also provide us a list because they do this for a living, provide us a list of catch basins that currently is sinking and that needs some type of interaction. Why wouldn't we take that step, even if it was an additional cost, why wouldn't we take that step to at least point out in the community, because I really believe we're at a real, real point of concern here with these catch basins. And, you know, if you want to talk about flooding in the community like we had in the Lawrence Estates and so forth, don't attend to your catch basins, and then you're really going to see some major flooding and flooding of basements throughout the city. And people are going to be irate. And I think we're at a point right now where many of our catch basins are going to collapse onto themselves. And that's going to be a concern. That's going to be a real major concern in this city. And I don't think we're addressing it. I'm not pointing the finger at you. You've been here a short period of time. But we're not addressing it. We have no list that we can look at, right? You can't show me a list. It's being compiled. Well, I realize that it's a work in progress, but at some point, You know, this is not the, we're not talking to the City of New York here. We're talking to the City of Medford. At some point, we should be able to get a number, a good number of catch basins that need to be attended to and what the cost is going to be. Again, we're being presented with piecemeal. Okay, here's 25. We may or may not get to them. That's what it is. We may or may not get to these.
[Michael Marks]: So why wouldn't we take advantage of some of the surplus money in the water and sewer accounts, the $8 million that we have in water and sewer? Why wouldn't we be looking at some of this funding to start replacing catch basins and doing some of the work we'd need throughout the community?
[Michael Marks]: I realize that, but I think as long as this council, keeps approving anything that's presented to us, I think we're going to be faced with this piecemeal approach. And again, Brian, this is not directed at you. I'm just tired of a piecemeal approach to everything. And that seems to be, again, what we're facing here tonight. And I, as one member, am not going to support this tonight because I think, as I stated last week when we were talking about the capital plan that we wanted for this community and the mayor presented the Plan for City Hall here with nothing else. It was this council that stood up and said madam mayor We want the capital plan before we move forward and sure enough the committee the whole meeting last Wednesday the mayor presented her draft capital plan and You know again, I would ask my colleagues that we either table this tonight. I know there might be some questions. I'm just throwing this out there that we table this tonight. Uh, so we can have a full discussion with the mayor because Brian's great. He's doing yeoman's work, but I want to know the direction we're going in. And I don't think doing piecemeal, uh, 24 catch basins here, a few sidewalks here, uh, is adequate enough for our community. And maybe when we talk about capital planning, that that should be mixed in with the capital planning. What is the five-year plan for our streets? What is the five? Councilor Knight brought this up. He brought up about x-raying our streets so we can get on top of things. And here we are tonight, really, with a Band-Aid. This is a Band-Aid. And you know what happens when you pull off a Band-Aid? You get an ouch. And we've received a lot of ouches in the last couple of years. And, Mr. President, I would respectfully ask that this be sent to a committee of the whole meeting where we can invite the mayor. It was great to have the mayor here last week to discuss some of the issues going on in this community. And so we can address the catch basins, the sidewalks, tree stumps, signage, whatever else you want to address as either part of the capital plan, either part of the surplus money we have in the water and sewer account over $8 million of ratepayer money sitting there for these type of projects. That money's there for infrastructure improvements. It's not there for a barn rating so they can say, oh, look at our barn rating. We have a great barn rating because we have all the surplus money lying around. No, it's for infrastructure improvements in the community. So I would ask, Mr. President, that this be sent to a committee of the whole meeting for a further review. And I thank Mr. Kearns.
[Michael Marks]: I didn't motion to table. I was trying to be magnanimous. But apparently, if you want to make that a B paper, I will have to draw a motion to table.
[Michael Marks]: It's your opinion.
[Michael Marks]: Just a quick thing, Mr. President. This council took a vote during budget season to have poll workers fed. I realize that it didn't happen at the previous election, I'm going to ask that the clerk feed the poll workers, Mr. President, based on a vote of this council. Mr. Finn, does that look doable based on?
[Michael Marks]: I know, but you just said you might not be able to pull it off.
[Michael Marks]: Right. We could probably stagger it a little bit.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, uh, I had, uh, Mr. English, uh, my junior and senior year at the high school. And I can tell you that, uh, typically, uh, phys ed was the type of, uh, class that you'd skip one here, there, but not with Mr. English. Mr. English did not put up with any of that. And, uh, he was a great guy. I got to know him well. And, uh, He will be sorely missed, Mr. President. Please rise for a moment of silence.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It was about three years ago I was contacted by a number of business owners at that stretch of Middlesex Ave. Anyone familiar with that? There used to be a bus stop that stretched about six car lengths in front of the businesses, and it took up a majority of the parking. We got together with the T, along with the business owners, and we narrowed the space where the bus can stop to pick up some additional spots. Just recently, a car knocked down the bus sign that was erected on a single pole, and the T erected the sign back at the old location. So it took us almost two years to get. We're back at step one again. So I would ask that the T look at their records, Mr. President, and relocate the bus stop sign in front of 213A Middlesex ave where it was voted on and approved for relocation back some two or three years ago.
[Michael Marks]: I haven't had much success with them but if that's where it goes, that's where it goes.
[Michael Marks]: Do we have a representative? Do we have a representative to the T point of information council Scott?
[Michael Marks]: So maybe, maybe if we could send it to him as well, CC it to Dan.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my honor and pleasure, Mr. President, tonight to recognize a young gentleman in our community who has put in countless hours to rise to the top of being a Boy Scout. And anyone that's been in the Scouts realizes that you go through different levels to attain the highest level, which is Eagle Scout. And it's many countless hours of community participation, it's many countless hours of obtaining badges, field trips, and then leadership within the scouts. And here we have a young gentleman in pack 416. And that's the Otis Street Church, United Methodist Church, that sponsors the PAC. And over the last, let's say, three or four years, I've had the privilege of recognizing many Eagle Scout recipients. from the Otis Street Pack. And they've done yeoman's work in representing our community and putting out young gentlemen of Andrew's caliber within our community. Just a few things I'd like to state. Andrew earned 28 merit badges, 21 of which were Eagle required. He had various positions in the troop, including patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, and senior patrol leader. As part of the Eagle Scout, every Eagle Scout is required to submit a community service project. And we've had a number of Eagle Scouts within our community. The last one I recall was an Eagle Scout that fixed the flagpole when it came down during a hurricane, in front of the Medford Public Library. And he did a fundraiser and raised funds and so forth. And he also put some shrubbery and bushes around that and erected our flag. And Andrew came up with a great concept as part of his project. I'd like for him to say a few words on the project itself. And you know, most of the times I ask, people, would you like to come up and say a word or two? And Andrew, without hesitation, said, absolutely. So he must be a gifted speaker. Uh-oh. I set the table for you now. So Andrew would like to say a few words. One other point I'd like to mention is when you look at Eagle Scout, it's not just the scout that's going through it. It's the mom and dad, which we have in the audience tonight. that, as they could probably attest to, spend many countless hours on these projects and chaperoning the scout around and so forth, and they participate as well. But an interesting fact is only about 5% of all Boy Scouts attain the rank of Eagle Scout. And since 1912, when this was established, there has been 1,700,000 Boy Scouts that have earned the rank of Eagle Scout. That may sound like a lot, but we're talking over 100 years worth of millions of Boy Scouts, hundreds of millions of Boy Scouts throughout this country. And it's really, truly a big honor to obtain this level. So at this point, I'd like to pass it over to Andrew so he can explain his community service project.
[Michael Marks]: So as we can see, Andrew will be in good company. Eagle Scouts, Neil Armstrong, Michael Bloomberg, Method Man, Stephen Breyer, Judge Breyer, President Gerald Ford, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State, Steven Spielberg. So you're in a real elite group, Andrew. And at this time, I'd just like to present the Method City Council accommodation. says the Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council accommodation to Andrew Knight, Eagle Scout, Court of Honor Troop 416, on attaining this high ranking within scouting. The realization of this outstanding achievement will undoubtedly lead to success and accomplishments throughout your life. Signed by Council President Frederick Dello Russo and myself, City Council, Michael Marks.
[Michael Marks]: If we could take a picture out here, that'd be great.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think there was a number of good suggestions. Often, um, there was a pilot program created, uh, I believe it was about three years ago at a request of this council, uh, to implement raised crosswalks throughout the community and other, uh, communities have been very successful, uh, in using raised crosswalks as a traffic calming approach. Um, and, uh, to date we've had one raised crosswalk, uh, which was implemented on Winthrop street. And we're still waiting for the other two as part of the pilot program. And I've asked the administration a dozen times and we have yet to get a response on, uh, when the other two race crosswalks will take place. But, uh, this is not rocket science and you know, in particular around schools, around senior buildings. There are many methods that you can use. Many communities widen the sidewalks. And when you widen your sidewalks, it slows down traffic because you don't have, as we all know, High Street is two lanes, but they're very wide. And it lends itself for cars to pick up speed in that area. There's also markings you can put on the road that when cars approach they appear to be, they're 3D in nature, and they appear to be some type of obstruction in the roadway, and cars tend to slow down. So you have raised crosswalks, you have these 3D images in the road, you can widen sidewalks. There's a number of approaches that we can take, in particular around school. zones to make sure that our children are safe when crossing. It's far easier to cross a road that's maybe 25 feet in length or width rather than 45 feet in width. And these are the things that really we need to move forward on as a city. And we're finding it difficult to get the administration to just paint crosswalks. And that's another issue that's going to be brought up, uh, tonight. But, uh, here we are in September and we still haven't painted all our crosswalks throughout the community. These are just basic, basic, uh, public safety, uh, um, initiatives that could take place. I agree with councilor Falco. I think, uh, that we do need to hire, uh, an engineer, a traffic engineer, uh, within the office of community development and a city this size, uh, with the number of streets we have, the number of intersections, I think it's only appropriate in that we can't rely on the traffic commission to solve all our woes, but we can take some small initiatives to make our streets safer. I've been saying for years, we have to take our roads back. We're at a point right now, people don't want to go out and do a power walk because they're afraid to be on the sidewalks. They're afraid when they get to an intersection that they have to cross. And really, our city should be much more user-friendly when it comes to pedestrians. So I would also add, Mr. President, that a raised crosswalk at that particular area would be reviewed by the Traffic Commission. You know, a set of lights is great there, too. But I think we have to look at a number of options that we can explore. I think a raised crosswalk is very beneficial. I know on Winthrop Street it has done a lot. If you talk to area residents, at first they heard a lot of banging of the undercarriage of cars because people didn't recognize it. And even with the neon signs on both sides of the road, but now people do, if you stand out there and watch, people do slow down when they come to that raised crosswalk on Withrop Street. So that would be my suggestion, Mr. President, that these issues be looked at immediately in the interest of public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I think all of us behind this reeling realized the need for repairs to this particular building. And, uh, I know councilor Scarpelli brought up an issue that's near and dear to me about the, uh, which I refer to him as prison restrooms we have, uh, within this building here that are in deplorable condition. So I too would like to see a total plan. And I was under the impression after budget deliberations that we were gonna be seeing the mayor's capital improvement plan sometime in September and October. And to me, that would give me a better vision of what the future's gonna bring, rather than having it come before us piecemeal. We all realize the parapet and the exterior of the building is in tough condition. I remember some years back, and some of the councilors were on at the time, that any spending paper that was before this council, we voted as a council to have it appear, not the first time on the council floor, but at a committee of the whole meeting. So we can sit down with the department heads, we can sit down with the mayor. and discuss the need for the spending. And I don't know why we got away from that, but now we're seeing multimillion dollar items appear on the council floor for the first time without any committee of the whole meetings. And, uh, you know, I, I prefer, uh, the ladder. I prefer committee of the whole meetings, uh, and, uh, discussion. You know, we received a paper stating what's gonna be done, and the paper we received from the mayor's office, it goes on to say phase two will be a bid in the spring for internal work in the council chambers, external work such as front entrance doors, et cetera. Now, if I was gonna do work in my house, And I went to the contractor and said, what are you going to do for this $50,000 I've given you? And he says, well, I'm going to replace your windows, et cetera, et cetera. I'd say, wait a minute. No, what does et cetera mean? What's actually involved? What are we getting for our dollar? So I think this needs to be vetted personally, Mr. President, and the committee, the whole meeting. I don't think anyone behind this reel doesn't think this is well overdue. As we know, the city for many years neglected its buildings and its infrastructure without having proper maintenance. So I would just respectfully ask that this be laid on the table until we have a Committee of the Whole meeting. Mr. President, I'm sure you can set that up next week and we can discuss this further, as well as any other capital improvements we heard about the woman's locker room at the police station. I heard about that a dozen times. I've yet to see that. That's a cost of the estimates that I've heard, half a million dollars to add a woman locker room. in the police station. There's a number of issues that we were told during budget that don't worry about them during budget. It's going to be part of the mayor's capital improvement plan. So I think we really need to sit down, Mr. President, as a council. You know, I've been around for a little while, and I refuse to get things piecemeal like the city worked for many, many years under the past administration. And I think it's only appropriate that we're the stewards of the taxpayers' money. And it's an easy fix just to approve everything. But I think we have to do our homework and our due diligence on this. And, uh, I don't think it hurts anyone to have a committee, the whole meeting on this.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, it would be a motion. Mr. President, motion to table matter is tabled committee, the whole meeting. That was part of the motion.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. And I don't want to put my colleague Councilor Caraviello on the spot, but where he sits on the, um, uh, committee on the public library for the rehab of the public library, uh, in the best case scenario, if we were to get the grant money from the state after filing the application, are we looking at two years out before we possibly could get some funding and start looking at an addition? Are we looking at three years? Are we?
[Michael Marks]: So, uh, Mr. Moki, it was about, uh, I don't know, maybe four months ago that, uh, there was an appropriation made, uh, for some repairs to the library roof. They did some repointing, uh, around the top of the building. Uh, a major concern was the fact that no one was cleaning the drains. So we didn't have a lot of places where water was actually infiltrating through the roof, but people weren't cleaning the drains out in the top. that was creating pooling up there, and then water will find its way, you know, eventually. So, and that was a major repair from what I remember. The dollar amount was far less than $35,000 to $45,000. Over the last four or five months, what have we found? Because we were told that they were going to fix the roof, not a complete roof because there were three options at the time, but fix the roof to stop the leaking. And I thought we did that. And now you're saying that we're at $35,000 to $45,000 to
[Michael Marks]: I, you know, I, I agree with some of the comments in what council Longo said. Um, and I, and I think a meeting's definitely needed for this particular building because it's a much larger scope and the project's much larger. Uh, but the library roof has been a bone of contention for a period of time now. Uh, it's heavily used by our youngsters and residents of this community. And I think to at least give me a peace of mind and people working in the library and people that go, uh, frequent the library, I think it's a small amount to share up that particular roof. So I would support this tonight, knowing that the study was done in August and that, you know, no matter what takes place with the building, we need to do something now, because I agree with you that we can't plan on a mild winter. I think, you know, we have to plan for the worst. And so I would support this tonight.
[Michael Marks]: We had our first annual fundraiser for our dog park event this Sunday.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, for those at home that didn't hear. We had our first annual fundraiser for our dog park that's going to go on Riverbend, hopefully next year, behind the McGlynn School. And we had a fundraiser this Sunday, 11 to 3. There were a number of volunteers that came to the event. It was well attended. We probably washed anywhere from 70 to 85 dogs. And let me tell you, if you haven't washed a dog, it's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. I want to thank the organizers, Mr. President, that have been with moving this dog park forward for the past two years. Patty Flynn, Jim Silva, Gary DeStefano, and Diane Gintner, the chicken and rice guys, sponsored the event. So you came up, you got your dog wash, you got a plate of chicken and rice. We had a pet photographer there. I want to thank the administration, the mayor's office for allowing us to use City Hall and allowing us for the event to go forward. And again, I want to thank all the volunteers. It was a very successful event. We hope to have more events and hopefully this will lead to first dog park in the community. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Markswell? I would evoke rule 20 section four, Mr. President. Uh, thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, the, uh, bus stop at the corner of, uh, main and high street was temporarily closed due to the, uh, construction of the credit bridge from August 31st to September 14th. And, um, I was contacted by a property owner in that direct area. And they said if they can close it for two weeks to help, with construction, why can't we leave it closed until the construction's over? And it made sense to me, Mr. President, that anything we can do to help the business area would be beneficial to not only the businesses, but also to the residents that traverse that area. So I would ask that the temporary closing, which took place August 31st to September 14th, remain in effect until the Craddock Bridge is fully operational, Mr. President, and then we can revert back to a stop being there. We received a report from MassDOT through Councilor Scarpelli's due diligence of several bus stops that we requested to be moved, and that does have a high ridership. I can appreciate that they're saying it services approximately 600 passengers a day on a number of bus routes. And so I know that's a heavy traveled area, but I would say that in due deference to the businesses in that particular location, that this be taken under advisement, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: It's currently working now.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And yes, uh, console nights. Correct. I think it was about seven or eight months ago when console Caraviello offered his resolution about, uh, finding owners that leave graffiti up. And, uh, you know, I, I don't have a problem if, The city approaches a business, and in this case, it could be a homeowner too, because we're saying business could be a homeowner, and after many attempts, the homeowner of the business says, you know what? I'm not going to clean that off. Then I think there should be teeth that you can go after the business or the homeowner. The concern I have is I, as a homeowner, someone comes up Halloween night and spray paints the front of my house. Whatever the ordinance reads, within 10 days, 14 days, I have to remove it. That adds insult to injury. So I just got my house spray painted. It's probably going to cost me hundreds of dollars, if not $1,000 or $2,000 to remove it. And then I have the city saying, if you don't remove it within X number of days, we're going to fine you. I think it's, you know, it's a little too much. I could see people that are leaving it up. You know, the business that we refer to on Forest Street, that was cleaned off a number of times, and the tagging went back a number of times. So it wasn't, you know, there may be some new stuff or some older stuff still up there, but I think we have to be very careful. The City of Somerville has a great program. First of all, on their website, they have a place where you can report graffiti. Secondly, they have, what Councilor Knight was saying, they have an agreement. It's called Removal of Graffiti Agreement and Release of Liability. They will go to anyone's home, they will go to any business, if the business owner signs the liability form, and Councilor Scarpelli can probably speak better than this than I can, and the liability form waives any type of liability that the city of Somerville may have in the process of cleaning this up. But it's a great alternative to offer to people that were just wronged. You know, most people, you know, don't ask to get their house graffitied or their garage graffitied or whatever it might be. this is something that's done by vandals. And I think to offer a service is a great suggestion. And if you offer a service and someone doesn't want to take you up on it, then maybe we should have teeth. We also have a clean it or lean it ordinance. And the clean it or lean it ordinance, in my opinion, would apply to graffiti also. And that calls for a penalty. So I believe we can enforce the clean it or lean it on graffiti if need be. You know, this city is very lax when it comes to any type of enforcement. But I like what Somerville does. I think this is a great idea. I just don't want to penalize business owners or residents that may have been tagged and saying, well, you better get that off or we're not going to only tag you, we're going to send you a bill on top of it. So I have a problem with that. But I think we can craft something that makes sense and possibly look at, like Councilor Knight mentioned, about having you know, a dedicated office that will go out and do some graffiti removal in this community. I had someone drop off today to my house because they saw this on the agenda, a bottle. Actually, I'm glad they didn't put it in a briefcase or some other bag because it dropped off a bottle of, it's called clarinet. And this is a substance that a lot of municipalities use. You spray it on any new cement. So when we did the Fast 14 project, you spray it on the cement that's holding up the bridges, and it makes it 100 times easier to remove graffiti. And it's really, it's a cost-effective way of, at least the city doing it. I wouldn't recommend people spraying their homes with this, but I think it's an effective way for municipalities and in locations that are prone to, to, uh, graffiti, uh, to use this substance, uh, Mr. President. And, uh, there's a lengthy, um, uh, material safety data sheet that came with it. And if the city administration is interested, I'd be more than happy to pass this on. Uh, I won't leave it at city hall because I don't want them thinking I'm leaving something around that, uh, could be construed as something else. But, um, I agree with this resolution, and I thank my council colleague for offering it.
[Michael Marks]: I brought this issue up several months back regarding the outstanding number of renewals that were out there. So you said there's roughly 90?
[Michael Marks]: And that runs by calendar year, correct? That's by calendar year, right. So from January to present, we were able to do what, a little over 100?
[Michael Marks]: And prior to that, we had multiple food inspectors?
[Michael Marks]: So just fill me in. When one of your inspectors go out and do an inspection, it's a thorough inspection of the premises, the kitchen, and so forth.
[Michael Marks]: So the number outstanding now, is it a combination of all those different? It's a combination of all of those, right. And what do we say to consumers that are going out into these establishments that haven't been inspected? Good question.
[Michael Marks]: So, so, uh, on the council agenda tonight, we're looking to implement a food trucks. which is gonna add possibly another 20, 30, 40 different trucks throughout the community. Right now, you don't even have the capability of completing what we have currently in the brick and mortar establishments. Was there a recommendation to add a staff person to your office?
[Michael Marks]: And what is the fee to a business for the inspection?
[Michael Marks]: So if you go out, do you prorate it? If you're there six months late, do you prorate the fee?
[Michael Marks]: But you get a permit based on the inspection, right?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but ideally it's supposed to happen pretty close to each other, right?
[Michael Marks]: So we're charging business owners that are six months into their year a permit that wasn't really inspected. I mean, the city of Medford didn't give a proper inspection. Do you see a problem with that? Absolutely, I do, yes.
[Michael Marks]: I've never seen it this bad, to be quite honest. I've been around the council a number of years. I've never seen it this bad.
[Michael Marks]: So I've had business owners contact me and say it's been five months, I don't have my permit yet. Do you have people reaching? They don't have their permit? Their inspection. Do you have people, the inspection's a separate certificate, right? Right, and most people put that up. You're required to put it up, aren't you?
[Michael Marks]: Right, so have you had business owners reach out to you and say, hey, what's going on? I'm worried that I'm not in compliance. No? So they just call the council? They don't call the Board of Health?
[Michael Marks]: No, we have people that are concerned that have been around a long time know that there's inspections that take place and the city is nowhere to be found. You know, that's a concern. It's a big concern. Why can't we bring on a temporary food inspector to assist in this rather than saying, well, it might be another two months because too much, you know, is three months, four months. Then it gets around the holidays and doesn't move as quick.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I'd ask that we make a recommendation as a council on behalf of not only the businesses, but every resident in this community that frequents a restaurant in this community. I would hope that, uh, you know, the board of health's doing their job. Uh, and, and here we go tonight, uh, saying that we may introduce food trucks in the community, which requires the same scrutiny. Um, we don't have the manpower to cover what we have. So I would ask that the administration, Mr. President, we saw in the papers tonight we have $8 million in surplus money that they hire a temporary food enforcement officer to assist the Board of Health until we can get this number down to where it should be, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Get a current listing with the outstanding permit, whether it's permit 1, 2, 3 that you were describing. And this wasn't reflect. I realize you've only been here four weeks, but there's a frustration that's been going on for a lot of months now. And I understand.
[Michael Marks]: These are important issues.
[Michael Marks]: The type of outstanding that the business itself won the last time it was inspected. And you have just paper reporting.
[Michael Marks]: Right, and plus you're gonna be getting voicemail pretty soon, too. I know. So that's something brand new. Voicemail just came out. And you're gonna be getting that at City Hall, too. So when you're updating the paper files, you can have your voicemail. Absolutely. Yeah, we're moving forward.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I just want to echo the comments that Councilor Scarpelli just stated. I think it was Councilor Scarpelli several months back that asked for a moratorium that it be looked at, and the Metropolitan Planning Board, I think, is a great suggestion. I know Councilor Falco mentioned about possibly bringing on a consultant, I think the Metropolitan Planning Board can at least assist us. And one of the most important functions of this council is zoning. And zoning is the lifeblood of the community. So we could talk about what the city is going to look like, the future, this and that. It's the zoning that lays the foundation. So it's really this council that needs to sit down, sit down with the Metropolitan Planning Board, maybe a consultant, whoever it might be, and start the process of reviewing our zoning ordinance. You can go up and down Salem Street, for instance, and there may be seven different zoning districts on Salem Street alone. So these are the things I think that we as a council have to say, okay, we want to know what the direction's going to be, but we also have to lay out a framework. We have to lay out a framework by the Meadow Glen Mall. Is it housing? Is it commercial? What is industrial what what what are our thoughts mystic F? What are our thoughts on mystic F? These are the things I think honestly and it's a difficult subject to broach But these are the things we have to just Scott and and and hey I've been on the council probably one of the longest and This council's been neglecting doing it We have not revisited our zoning in years. I think the last really zoning substance was when Councilor Panter-Mayocco did the zoning for Station Landing, and that was back some years ago. So really there hasn't been any meaningful dialogue, so I think committee the whole is fine, but I think the zoning Subcommittee has to get together and we do need some I'm not an expert in it by any stretch I think we need some advice and some you know someone to lead us in the process So I agree with councillor Scarpelli that I think that's a good way of moving forward and if the mayor doesn't see fit to move forward, we're the council, we're the legislative body, we're in charge of zoning. We don't need to wait for the mayor. We'll drive the bus and the mayor will be a passenger. We'll drive the bus. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Knight read my mind. That's the one issue I had with this particular resolution. So, if you're willing to strike that, I could support it. You know, I find it ironic, Mr. President, that to run for the House of Representatives, the U.S. House of Representatives, you have to be 25 years old. To run for the U.S. Senate, you have to be 30 years old. You know, it's amazing. You can vote at 21. But you can't run for office until you're 25 and until you're 30 on that level. But getting back to this, I support this whole hotly with the removal of the military identification card and the veterans exemption.
[Michael Marks]: I don't know, Mrs. Busby, is it Busby? It's Busby. Do you participate when they do the stings within the community for convenience stores that are selling to minors? Yes. Do you participate with that?
[Michael Marks]: Could you just briefly give us an update on how we compare to other communities? Are our businesses selling in general to minors? Will this help raising the age even though they may be selling to minors no matter what?
[Michael Marks]: if you did this resolution. The violations that are handed out, are they state violations or local ordinances?
[Michael Marks]: And how much is that for the first offense?
[Michael Marks]: And who issues the tobacco permit, the Board of Health, our Board of Health?
[Michael Marks]: And we don't, it's not built into the ordinance that we could do a suspension of the license, the tobacco license?
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So, would we issue a ticket? That revenue goes back to the city office. That's right. And do you have any reporting on the number of tickets issued and the number of violations per business?
[Michael Marks]: Yes, absolutely. Pass that along. Absolutely. Thanks very much.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to say a few words about Mr. Sampson. I had the unique opportunity to actually run many, many years back for school committee and Mr. Sampson was on the ballot at the time and I got to know him and he was just a fun guy to be around, a real family man. He worked for the school department as a head custodian for a number of years. His son, James Sampson, is a vocational teacher. And, you know, the one thing I remember about Bill is he'd always be there to lend an ear and talk to you about any issue. And he will be sorely missed. And the other one was Jeanette McGillicuddy. Mr. President, as far as I know, for the past 30 years, Jeanette has not missed a city council meeting. She religiously watched the Medford City Council, and she will be sorely missed, too. I'm a longtime Medford resident, and mother, grandmother, will be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I don't have the records. I'm going to need to table them.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to adjourn.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my honor tonight to offer these council accommodations to the Medford High row team for the full boys squad. This is the fourth year in a row that they have won the GBL title. are JV4. They qualified for the New England Interscholastic Rowing Championship, and they finished 16th among all the prep, Catholic, and public schools from New England. Another big accomplishment. So I want to recognize, I know there's at least two on the team that are with us tonight, I was just talking to some of the rowing team members, and they mentioned a funny story that took place this year at one of the row meets. There was a race between Somerville and Method, which always gets a little heated. And Method pulled out and beat Somerville. And after the race, the Somerville team came over and said, you only beat us because we had one of our novice in the boats. And that's the only reason why you beat us. So Method being the community it is, said, get your JV, get your whole JV team, we'll meet you down on the river, and we'll race again without your novice. Sure enough, the race took place. And gentlemen, who won the race? Method won again. I thought that was a great story. And one other thing, too, you can always tell when the Rowe team walks in because they have the Popeye forearms, right? And they're all in great shape. I tell everyone, you want to get in great shape, Rowe. The only one that's not in great shape is the Coxswain. Where is he? Where's the Coxswain? He's not in bad shape. He's not in bad shape. The Coxswain is very similar to the city council. You have the council president that box out the orders, and you have the rowers that do all the work on the side. So it's very similar, just so you know. You may have a future someday in city politics. But at this point, I'd like to recognize the novice four boat members who were the silver member medalists for this year. and they did our community very proud. I will read them. I know there's only one or two here tonight, but I will read them. It says, the Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council accommodation to Nathan Piera, Medford High School varsity rowing team, in recognition of winning a Novice Four Boat Civil Medal at the State Rowing Championship. We have Sebastian Tringali. He's at camp. Good for him. Giandotto Pintone.
[Michael Marks]: Dylan Bambino.
[Michael Marks]: Isaac.
[Michael Marks]: Edward McCormick, the coach. Come on up, Ed. You know, we don't have a team without a good coach. And I'll tell you, Edward has done yeoman's work, no pun, on putting together a program that really reflects our community and really reflects a program that is up and coming. And we went from a community that was not known for rowing at all to being a program that's recognized statewide. And that's partly due to students and their competitive nature and their dedication, but also due to the coach. So coach, do you have a few words you'd like to say? Thank you. Thank you, coach.
[Michael Marks]: And we also have the assistant coach, who is Chris Dello Russo. And I want to thank him personally for his efforts on behalf of the students.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was contacted by a few residents that are seeing cars come up the one-way. They believe it's because of the one-way and do not enter signs being at a much higher than eye level uh, view and also the size of the sign. So I ask that this be sent to the traffic commission for, uh, their review and eventual approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Longo for putting this on. This has been an issue for many years, and unfortunately this city has done very little in regards to trying to rectify the issue that residents are having. If you look at the complaints, as Councilor Falco just mentioned, and I went on their website and looked up May, that was the last available, there were 174 complaints issued by residents of Method, and that's in 2016. And if you look in 2015, there were 101. So that's almost a 75% increase in complaints year over year, which leads me to believe that there's more flights over this community. And when you look at the statistics, and I know there's a group of Method residents that are organized in this community, and moving forward, on a way to help alleviate some of the concerns we have as residents. They mentioned runway 33L, and that's the departures that are leaving Logan Airport. This year, compared to last year, there was an additional 500 flights on runway 33L, which directly flies over this community. And that is a major concern. I realize win patents, and there's a number of circumstances that would alter air flight. But in my opinion, Mr. President, this community is bearing a brunt of the noise. And to take it one step further, if you go on their website, they have — Massport has a whole mitigation site, and they brag about giving out millions of dollars in soundproofing And they list the communities and what they've done replacing windows and other soundproofing initiatives in homes, schools, churches, you name it. And the city of Medford has one noise detector in the city. I believe it may be in the Morrison Park area. And in my opinion, a city seven square miles to have one noise detector really is not an adequate capturing of uh, the noise that we're experiencing throughout the neighborhoods, North Medford, South Medford, West Medford, uh, Wellington, uh, the hillside. Um, and I would ask if my council colleague doesn't mind that we request through Massport that they, uh, add at least another three or four of these, uh, noise, uh, units, uh, that measures the decibel, uh, sound levels. And according to, I guess, federal FAA rules, that there's a certain decibel level that's allowed. And in that area, we may be under the decibel level, according to Massport. But I would venture to say, if more of these monitors were put in other sections, and I would ask that they be put in every neighborhood in this community, one in every neighborhood, Mr. President, that we'll find a difference of what Massport's reporting compared to what our residents are experiencing. And so I would ask, if my colleague Councilor Longo doesn't mind, that we request that Massport locate these noise decibel, I don't know what they refer to exactly, equipment in the North Mefford neighborhood, the South Mefford neighborhood, the Wellington neighborhood, the Hillside neighborhood, and I believe there is one in the East Mefford, area, but I may stand to be corrected on that, but that it encompassed all the neighborhoods, Mr. President, and I ask that that be part of the report. And I look forward to some more dialogue with Massport. We may not be a direct abutter, but we certainly experience these flights coming in that are trying to land in Logan Airport, making very low turnarounds in our community, waiting for runways to open up. and so forth, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: groups that you refer to.
[Michael Marks]: West Fair Skies?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, I had the opportunity to read over the proposed ordinance, and I think it has a lot of merit. However, you know, we are the legislative body in this community. This is two and a half pages of city ordinance. And even though it may mirror Boston and Somerville, I think it needs to be vetted out within our community, you know, This is a great way of enforcing occupancy restrictions, which is the restriction that we have no more than three unrelated people living in a dwelling. And I think this would go a long way in assisting the concerns we have with that. However, if you look at the city of Boston, their code enforcement department doesn't consist of two people. If you look at the city of Somerville, Their code enforcement department doesn't consist of two people. So, you know, I think we have to vet this out. I think we have to make it realistic for our community. The one concern I do have is that when we do get the names, I'm sorry, not the names, strike that, not the names. When we do get the addresses eventually from the educational institutions in our community, That puts this city on notice. So if we get 80 different addresses saying, you know, there's six people living at each address, we're on notice as a community. And go off a bit, something happens in one of those apartments, and the city of Medford doesn't reach out and do their due diligence on that, that may be a concern. And I'm just saying, I think we have to vet this out, maybe even look at language that states, once we receive the reports from the educational institutions, that the city method is required to act on anything that is in direct conflict with the enforcement restrictions within our community that currently exist. They have to act within 30 days or whatever it might be. to just put this through, you know, without any vetting process. I think this belongs in the ad hoc education subcommittee. Let them vet it out. Let them take a look at it.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so the paper came from the mayor's office, not from the subcommittee.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So I can appreciate that, but that came from the administration and that's fine. They're, they're able to submit a request for a ordinances anytime. And they've done that in the past. Uh, the committee that council might is, uh, talking about the subcommittee, that paper is still before the subcommittee. It seems like it was partially vetted out, never reported out. So that's not the paper that's currently before us. This paper is from the administration. So if the council wants to go on record. without vetting out ordinances, which is one of our main responsibilities, then so be it. It's not going to have my stamp of approval on it, because as I just mentioned, there's some concerns within the language that I have that may not be concerns in Somerville and Boston, who have an ample code enforcement department. We all know in this community, we don't. And so for those reasons, Mr. President, I couldn't support it unless it's fully vetted out in subcommittee, and I would recommend that this be sent to the ad hoc education committee where the good attorney mentioned that he found the appropriate place within our ordinances under the education section of it. So, that would be my recommendation, you know, to have it fully vetted out where it is the jurisdiction of this council to enact ordinances.
[Michael Marks]: Well, if he wants, we'll take a vote on that. I'm voting against it. So if it dies, it dies. And I'd rather see it not die. I'd rather see it go to a subcommittee. I'm supportive of this. I'm supportive of this, Mr. President, but I think it has to be vetted out. I think we have to do our homework and not just get a two and a half page ordinance from the mayor's office and report it out. We just got this language Friday. So if my council colleagues feel comfortable with language without looking at it, I'm sure Congress doesn't do it that way. I'm sure the state legislature doesn't do it that way, but if the city council wants to do it that way, then so be it.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, and I respect the fact that you took a shot at it. The only shot that the administration did was to copy an ordinance from Somerville. I mean, it doesn't take much of a shot to do that.
[Michael Marks]: I know, but I'm just saying. So to have it vetted out, I don't think is a big concern to vet this out. And I'm not saying it is, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: That's all. If they were unable to, get this moving forward, then maybe it deserves another subcommittee. And that's no reflection on the members, but maybe it deserves another subcommittee.
[Michael Marks]: And you guys are still busy with that. Yes, we are. Right. So maybe another subcommittee may be a good idea.
[Michael Marks]: I would respectfully ask that it be sent to the ad hoc education committee where that's where it falls within the city ordinance, Mr. President. And I appreciate my calling. I'm not trying to hold this up. I think this is a good idea, but it needs to be vetted.
[Michael Marks]: I made a motion. I made a motion to send it to the subcommittee.
[Michael Marks]: No, that's it. That's all set. Councilor Marks? Just if I could, Mr. Castagnetti, you asked a great question. And if you look at section 26-44, It applies to property owned, leased, rented, or operated by the school, the home of a family member, or other private housing. So in my opinion, it applies to everyone. So I think it's covered within this current ordinance. And maybe the city solicitor.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? I don't want to be the shark at the pool party, but Eversource will be digging that street up, as we all know, in 2017, from Winchester all the way down Winthrop Street, the whole length of Winthrop Street. To Somerville. Correct. They're going to be digging a trench, and then they're going to be digging 10-foot manholes every certain distance. And I did respond back to the resident, who I know well, and I explained that situation, that it doesn't make sense to resurface that large of an area where it's going to be dug up in maybe eight months from now. And I explained that some of the issues that they were having was regarding heavy trucking and some of the gullies and so forth on that end of Winthrop Street because of the construction of new homes down there. And I think that's a better recommendation at this particular point to have the engineering department go out, check the road from the Winchester line all the way up to Lawrence Road and see what recommendations they have of temporary fixes, Mr. President, before we can have, because that road's going to be resurfaced 100% after that work is done in 2017 from Eversource, that's installing an electricity line. So that would be my recommendation. I mean, I'll support either one, but I don't think that road's going to be resurfaced.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. You couldn't meet a nicer couple, David and June Klein, are long-time Method residents. They raised three great children in this community. And I asked David, when I saw him the other day, what is the secret to a happy marriage of 61 years? And the words of wisdom that came from my friend was, it's a work in progress. And I think, you know, I think he's correct with that. You know, he said it's ongoing. Every day you have to work at it. And if there are any indication of what life's all about. I'm proud to know both of them. So I want to wish them a happy 61st wedding anniversary and many, many more to come.
[Michael Marks]: I'll be brief, Mr. President, but back some 10 years ago, the city of Medford implemented a pilot program where sweeping on main roads would be more frequently done than in the neighborhoods. I'm sad to report that the pilot program is still in effect 10 years later and that residents in this community that live on a main road and have to move their car And unfortunately, like in Salt Method on Main Street and a number of areas, Boston Ave have nowhere to put their car because all the surrounding streets are resident permit parking, and they're not eligible for a resident permit parking sticker. Just recently, if you went down Boston Ave at 430 in the morning, it was lined with orange tickets of residents' cars, Mr. President. And residents have nowhere to move their car. And I would ask that either a subcommittee or the Traffic Commission. The Chief has been telling us they're working on city-wide parking permits, but it's been about two years now that I've been hearing that, and I think something needs to be done to alleviate the concerns of those residents on main streets in this community, and I just want to move that forward, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: If we could get a report of the vote of the Council on that. I remember the issue, but I don't remember taking a vote on that. But I may be forgetful on that. But I'd like to see the vote of the Council on that. I have a problem with putting any type of city money on personal property in the community, and so I'd like to see that vote, Mr. President, also.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I'm not sure how something can happen in the school budget if the school committee didn't vote on it. So maybe Ms. Baker can give us a little more information where this came from.
[Michael Marks]: The superintendent just told us it wasn't part of the budget that they approved. It was not. Correct. Right. So maybe Ms.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Well, the dollar amount includes an additional 33,000 according to this administration's representative that's up here tonight. So how does that take place, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: I've already asked three times. I'll ask a fourth.
[Michael Marks]: So the first budget was incorrect?
[Michael Marks]: Is there anyone from the administration that can answer that question?
[Michael Marks]: Is there a budget person from the mayor's office here to present the $162 million budget?
[Michael Marks]: No, is there a budget person, not a paper, a person?
[Michael Marks]: So Anne, you drew the short stick and you're representing the administration on the budget tonight.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. That's all I want to know. You're here representing the administration.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, thank you. I actually have a few comments and I didn't know if someone else from the audience, I thought that you, which you were waiting for, for people from the audience to get up.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We still have Anne Baker here. Anne, I have a question for you.
[Michael Marks]: Do I have to yell? I'm going to yell. Anne, is the proposed city budget on the city website? I do not know. You don't know? No. How is one supposed to know what's in the proposed budget? Other than the council, the 56,000 people that are out there, how are they supposed to know what's in the proposed budget? Let me ask if Mr. Palmino. He's the city solicitor. Is he the budget director? They said he's the city solicitor. Is he the budget director?
[Michael Marks]: I asked the budget director a question.
[Michael Marks]: No, I'm not confused. Oh, I'm not so sure. I asked the woman that was up there if this was on the city website. No, you think you asked if the city solicitor was the budget director, if I'm not mistaken. We could rerun the tape. Because she asked for your opinion on this. This doesn't require a legal opinion.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for your comments. You're welcome. I'm talking to Ian Baker now. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: It is not on the city website. Okay. So we have $162 million budget and the mayor brags about transparency. Under this administration, we're talking transparency and there's not one indication of this proposed budget anywhere on the city website.
[Michael Marks]: I know we have the superintendent of schools here and I would ask the same question to the superintendent of schools is the proposed school budget on the school website. No, it is not. Thank you very much. So here we have the mayor bragging about transparency and open government in a proposed budget of $162 million. Residents have nowhere to find this document. Sure, they can come to a committee of the whole meeting up here, absolutely. They can come to one of the seven or eight meetings we had, but they can't go online and find the proposed budget.
[Michael Marks]: If you can find that on the city website, I'd like to see you find that. So I'll get back to my comments.
[Michael Marks]: After it's approved. That has been the practice. Thank you, Anna. Thank you for your comments. That's great for transparency. We're going to put the budget on after it's approved. That is great. That's a great comment to have. And let me just start off by saying, and my colleagues are entitled to their opinion, I've been on this council 14 years, and this is the worst budget process I've ever been through. The worst budget process in 14 years. We've had countless meetings, and we've been unable to ask questions at these meetings because the administration sent staff that were unable to answer budget questions. And I don't fault them. They're not budget people. And, you know, it was stated by a Councilor earlier that, you know, this was a great year. We had a ton of questions this year. We had a ton of questions because there was no one to answer questions from the administration over the last several weeks. That doesn't make for a good process. So that's my first comment, that the lack of transparency and the lack of this administration. You know, if the administration wanted to send a budget person, Mayor Burke was the budget person in this city for the last five years and created this budget. So if she wanted to send a budget person, she should have found herself at these particular meetings to answer questions. $162 million of taxpayer money that this council got some answers to, some half-hearted answers, and some that weren't answered at all, in my opinion. Second point I had is, yes, there's a lot of good things in this budget. Absolutely. I agree with the addition in the Office of Community Development, the two planning positions. I agree with some of the moves that were made in some of the various departments. I think we have a school budget that, in my opinion, looks fine. And I'll talk about the security like I did with the superintendent last week. And I hope he gives the same answers he gave last week, because I think people find it quite eye-opening. some of the responses that I received. But I'd like to go through, you know, we went through the highlights, and I'd like to go through some of the lowlights that, you know, were offered by members of this council, and things that we feel strongly about. And I asked this at one of the budget meetings. I said to the council directly, I said, who had impact in this budget? I looked around the table. I didn't see one nod, one hand go up, nothing. So when you say we bet for 18 to 20 hours, and this was a great process, I don't know where you're coming from. I don't know where you're coming from. A great process is having involvement, exchanging of ideas. That's a great process. Even the school department, after some of the deliberation, came back and added things to the school budget based on recommendations by members of the school committee. Did that happen with this body? Did anyone come and say, Hey, I know you offered this suggestion. Maybe we can't do this, but maybe we could do this. Nothing at all. Nothing at all. And I'm only speaking, maybe it happened to other members. It didn't happen with me. So I'd like to go through a few of the lowlights that I believe should have been included in this budget items that this council has worked on over the years. And we're going to lose progress because of the lack of funding on some of these items. And I'm not proud to say that, but it's going to happen and I'm going to lay out in detail and it's going to take some time, Mr. President. So, uh, grab your comfy seat and sit back because this is important. You know, it's one thing to mention it at a committee, the whole meeting in front of, uh, you know, some administrators. And it's another thing to let the general public know what's going on in this community. You know, For the past two years, this council initiated a line item in the budget. We were the ones that initiated a $15,000 line item in the budget for the arts. That was monumental in this community. It's never been done before to recognize method arts in this community. And that was done two years ago. And we went to the art community, and we said, you know what? This is not going to just be a gravy train. If you want additional funding in the budget, you're going to have to prove to us that it's worthy of the funding. You're going to have to show us community outreach. You're going to have to show us what programming was done with this money. And sure enough, the next year came about last year, and this council voted to add another $15,000, bringing it up to $30,000. Based on the input we received from the Method Arts Council, Mackie, and all the other artists group in this community that are involved, and putting so many good programs like the West Bedford Open Studios, Circle the Square, and the list goes on and on. You know, this year, Mr. President, I offered to continue the momentum we had, asking for another $15,000. Now it wasn't just to throw $15,000 at a group of artists in the community to please them. It was because they've shown us over years that they've been able to take this money and use it in outreach, in reaching out to the community, in setting up programs that impact thousands of Method residents, putting a face in this community. that was missed for so many years. And I want to go through some of the highlights that were presented to me by the arts community after I offered this. And I think it's telling, Mr. President, that some of the facts and figures that they presented us, that the money in the budget they like. The money in the budget does not fully fund what they're trying to do, does not even come remotely close. And without the money in the budget, there is no art program for all intents and purposes, because the state has been cutting the arts, as we all know, year after year. So for 2016, the Method Arts Council gave out $45,300 to 62 projects and field trips in this community. This represents an increase of $15,000 over 2015. Due to greater funding provided by the city of Medford, which is this city council, more projects were funded and an average grant amount increased by 35%. So we were able to increase the grants that we provide to these different groups in the community, an additional 35% to do what they do. We were also able to fund 11 of these proposals at 100%. The total amount requested by the community for 2016 was $93,321, which means that we were unable to meet even 50% of the demand despite our increased budget. So even with the increases we made the headway over the last two years, according to the numbers from the Method Arts Council, we were only able to meet less than 50% of what was asked for. Our available budget fell short of the total request by $48,000. An increased effort to attract new applicants and projects started to be seen in 2016. The greater visibility is due to the contribution of outreach and the City of Medford's investment. The Medford Arts Council was also selected, as this council knows, as the 2016 Cultural Council of the Year by the state, just the third council ever chosen for this honor. The citation specifically pointed to, among other things, our new level of partnership with the City of Medford, our regional leadership and public support for the arts. Then it also goes on to say, most of the city's allocations to the Medford Arts Council has gone to community grant programs. Some of the highlights in 2016, many of which we funded. with the budget request. A second year of highly successful multimedia cultural exchange at the Senior Center. This project caught the attention of the Mass Cultural Council, which was asked to nominate for an award. Unfortunately, we did not win, but we were nominated for an award. An innovative touch-guided quilt and sewing program for the blind and visually impaired, which is being piloted at the Senior Center with the intention to expand it to other communities. Stipends for musicians to play at the Methodist Farmer's Market. Artists shouldn't work for free, and they're right. If you go down to the Farmer's Market, there's music playing all the time, and it's an upbeat environment. Terrific new program at Chevalier Theater, including the onstage series that brings in new kids, kinds of brands, and new audiences to the venue. A collaboration between the Monkey House Dance Company and the Boys and Girls Club to introduce choreography, and movement to young kids. The Medford Calling Program, pairing prominent songwriters with aspiring musicians from Medford High School. We are artistically going to paint our crosswalks, which we'll use art to design and increase pedestrian safety and beautification on our streets. These are the things that were done in 2016 by the mayor funding, and I do say mayor funding, in $162 million budget, with the $30,000 budget that we implemented by this council back some two years ago. So we were looking to increase it to 45. The mayor turned that down, unfortunately. Chevalier Auditorium. You know, we have the budget for Chevalier Auditorium. And yes, there was a building custodian put in the budget for $24,749. That brings the total budget up to $91,749. There is not any money, I shouldn't say that, there is very little money for building improvements. There's building repairs, but building improvements. I talked to members of the Chevalier Commission, I talked to members of the Friends of Chevalier, and they were all interested. in presenting a marquee on the front of Chevalier, to give it a face, to give it a presence, to let people know that it exists, even people in this community to let it know it exists. For $20,000 to $30,000, I don't know if you remember about a year ago, there was a movie, a motion picture that was being filmed in the city, and they put an old marquee up on the Chevalier Theater. And I kept the picture of it because, really, it put a face on that building that was never seen before. There was neon on the sign and so forth, and it attracted you to the building. I asked in the budget this year for a $50,000 appropriation. Let's not forget, this is a city-owned building. This doesn't belong to Joe Smith, Paul Jones. This is a city-owned building that the city has lacked to support over the years. They'll be the first to say, every elected official, that's the economic engine in the city. I heard it over and over again at the debates from the mayor, from the council. That's the economic engine. And then when it comes time for the budget, the economic engine is running on air. Let me tell you. We're not like Lowell that puts money into funding their public auditorium and puts money into bringing in entertainers. You realize how expensive it is to bring in a top name entertainer? You might be talking 40 or 50 or 60,000 as a retainer. Chevalier doesn't have that money. We have to be committed to that particular building. And yes, there's been improvements made, but we're falling short of the mark when it comes to taking that building to the next level. And I'm very disappointed that the mayor refused to add a line item for building improvements in Chevalier. That's an 1,800 seat theater. It's the sixth largest theater in the Boston metropolitan area. Sixth largest. We have it right in our community. It's all volunteer civic commission that oversees it. And the city, in their wisdom, funds it for $91,000, which includes a $24,000 building custodian, which is needed. But that's not what's needed, Mr. President. If you want to look at another city-owned building that this city neglected, just take a look at Brooks Estates. Just take a ride up to Brooks Estates. Actually, you're better off walking, because the road is not adequate enough. It's really not safe toe drive up there. But that's another city old building that this community neglected for years, depending on volunteers to raise the money, and it's just not happening. My next one, Mr. President, we heard from Fire Chief Gilberti, and I'm glad Councilor Penta's here. because Council of Penta over the last several years push to have the feedback from the administrators involved in our process. For years we met with the administrators and we never received their wish list. And it was Council of Penta that said, we need to know your wish list. Even if it doesn't get implemented, as a council, we need to know what your priorities are and what you think is necessary for DPW, what's necessary for the schools, what's necessary for police and fire. We heard from Chief Gilberti. He's concerned about the internal fire alarms within our fire stations. Now these aren't the fire alarms that communicate back and forth, although those are outdated. These are the internal alarms like you or I would have in our home, a smoke detector, a hard wire detector. Many of them are 30 and 40 years old, according to Chief Gilberti. God forbid something were to happen in one of these buildings. And we knew that our fire station alarms are inadequate within each station. That's a major concern that should be addressed, and it's not addressed in this particular budget. You know, we heard from Police Chief Sacco. He requested six unmarked cars and six marked cars in the budget. Denied by the mayor. Now that may be part of some capital improvement plan that we have yet to see. We have yet to hear when it's going to come out. We don't know what's in it. That may be part of it. But in my opinion, As we've been stating for years, this council, there should be at least two to three cars in each year's budget, at a minimum. These cars are running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they have multiple drivers. Think about your car. You get out of it after work, it sits in the driveway for 12 hours. Someone doesn't get in it and drive it for another 12 hours and drive it a different way than you're driving, which is harmful to a car. These cars that we have right now are experiencing transmission problems. These cars we have right now are inadequate in the community. They spend much of their time being serviced. You know, you can't provide public, public safety is probably the most important issue that we provide for. You can't provide public safety with inadequate equipment. We already know the police department should be condemned. We determined that years ago. And now we have vehicles that the mayor's allowing our brave men and women drive around in that are inadequate. They really are. And it's not part of the budget. We also heard from the chief. He said, I'd like to have some civilians, roughly four civilians, to do some crime analysis, to do some IT work in the department. That could go a long way to advising people what's going on in this community, having some crime analysis available, crime analysis on the website. You know, I attended the West Method, as well as Councilor Caraviello, the West Method Crime Watch that they had several weeks back. And over and over again, we heard We would like a place where we can go and see crime statistics. We'd like to know what's not only happening in our neighborhood, but happening in other sections of the community. That currently doesn't exist in this community. The chief asked for that, which to me is a very reasonable request, and that was denied. The vehicles and the civilian positions was denied in the budget. You know, a small request that was something that I asked for. You know, I was approached by one of the poll workers. months and months back. And she said, you realize when we're at a poll, we could be there from 12 to 14 hours. She said, nothing against the police, but they're there and they get a box lunch. The workers that are checking people in, checking people out, working their 12 to 14 hours, get nothing, absolutely nothing. In a busy state and federal election, many of them can't even leave in a busy election. So we're asking them to sit in there for 12 to 14 hours. I put in a request to add $3,000 to the budget. A line item 5780 for $3,000 to pay for some lunches, box lunches. And we could do it, the city clerk could do it any way he like. He could provide pizza, box lunches, he can give people a stipend or whatever it might be to get something to eat. Whatever it could be, could be worked out administratively. That was denied by the mayor. Sorry, insufficient funds for the poll workers. You know, the school budget, and I'm glad to see the superintendent's still here. Several weeks back, I got a unanimous vote from this council. I brought up the issue that right now the school department and the city side do not pay for water and sewer. In my opinion, water and sewer is a utility. It's like gas, it's like electric, It's an operating expense. You can't run a high school in the boilers, in the bathrooms, and everything else, the pool, associated with the high school, without water and sewer. It's an operating expense. Some years back, the powers to be took it out of the budget. And they said, you know what? We're not going to include it in our budget anymore. We're going to put it under unaccounted for water. And what that is, every rate payer who already pays their bill is going to pay a little additional more to pay for what we call unaccounted for water. The only problem with that is the water on the school side and on the city side is accounted for. It's meted. It's about $400,000 combined from the city and the school side. And in my opinion, that should be a budget line item under the operating expenses. And it shouldn't fall on the backs of the rate payers. It should not fall on the backs of the rate payers. That's a way of taking money out of the budget, putting in other things in the budget that you feel are more of a priority. It might be a new PR person at 90-something thousand dollars. It might be whatever it might be. That's a way of shifting money around. And in my opinion, if we want a true budget, that should be within this. And that was a unanimous vote in this council, and it went to the mayor, and it did not find its way in this budget. Another thing that the mayor failed to act upon in this budget, or even come back and give a reasonable response why it couldn't be done. On the school budget again, we heard about security. Security went up 37%. People at home are saying, wow, we are secure. Security in the school department went up 37%. So I asked the superintendent of schools, I said, Mr. Superintendent, you hired building monitors in addition to the one security guard we have. I said, what happens at 3.30 when the school lets out? Is there any building monitors or security guards present at 3.30? He said, there is not a one. However, we do rely on custodians, administrators that still may be around the building to keep an eye out. So here we have a building that's open, unsecure, in my opinion, and open to the public after school lets out. That would be like saying any state building, go up to the state house and say, oh, they're out of session now. All security leave. There's no reps up here. Everyone can leave now. That's unheard of. That building should be secured. There should only be a few entrances that people can get in, and those entrances should be manned. And then when the building's locked down, there should still be a security person walking around a building that size. You know, a high school, a school, those are soft targets. And unfortunately in this city, they're even softer. You know, if we hired new building monitors, why put them on all the same time? Okay, come in at eight, leave at three. Why not stagger the times? It makes no sense. It makes no sense. You know, if something were to happen in our schools and we were to sit back and say, you know what, we were all aware that these buildings are not secured after hours, but they're open, but they're not secured. We would feel awful as a council and I'm sure the school committee would feel the same way. But just because an incident went by, we had the bomb scares and so forth, and now it's out of sight, out of mind, we can't say, you know what, oh, we're fine, we're fine. The threat is still there. However, the security's not. And I'm not happy with the answers I received from the superintendent of schools regarding the lack of security and the lack of secured buildings, in my opinion. I believe our buildings are overused currently right now, and I believe that should be looked at in addition. For the past three years, this council asked, when we get a budget, that if we could have an expenditure line item in the current fiscal year. So they show FY15, they show FY16, then you would have either an actual, like Councilor Felkel mentioned, or an expenditure to date. And then the budget, FY17. We've asked for three years. We were told by the former budget director, Louise Miller, that's doable. and it would have been done in this budget process. I asked right at the beginning. I wasn't trying to throw any, you know, hold anything off. I asked right at the beginning if that could be included. It's important to know when an account, coming from someone that does finance, when an account has a surplus or a deficit when you're setting a new budget. That's 101. It's important to know. and to sit back and not have that information, and then at the end of the year, receive a million dollars for transfers. 243,000 out of fire salaries. Guess what that was? We didn't hire firefighters. But that money will be transferred. We told you we were gonna hire firefighters. It sounded good last year. We all put it as a highlight. I'm sure the administration said, look at this highlight. But guess what? It wasn't funded. That money will be used for another appropriation, maybe to fund one of the mayor's other priorities that was underfunded. Who knows? But these are the games that go on year after year after year. And without a proper accounting in the budget, it's going to continue. Ann Baker did provide a list here. And Ann, if I had two years of time, I could probably match this up. with the budget line items, and I probably could do it. It would take me some time, but I probably could do it. However, the fiscal year ends Friday, and another broken promise by this administration. You know, I read an article, I don't know, a couple of months ago in the transcript, the mayor's first 100 days, and it said, priority one, enhancing communication. So I guess not sending a representative to our budget meetings is enhancing communication. I guess not getting responses that this council has requested is enhancing communication. I guess sending the finance person tonight, who by the way is going to be retiring in four weeks and congratulations, I wish you well in, you've done a lot of good for this community, as the budget person, I think does a disservice to not only this council, but to the community. And the mayor should have presented the budget, $162 million. This is her first budget. And as Councilwoman Lungo said, she spent three minutes with this council in the 20 hours we spent going over budget. Shame on Mayor Burke. Shame on her. You know, Mr. President, there are a lot of positive things in this budget. But as was stated by Dr. Streller and some of the other speakers, We can't go through the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome. It's the definition of insanity. And guess what, Mr. President, for those of us that ask questions, that paid attention, that care about the taxpayers' money in this community, it's important to us. And I, for one, am not going to put my stamp of approval on this budget. If the mayor had the smallest inkling of communication, she would have contacted this council. She would have sat down with the council and said, council, you know what, this is a city budget. I know it's my budget, I present it. What would you like in the budget? What do you think is necessary? Geez, you've been around for five years, you've been around 14 years, you've been around three years. What would you like? What do you think is needed in the budget? never happened. Shame on this mayor. Shame on this mayor. You know, and my colleagues are welcome to do what they want. I know some of my colleagues are new to the budget process, but to go through the same budget process year after year and have no impact at all as a council, and that's my opinion, no impact at all, is a disservice to every taxpayer in this community that expects us to do our job. We're a legislative body, and we set the city budget. You can count on one hand our function. Those are the two top. And to let the budget go by, as submitted by the mayor, fine, if that's your intent, fine. I, as one member of the council, refuse to do so. I'd rather bring the mayor to the table and say, Madam Mayor, why can't we? Why can't we do this? And if it's the levy limit problem that the mayor has, we reach the levy limit. I think that's the first I ever heard, reach the levy limit. Gee, McGlynn was here 30 years, I never heard that. But under this new mayor, response was we reached the levy limit. And my suggestion back to the mayor is, then maybe we should look at the stipends, the confidentiality stipends you give your staff people. How many people are hired when you get a job and you walk into the job and they say, okay, here's what you have to do. And then they say, on top of that, this is confidential information. We're going to pay you over and above your salary because you're dealing with confidential information. Doesn't happen. Doesn't happen in the private sector. That's party or job. So if there are people in the mayor's office that are handling confidential information, and there may be, and there's people in the assessor's office, and the people in the treasurer collector's office, and there's people in every department that are handling confidential information that aren't getting these stipends, they happen to be to just a few in the mayor's office. Maybe we could cut that portion out of the budget, and maybe we can add something for the arts, or maybe we can add something that we think would be a bigger bang for our buck, rather than padding someone's salary. Because that's all it is. Don't fool yourself. That's all it is. It's a padding of someone's salary. So, Mr. President, with that being said, I will not support the budget here tonight. I refuse to support it on the basis that The mayor refused to send anyone that can answer questions to our budget meeting. She made this budget, in my opinion, the worst budget process I've ever been through. She didn't look for any input from this council. She didn't look for any input from the community. She failed to put the budget or proposed budget on the city websites for open transparency and open government. Who cares after the fact? Mr. President, if you ran your funeral home like the mayor's run in this city, you'd be out of business right now. You shouldn't settle for any less because it's the city budget. You should hold it to the same standard, Mr. President, as you do for your funeral home. Over 30 minutes, consulate.
[Michael Marks]: You're trying to give an answer. You're great at circumlocution, Mr. Superintendent.
[Michael Marks]: First of all, I didn't ask for a point of information, please. If you'll let me speak, I will. I didn't ask for a police officer. So that is your first error. I asked specifically about after hours, Mr. Superintendent, and you have no security and you have no secure building after hours. If you can address that, rather than going into these things about having police officers at every door, that is not what we stated. I'm trying to. Churches are one thing, Mr. President, but a school that houses thousands of our students deserves the right for security and the right to have a secured building.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. You know, I realize within a budget you have to make decisions. But security is a decision that I'm not willing to let go. Security is just as important as the teacher in the classroom. And in my opinion, Mr. President, to say during the day, when the students are in there, that you have to check in, you have to show an ID, you have to sign in, you have to — and that process has been tightened up — you're right — recently, Mr. Superintendent. But then at 3, 330, I can walk in there with six duffel bags and not be questioned by anyone. And I can have access to anywhere in that large campus, as you know. That's the problem I have. Why would you take all the security that you just put on and put them on in the same time and leave the rest of the times open? Leave access to the building open. I don't buy the fact that we don't have security in our parks. I don't buy that. We have police on the streets, Mr. Superintendent. Our high school, as you know, when's the last time you had a bomb scare at one of our parks? But we've had several at Medford High School recently. Yes, we have. We've had several at Medford High School recently. And you relied on custodians to go around and look for devices. I don't know how that happens, but we relied on custodians. So this other pair of eyes you're talking about that are around the building, I don't see it. And I think that's ineffective. And I think even bringing that up, as Amir mentioned, that you're relying on that as a means of security, shows that you're really not in touch with what security should be and having a secured building.
[Michael Marks]: We can get the same return from people who are asked to look. I'll let him finish. But, you know, he keeps on saying, he throws out these, we can't cover everything. Who asked him to cover everything?
[Michael Marks]: You know, no one's asking you to cover everything, Mr. Superintendent. So, you know, come on now. No one's asking you to cover everything.
[Michael Marks]: The security of our children relies on secure building. And that is a functional value, to have a secure building. and to have a functional security after hours, too, when a building's open. That's what we have to rely on, Mr. President. And that's an important issue. And it shouldn't take a back seat. It really should take a back seat. You know, I wish there was all this dialogue when they hired a $90,000 PR person. Where was all this discussion putting a $90,000 PR person in the budget? Where was all this great debate saying, can we afford it or not? You know, so these are the issues that I don't buy when someone stands up and says, well, we have to make the tough decisions. You know, it seems to me those decisions are made, but they're made for political purpose. And the tough decision is not going with the political, but going with what's right to do and saying, I need security in this building. I need to make sure the doors are secured after hours. That's the right thing to do, Mr. President. And I'm not going to sit here, Mr. President, and state anything other than the fact that I believe there's a severe security shortfall. Thank you. At the high school. And this superintendent's on notice. So, he's on notice. And let me tell you, and this is not the first year I brought this up. So, when they say they'll have discussion, I've heard this year after year after year. There'll be discussion.
[Michael Marks]: That was a perfect statement, the superintendent just said. Just like we have seen year after year. That's exactly what this government's all about. Thank you, counsel. Just as we've done it year after year. Thank you. Madam Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I think that's an excellent suggestion. trying to solve an issue that this council has been trying to address for a number of years in, uh, addressing utility contractors that come into this community and do digging and don't put back, uh, the road, uh, the way they found it. And I think this is a wise suggestion and I support it wholeheartedly.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree that our parks are underutilized. I believe there's 23 parks We have the luxury of having a number of open spaces in our community. However, they are not being used to full capacity. It was probably about maybe six, seven months ago, I offered a resolution similar to this with involving the arts and how do we get the arts throughout the community and not just centralized in one particular area. And I know the city of Lowell has done a tremendous job in refurbishing some of their old parks that were considered drug dens and brought in performing stages at very minimal cost and had artists do wrought iron work around the park and other things to attract residents back into the park. And they're really a success story. And I would like to, if my council colleague wouldn't mind, amending his particular, I know you didn't limit it to what you put out there, but I think arts would be a great addition to the community. We already have a vibrant arts council and movement in this community, and I think it would go a long way in soliciting their support also. So I would ask if my council colleague doesn't mind to also involve arts and the performing arts within our parks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think for the last, jeez, several months, I've been asking in this budget process that we receive a budget from the administration that not only details the previous fiscal year and the proposed fiscal year, but also has a comparison, line by line, whether each line is in a deficit or surplus. And this is the exact reason I've been asking this, Mr. President. And I was promised last year by then-Budget Director Louise Miller that it would be incorporated in this year's budget. And I, as one person, I don't know how my colleagues feel. When I look at a budget, it's helpful to look and say, well, you're asking for an appropriation. Last year, did you spend this full appropriation? If not, why are you asking for the same appropriation? And every year, and we were just at a meeting, that we had a Committee of the Whole meeting, and before we received this correspondence from the mayor, I brought it up again, and I said, every year, there's roughly a million dollars in transfers at the end of the year, every year without say. And sure enough, we get a paper from the mayor, it's $1,112,000. So I was off by $112,000. There is something inherently wrong with the budget every year that has a surplus of the same dollar amount. That leads me to believe that these particular accounts are, you know, there's a buffer in certain line items. And I don't know why the administration is so opposed to providing another line. I mean, the budget, if you look at it, is three or four lines, three or four columns. It's not complex to add another column. And you have this information, whether a particular line would be in deficit or not. And that would be helpful as a member of the council when we're deliberating. And I still don't know why we can't get that in the budget process.
[Michael Marks]: We received something, but it wasn't line by line. So in going through it to try to figure out what that applied to is next to impossible.
[Michael Marks]: And I appreciate that. And I know in a $162 million budget, when you're doing line by line, there's going to be some deficits and surpluses. But to arrive at the same million dollar figure every year, that's a concern. And I've been doing this for a lot of years. And all I'm asking for the administration, not to move mountains, but to provide another column that shows me to date. So, if we started the budget a week ago, I want to see, as of June 15th, that line item, are we in a deficit or a surplus? That's all we're asking for.
[Michael Marks]: I know. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, woulda, coulda, shoulda. Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, right.
[Michael Marks]: You don't, but any wise person would say if every year you're in a deficit in a particular line item, there's a concern with that particular line item. But I don't think it is every year we're in a deficit of that particular line item.
[Michael Marks]: We don't know that because every year, all we get is a list saying, OK, we're going to transfer a council. And for the most part, we ask questions, but we transfer.
[Michael Marks]: Well, it's late now because I'm not going to vote for this tonight until we do get a list. And I haven't asked this just recently This is probably the last couple of budget sessions that I've asked. And we were told by the budget director, the former budget director, that that would be included in this year's budget. And I realize it was a change in administration, but when you make an agreement, you should follow through.
[Michael Marks]: I could show you the document. If you could make heads or tails, that document to the budget.
[Michael Marks]: It doesn't suffice.
[Michael Marks]: What about the salary for fire?
[Michael Marks]: Unfilled positions.
[Michael Marks]: So here we go again. Uh, you know, uh, in a budget process, we say we're going to hire new police, new fire. It goes unfilled. And at the end of the year, without any public fanfare, we take the money that should have been for six firefighters. And we transfer it to overtime.
[Michael Marks]: And it's not the first time.
[Michael Marks]: This happens all the time. And that's why I asked in the budget. I said there were a number of vacancies more than the last previous five years in this year's budget. And I asked for a breakdown. Why do we have so many vacancies? Because in my previous experience with vacancies is if they're not filled, that is also used as a buffer to take that money, transfer it, and use it for one of your other pet projects or something else that you might have funded in the budget that didn't have enough money.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? If Ms. Baker is able to get us that information that we requested, I would respectfully ask that we table this until next week, until we get the responses back from the administration. My other point is also, Mr. President, these are the ones that the transfers that are coming before us because it's a requirement under the state statute, right?
[Michael Marks]: Right.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but there are certain accounts within the budget that you can do transfers without coming to the council.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So we're not even seeing the list of other things that may be year after year transferred. And that's why it's important to have that actual in there. So we're being presented a list of maybe 15, 20 transfers. There may be another 50 or 60 transfers that are taken.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And that would be helpful for us to know as a council.
[Michael Marks]: You know, the mayor sets the budget and we actually sign off on the budget. So that's why this is so important. And we've been sold the bill of goods. We're going to see it year after year. And, uh, you know, so I would ask that a motion to table until we get, uh, the budget, uh, call line item column that we asked for with actuals. Uh, then the, any other, no, if we table it, no questions, go out, go out right there with miss Baker. but she knows what we asked her.
[Michael Marks]: I didn't offer this. I don't know who offered this on my behalf. I didn't offer this. Under suspension? I didn't offer anything under suspension. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Penta. I'd like to recognize Council President, Vice President Lungokur.
[Michael Marks]: I wish that the second motion, Mr. President, is taken.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to table, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the city solicitor for offering this recommendation along with the mayor. This was originated at the budget meeting before the city council for an inquiry into this particular position. And I'm glad to hear that uh, yourself and the mayor, uh, thought that, uh, the, uh, moving of that position was warranted and it's long overdue. And I appreciate the fact that you came forward with this paper.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Flynn is here tonight. So I would ask that he come to the podium so the whole audience could see who he is. And if you could, I know you've served with distinction for a number of years, And, uh, if you could just update the council on any new happenings within the commission itself, standing your name and address for the record.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I, without any hesitation, support the renomination of Mr. Flynn. He does a tremendous job on the board itself, and I know board members look to Mr. Flynn for his many years of service and his advice. So I want to thank you for your service.
[Michael Marks]: Congratulations.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, they have the opportunity to promote what the event is. And if you have a website that people can go on and make donations, Now's the time.
[Michael Marks]: Great job.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I'd like to have this meeting dedicated to the Orlando victims, which took place the other day. As we all know, June is National Gay Pride Month, and the LGBT community in the city of Medford has been very active and involved for many, many years. Medford High School has a Gay-Straight Alliance, one of the few high schools that was represented in the Boston Pride Parade. And I want to dedicate tonight's meeting
[Michael Marks]: Also, Mr. President, we lost two residents near and dear to me, David Semenza, Jr. I'd like to have a moment of silence. He is a longtime Medford resident, just recently passed away, and he's going to be sorely missed. A father, a great husband, and a great friend. The other one is Robert Sarabian. He's a longtime Medford resident who recently passed away. Again, grandfather, father, husband, and also a great friend. And if we can have a moment of silence for those two Medford residents, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to preference my comments at the very outset to state that I, first of all, respect each and every member of the Board of Appeals. Over the years that I've been on the council, they've made a number of great decisions which have benefited many neighborhoods in this community over the years. So I want to let that be known. I am equally as outraged as Councilor Longo with the fact that Last Tuesday, this council voted unanimously to ask the board of appeals. I mean, they're a separate body and they don't answer to this council, but we respectfully ask them to hold off on their decision until we could have a public forum where people could come up from all over the city, including director butters and voice their concern with this particular project. And I am equally as dismayed with the June 14th 9 51 AM, uh, posting to the city clerk this morning, uh, 14 page decision from the board of appeals that outlines, uh, the reason why, uh, they supported unanimously the project on Locust street. And so I liked, I have a few comments and I'm dying to hear from the residents, but I have a few comments I'd like to make, uh, Mr. President. Um, You know, it was quoted in the paper a couple of weeks ago on an article regarding this particular project that spoke about the 490 units, the 750-yard parking spots, and the size of the project on Locust Street. And as part of that article, Mayor Burke was quoted as saying, Mayor Burke envisioned the neighborhood developing into something similar to station landing. And I, as someone that lives in the Wellington area, can tell you firsthand that I don't consider Station Landing, first of all, a neighborhood. Residents in a neighborhood share social ties. They have a sense of identity as a neighborhood. When a problem occurs, residents mobilize. Look what's out in this audience. Neighborhoods have civic, religious, and educational organizations existing within the neighborhood. So I don't consider Station Landing a neighborhood. I don't consider station landing, when I go down there and grab a slice of pizza, as a place where I see a friendly face or people talking on the sidewalk or communicating. I don't see that. And I don't see Mayor Burke's vision of turning Locust Street which has direct abutters and is a neighborhood. And I stated that last week to Mayor Burke. This is a neighborhood. Whether you think it's commercially zoned or not, this is a residential neighborhood with many residential streets that abut this particular area. And I don't want to see, I for one on the council, don't want to see this project turn into a station landing. That's my first point. The Board of Appeals, their decision from what I read in this, and I read it twice today, their 14-page decision. They said throughout this decision that they were relying on the petitioner's studies. So they relied on the petitioner who came to them for this 490 units, and they relied on their traffic study, they relied on their soil study, they relied on the engineering study. Everything was relied on by the petitioner. They also said that we relied on the input from city departments. And many city departments made recommendations, the Board of Health, the Building Department, the Fire Department, made recommendations to try to improve this particular project. But the one thing missing, Mr. President, Mr. President, I'm over here. The one thing missing, the one thing missing is resident and neighborhood input. That's the one thing missing out of this 14-page document. And the reason why I say that is the Boston Globe on Thursday, June 9th, if you look under talking points, they have a section that says development. Zoning board refuses to reconsider Alston apartment project. says developers of a contested Austin apartment building are going back to the drawing board after a key city zoning panel shot down their project for the second time in a month. The Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday refused to reconsider its vote to reject 130 unit building on 89 Bright Nav, which is made amid concerns from some neighbors about parking and traffic. The developer enormously disappointed by the decision and noted they've already spent two years modifying the plan to address community feedback. So here we have a project in Alston. The developer spent two years dealing with the neighborhood, altered plans, made every consideration possible to reach out to the neighborhood. And here we have a project in the city of Medford, which had a public hearing about a week and a half ago. The residents weren't able to speak to about 10, 1030 at night, and then they were shut off quickly. We asked the zoning board of appeals not to make a decision so we can hear from residents. And they hastily made a decision without having any feedback from the community. Something is awfully wrong in this community, Mr. President. And in my opinion, this council definitely needs to move forward with an appeal. before land court or before superior court. The report goes on to talk about a traffic impact assessment, and that is one of the other studies that the Board of Appeals relied on. This was done in March 2016, prepared by Van Nuys and Associates and Corp, and it says the board finds that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on motorist delays or vehicular queuing. So, so this is not going to have any impact on Mystic Valley Parkway on Riverside Ave on Harvard, not at all. And that was, uh, the, uh, information they got from the petition is, uh, traffic impact assessment. Um, I might add, it was also done when the metal Glen mall was not in operation. And we heard a petitioner last week, one of the residents, that stated that they actually went and got a copy of the traffic impact report and they refused to add the numbers that they already had on file for what the Meadow Glen Mall brings in traffic-wise. And rather than stating the Meadowglen Mall, they stated this project is going to bring in some additional traffic. So it's not a wash, because we all know that the Meadowglen Mall is going to be rebuilt with Wegmans, which is going to bring thousands of new cars traversing our streets from people not only in the community, but people outside the community. In the Board of Appeals findings, And I'd be happy to share this report with anyone tonight if they want to take a look at it. But the Board of Appeals stated more or less the reasonings why they had to give so many variances. And these are the findings that I found to be somewhat tough to deal with when it comes to a residential and a neighborhood standpoint. The first finding was the soil. It says the site has a unique soil and environmental conditions, drastically increasing the cost of rehabilitating, requiring the appellant make full use of the project site, available development to effectively balance the cost of the environmental remediation. So the Board of Appeals is saying, because this land is going to be so expensive to remediate, we have to let them build it to its biggest and best use. And that would be putting the most units we can on this particular site, so then they could balance the cost. The next finding was the lot shape. It says, the site is also affected by a unique lot shape constraint. frontage only on one street, alternative means of vehicle access not available. As a result, a network of internal driveways and pedestrian walkways must be constructed and will occupy a substantial portion of the available lot area. So they're saying because of the lot shape, I mean, it hasn't changed in the last 30 years, so I'm not sure why this particular petitioner would use that as a hardship, but that was one reason why the Board of appeals thought that they could provide the variance based on the soil, based on the lot shape, the topography. In addition to the soil and lot shape challenges, the project side is constrained by unique topographical conditions. Specifically, the depth of groundwater varies from one to six feet below ground surface. So they're saying based on the water table, they can't dig below So anything they have to do has to go on the surface. And that is a hardship to this particular developer. The board also stated that, and this is a quote, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinances would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. a little enforcement of the industrial zoning district height and use limitations would significantly reduce the project site capacity to accommodate multifamily use, resulting in a substantial loss of dwelling units, including much needed affordable units. So, uh, what the board is telling me is that, uh, based on the conditions of this lot, if, if I bought a house lot, mr. President, And I found out that the lot was contaminated. The lot had whatever it did in the lot. I can't go for relief. I can't go and say, you know what, I bought this lot, but I didn't realize that it had contaminants. I didn't realize the dimensions weren't enough. I didn't realize it didn't have a proper setback. I just would move forward, Mr. President, and I definitely wouldn't be looking to build something that's far greater than the use for that particular project, which is happening here before us. It also says that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially deteriorating from the intent, I'm sorry, degregating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. And I totally disagree with that, that their zoning relief is allowing for the degradation of the neighborhood. It is allowing for a project that is oversized in a particular neighborhood. It is allowing a developer to come in without any deference to any residents, without any deference to anyone in the community, and build a project that we saw in Alston that their zoning board turned down saying it wasn't right for the neighborhood and the neighbors had a concern. And they went back to the developer and said, meet with the neighbors. Did not happen in this community. So, uh, based on that, Mr. President, I feel very comfortable in voting to ask for, uh, an appeal of this council. I agree with council Lungo-Koehn that, uh, we also may need an appeal from a butters and residents uh, according to the city solicitor and he can speak for himself. And, um, I would ask that, uh, also because we will probably need legal counsel, uh, to, uh, make a motion, uh, to appeal before land court or superior court that we also ask within our resolve tonight that the mayor appropriate ample funds to hire an attorney to give guidance and direction and represent this Medford City Council in the process of appealing this project, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Solicitor, just one quick question. Under the FY16 budget for your department, there's claims under $1,000 and then claims over $1,000. Yes, sir. And the claims under $1,000 started off with $30,000, and claims over $1,000 started off with $60,000. Yes, a very, very modest sum. Do you know how much is left in that account?
[Michael Marks]: But in the past, there has been money allocated for outside counsel. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: So you don't have any idea whether or not at the end of this fiscal year, which is coming up within the next couple of weeks, There may be a surplus in those two line items.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, where time is of the essence, I think it's only appropriate, and I agree with what was mentioned by the city solicitor and members of this council. I think we should move forward with soliciting a good land attorney first. and getting feedback and advice from that attorney, and then moving forward on appeal. So I agree with that. The only thing I would say is that in order to get together and discuss what attorney may be right for us, I think we have to either set up a special meeting or an emergency meeting. I don't think we should wait till Tuesday, because I think that's putting us behind the eight ball. So I'd recommend as a part of whatever vote we take tonight that we have a special meeting requires 48 hour notice, an emergency meeting we can call without the 48 hour notice. But according to the city solicitor, he may need until Thursday to get some names and so forth and a list of names. So if we call for a special meeting, Mr. President, I think this is such an important issue. that I think we're all available to meet. It won't take long, maybe an hour on Friday evening, because it's got to be 48 hours out.
[Michael Marks]: Before the weekend?
[Michael Marks]: I think we need to get the ball rolling. Well, we do. Because we have budget. We have the superintendent coming before us. going on. So, I think we need to get this rolling. So, I would ask that in the formal motion.
[Michael Marks]: 48 hours from today. That's due Friday. Friday evening or maybe Saturday morning.
[Michael Marks]: I didn't anticipate meeting with a lawyer. I anticipated getting together and selecting a lawyer. and then reaching out to the lawyer. So I didn't anticipate sitting with someone. I agree. I don't think we're going to get someone that quick.
[Michael Marks]: This will be a selection. And then once we maybe make a selection one, two, and three, we're going to have to pick up the phone and make the phone calls.
[Michael Marks]: So I'm available Friday or Saturday, whatever the counsel. So do you want to do Thursday night? Is that 48 hours?
[Michael Marks]: You can't, 48 hours.
[Michael Marks]: And I think we want my kids might be here. I'm sorry. I think council longer wanted to offer, but I'll offer it that money. We ask a motion requesting may Burke make an appropriation of sufficient funds to hire a landlord law attorney.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, I know we have a resident here, Max, uh, that would like to speak on the issue. Uh, this has been an issue that's, uh, been, um, on the agenda for the city for several months now. And if anyone's familiar with the area, if you're coming down route 60 going West, heading into the square, uh, right around, uh, pure hockey, the lane markings are non-existent. And when cars are merging onto that portion of Salem Street, they really don't know which lane to be in. And coupled with the fact that if you're on City Hall Mall Road, which is right next to City Hall, and you're coming onto Route 60 from City Hall Mall Road, and you're taking a left there, There are no markings when you get onto Salem Street which lane you should be in. So you could be in the far left lane trying to get into the right lane so you can go towards West Method. And it's really a free for all. And I'm shocked there hasn't been a major, major accident or even pedestrian safety concern there based on the lack of markings. Now, this has been reported for the past, I believe, close to two months. on C-Click fix and it's been escalated up to the DPW, but I'm not quite sure why lane markings that were already established. We're not recreating a new road. We're not asking for engineers to go out there. We're asking to repaint the lane marking in the area of, in the interest of public safety. why this can't be done. So I'm offering it tonight, Mr. President, with the hopes that this will go immediately to DPW. I don't think this is a traffic commission issue. It's just a mere painting of already existing faded lane markings. And I would ask that the DPW go out there immediately in the interest of public safety and rectify the left turn lanes coming from City Hall Mall Road onto Route 60, and also coming down Route 60 West, heading into Medford Square, right about where Pure Hockey is going forward. So I would ask that in the form of a motion, Mr. President. And I know we have a resident that has the same concern, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I think what we heard tonight is yet again more important feedback that Max just mentioned about when we met with the mayor last week about how we can improve C-Click Fix. And one of the issues was that we noticed that C-Click Fix is turning into a blog session where people just blog back and forth. And you could say, well, I think you know, we need to paint the crosswalk. And then someone else comes on there and says, Oh, that's ridiculous. Uh, you know, what do you, what do you think you're doing? Or, you know, and that's not what the intent is. The intent is as Max mentioned, uh, to get a quick response from city hall, uh, and also to be logged into the system and then get a response back on when a completion shall take place. And clearly that's not currently happening right now. And I think there is an omission in the system with reporting back to residents and, uh, just to close out an item to make it look like the city is responding is not necessarily the best approach. And I'd rather see items open and still trying to be resolved than just to quickly close an item and then hope it goes away. Because I think that's what's currently taking place right now. So that's why I put this on tonight, Mr. President. And I want to thank Max for coming up and the other residents that brought this to the attention. of the city.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank also Councilor Longo. And I want to thank some of the residents for coming down tonight. You know, this is nothing more than just pure greed. The size of the project, without any hesitation, is purely based on how they can cram the most units in and the biggest bang for their buck. And that's without any regards to infrastructure improvements. I haven't heard anything about infrastructure improvements. Tonight we were talking in budget regarding some of the concerns we hear on Riverside Ave. I happen to live off of Riverside Ave, so I'm fighting that traffic almost on a daily basis. And I can tell you, when you're coming down Riverside Ave, going to the square, right before you get to Locust Street, the cars queue up from Locust Street to the new Panera. It's a nightly religious thing now. You have to wait in 15 minutes of traffic just to get up to Locust Street. The other side is the same. The cars queue up on the other side. So clearly, this development is not in it for anything other than getting the biggest bang for their buck. You know, you talk about transit-oriented. You know, living in the area, I live on Wellington Road, but I could actually walk across the street to Station Landing. But let me tell you, and I advise my kids also, You never cross any of those streets because you risk your life crossing those streets. So if they want to sell these seven, $800,000 condos or these $3,000 a month units and tell people they're going to be able to walk to Wellington, good luck to them. They better sign a big health insurance policy because Let me tell you, that's not going to be an easy task walking to Wellington. You know, it was mentioned also about this community not being in front of the curve. And again, I'd have to state, our Office of Community Development consists of one director and one part-time person. That's what the Office of Community Development consists of. And, you know, if you look at the Green Line extension where Mephitt had no seat at the table. If you look at any development in the city, it allows the developers to come in and the city takes a back seat. And that's exactly what happened in this project. The speaker prior was exactly right. There's no one out there from the city administration looking out for the interests of the residents. And let me tell you, Madam Mayor, who was quoted in the paper saying, this is great for the community, that she's excited about it, and so forth. People live in that area, Madam Mayor. You may not think so, but people actually live in that area. And, you know, the whole talk about quality of life, whether you live on Placelet Road, or if you live on Cummings, or if you live on Riverside Ave or Parish Street, quality of life is the same throughout the community. So whether you're about a commercial district or live in purely a residential district, you have that same right for quality of life. And to think that there's no residents that live in this area, and geez, we're putting in an area that really no one's going to notice, is being shortsighted, in my opinion. I like the idea of asking the board, because we have no control over the board, but asking them to hold off their final judgment until there is a full public hearing where people can attend. And also, I've never seen, since I've been on the council, the number of variances issued for a project. It's unheard of. I've never seen that number of variance issued. And to stick a project in where, you know, we have Wegmans, you know, the Shaw site, for a number of years, people probably heard the rumors a market basket was going to go into the Shaw site. And people of the community, because Market Basket has very competitive prices, were welcoming Market Basket into the community. And from what I heard, the owners of the property, for whatever reason, kept Market Basket out. They didn't want Market Basket in there. Some of the other shopping markets didn't want the competition. and now we're stuck with 490 units, of which my kids won't be able to afford, your kids won't be able to afford, and many people in this community are priced out of even the affordable units you can't afford in these particular buildings. You know, when we sold the old schools back some years ago, we went to centralized schools, we had the unique opportunity with city-owned buildings to use for purposes we needed in the community. You know, there are purposes in the community right now. If you have a senior parent that lives in the community and they need assisted living, guess what? You got to send them out to Reading, Andover, not Method. We don't offer that in Method. You got to send your parents outside somewhere else. Senior housing. When seniors call me up and say, I'd love to get into senior housing. Well, ma'am, I'm sorry to tell you, you may be 75 years old, but there's a five-year wait. You know, these are the issues that we're confronted with in the community that we don't have. And if the city had some vision for assisted living, senior housing, more affordable housing, these are the things I think that we should have given direction to and maybe offered incentives. I realize it's private property, but offer a tax incentive asking that anyone would like to bid on assisted living would get whatever tax reduction to come into the community. These are the benefits we see, and just adding housing for the sake of adding housing over and over again really is doing nothing for our community. It's really, when you think about it, if anything, you're doing away with the commercial, who pays a higher tax rate, you're bringing in residential, which pays a lower tax rate, Eventually, when all our commercial areas are dried up to housing, which that's the way we're going, your property tax is going to go through the roof. Let me tell you, your property tax. And we already heard from the city assessor last night that the assessments are going way up again, which is another thing we're going to have to tackle soon. But again, Mr. President, I thank Councilor Lungo for offering this. I hope this is not the end, but the beginning of some discussion and dialogue. I know within the budget, the Office of Community Development, the Board of Appeals asked the mayor for an increase in their stipend because they work so hard. And I'm not doubting they work hard. I think that board does do a lot of work and, you know, they work very hard. But I would say, Mr. President, at this particular time, that I would hope that the board hold back on their final judgment until this is open and notorious throughout the entire community. There's no reason to ramrod this. Give people enough ample time to digest it, see what's going on, talk about infrastructure improvements, talk about lighting improvements in the area, pedestrian safety that we've been talking about, talk about ways that maybe we can reduce traffic flow in the area, You know, their traffic report said no traffic impact. Traffic impact? You're creating 743 parking spots, 490 units, no traffic impact. I find that hard to believe. I turn on the news tonight, Channel 5, they said over the next few years, there's going to be an additional 80,000 cars on the road because of the housing market in this particular area. So, you know, they're talking about congestion already in the roads, coupled with that, coupled with these giant projects, you know, we're just, we're gonna kill the quality of life in this community, and we're gonna get nothing in return. We got nothing in return for station landing, our taxes didn't go down, our city services didn't improve, and now we're gonna add a giant other project, yeah, and we're gonna get a million dollars in, what's the, linkage money. which goes to the city. We're going to get a million dollars in linkage, and the mayor's going to have a ball spending the linkage money, along with the council president. There's three people that spend the linkage money. And other than that, we're not going to get any benefits, other than the additional traffic, the additional smog in the city, and the addition of, in my opinion, housing that we're already overhoused in this community, and we need better use and utilization of what we currently have. So I thank you, Mr. President, for the time.
[Michael Marks]: Just a quick one. Where this council is going to have an open public meeting next week through a resolution, I would ask that the administration do a reverse 911 call. This is an extremely important meeting, Mr. President. And if they want, I would hope they do the entire city, but if they want to do just particular areas, That would be fine with me, but a reverse 9-1-1 call needs to go out to notify residents. You know, we get calls for returning your old prescriptions.
[Michael Marks]: I get three or four calls a week on things that really don't concern me. And I hear the same thing for residents. And the things that do concern me, I think we should be receiving phone calls about. And these are the important quality of life issues. So I would hope that a call go out immediately notifying people next Tuesday at 7 p.m. There's going to be a public meeting, not a hearing, a public meeting on the Locust Street project, the 490 units. And residents are more than happy to come up and voice their opinion on the project itself, Mr. President. Vice President Longo.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a great issue to talk about, during budget deliberations, which this council for the past two nights have met with department heads. A little known fact that people may not be aware of that the municipal side of the city and the school side do not pay a water and sewer bill. Now, in my opinion, water and sewer, like any other utility, should be part of the operating budget. in the city. And the annual non-payment right now of water and sewer by both the municipal and the school department results in an annual deficit of roughly $400,000 a year. And the city's quick to say, not a problem. All we do is pass this on to the ratepayers. They'll pay for it. So depending on your water consumption, it adds between $30 to $90 for each of the 14,000 meters in this community onto your water and sewer rate a year. That may not seem like a big cost, but that cost should be included within the confines of the budget. There's no reason why that should be outside of the budget. It's part of electricity bill, a gas bill, water and sewer bill, like every homeowner pays. It's part of your operating expenses. And I would ask, Mr. President, that the city and its budget deliberations include a line item in the operating side of the school and on the city side that would include operating expense for water and sewer. You know, when we talk about accountability, what better when we talk about accountability that the city knows exactly what they're using for water and sewer, and exactly what they should be paying. We talk about conservation. How can the city say, let's conserve Method residents, where they don't really care what their bill is, because they're just passing it on to you, the rate payer. And, you know, you could take a look at conservation. Any day you go out in front of City Hall, it's like Niagara Falls out there. You know, with the water sprinklers going on all day. And I think that's one of the reasons why we need to take control of this particular issue. The MWRA has a giant meter, believe it or not, and that's how they charge the city for water that's coming into the community. And roughly 19 to 20% of the water coming into our community is what they refer to as unaccounted for. And you'd say to yourself, well, how is it unaccounted for? We have a giant meter that's accounting for it. And then we have separate meters here at City Hall. We have them at the school buildings. We have separate meters in everyone's home. How do we have unaccounted for water? And there are different ways that we do have unaccounted for water. One of them is leaks through the distribution system. And the city tries to address those particular leaks within the water grid that we have. And the other is there are still some entities in the community on the municipal side and on the school side that aren't needed currently right now. And the lion's share of it is the municipal school side and the municipal and the school side. And that's what I'm trying to address through this resolution tonight. I think we have to be mindful that, you know, the ratepayers are paying enough on their water and sewer now. And just to add on the city and school side, like it's not their responsibility, To me, I have a problem with that. And I don't think anyone should be paying over and above, other than the operating costs, to run a water and sewer program, which is included in the rate payers' bills. They shouldn't be paying for this unaccounted for water. Because guess what? We can account for it. And I have a sheet in front of me, for instance, As I mentioned, it was about $400,000 in unaccounted for water. The schools are about $190,457 broken by school by school. And municipal buildings are about $43,566. Irrigation, so these are the different parks throughout the community, $152,000. And then we have the fire stations. That is $6,290. So if you add these all up, and the water commissioner voted to, we have a tiered system now, three tiers. They voted to do tier two, which is the middle of the pricing system. And that comes out to about $393,000, almost $400,000. So that would be my resolution and motion tonight, Mr. President. to have the city administration include a line item for water and sewer, and the operating expense on the municipal and on the school side in the interest of fairness, the interest of accountability, and the interest of water conservation in our community.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to give a special thanks to who provided some information to me, Mr. Dominic Camara, was very helpful. And just to touch upon what Councilor Longo mentioned, that was also a bullet point mentioning that the Water and Sewer Commission voted to approve funding for citywide leak detection. So I guess that is going to take place through maybe the MWRA leak detection program or through the assessments here in the city.
[Michael Marks]: Maybe we'll ask that during the budget to see.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And Alicia, I appreciate the time and effort, and also the gentleman next to you who appeared before the Committee of the Whole meeting. I have a little different slant on this, and I think I mentioned it at the Committee of the Whole meeting. I don't feel comfortable as an elected official dictating to residents who their supplier should be. That's, first, my fundamental difference with this. I'm all in favor of giving savings. I think that's a great concept and I think we could have some type of voluntary plan where the city goes out and procures a supplier to come in, a reputable supplier, and you get as many residents who voluntarily want to sign up and good luck to them. Second point is that this would have been an easier pill to swallow if you came to us and said, you know what? The city of Medford wants to embark on this particular plan, this aggregation plan. And we're not going to consider the residents right now. We're going to have the city embark on it. We're going to have all the municipal buildings go into this municipal aggregation. In over a two-year process, we're going to let the residents know how much money we saved as a city. And then we're going to roll out to the residents. But what we're doing is the reverse. The city's not going to get involved in this, is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: But the city is not taking part of this. So whatever is decided with this particular proposal, because there's a lot of things that have to be decided with the proposal, we can go through the organizational and role responsibility of the public entity. We can go through the degree of local control. We can go through the energy service side, renewable energy components, what percentage you want to have for renewable energy. The city's not going to partake in that. You're already out in your own little island doing whatever you're doing. So you're separating it now. You're separating the residents from the city. And I think that's a mistake. And I think whatever was done, maybe you should have included the city to take part in this as well as the residents all at once. so we could do this together. And I think that was the number one mistake that was made. Second point, when the city comes to me and says, you know what, we're going to save you money, guess what? Big red flag goes off in my head. Big red flag. Because if the city was that concerned, they would have looked at my cable bill five years ago and said, you know what, you're paying for a community access station that we haven't provided in five years. They would have saved me money then for the last five years. The city is not in the business of saving residents money. You know that as well as I know. It's just not in the business of saving residents money. So that's the second red flag in this particular proposal. The way I read it too, you mentioned about ARPA, This is from the Department of Energy Resources. It says, in a municipal aggregation, customers have the right to return to standard offer service without penalty by opting out before enrollment or up to 180 days after enrollment. Has that changed?
[Michael Marks]: So the state legislature was wise when they created this. They created an opt-out rather than an opt-in. Because if it was an opt-in, you'd probably be at 6%. You'd probably be at the reverse. So they were smart. They said, take on the masses. And then the masses aren't going to be wise enough, because they're not going to get the notification. And a majority of the people are going to stay on there, because they're not even aware that the electricity was changed. They're not even aware. So, you know, and I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I just fundamentally disagree with me deciding what someone's supply is going to be. I don't think that's my role as an elected official. I don't think I should be in that business. Secondly, we're hearing a lot about having the council take a vote, take a vote, take a vote. We don't know the cost of implementing the program. And you're saying all these other cities and towns that have already done it. The cost of implementing the program in terms of staff time, external consultants necessary to design and operate the load aggregation plan, that's number one. And then the city needs to determine whether or not if this cost outweighs what the benefit is going to be to the residents. So why isn't that presented to me first?
[Michael Marks]: Are you saying we're not going to hire a consultant?
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And who decides what percent of, uh, the, um, renewable energy is going to be part of a particular program.
[Michael Marks]: I'm asking, who makes the decision? What percentage of renewable energy will be part of this proposal?
[Michael Marks]: So someone from the city is going to say, okay, you know what? We're going to opt in as 6% renewable energy. And that's, that's great. It's a, it's a worthy cause. I get my bill and I said, wow, What's the extra cost here? Oh, renewable energy. I have to now opt out of that, right? Once I'm opted in, then I have to opt out of that portion from what you stated earlier, which is another step.
[Michael Marks]: I think the question is, residents should have the right to determine Because right now, I could determine, when I get my bill, it says, do you want to have a portion of it for renewable energy? And I make that determination. I don't want you making that determination. I don't want some bureaucrat here at City Hall making that determination, with all due respect. And that's what you're saying is going to be done right now. So whether it's a penny or a small amount or this or that, I just fundamentally, I just have a problem with this. If people want to go out in the open market, and if the city wants to assist, and trying to get as many people as possible in this city to join those other communities, then I'm sure they'll take us on. Fine, let it go that way.
[Michael Marks]: Well, we don't know. Maybe the state legislature can create a new law. But, you know, there's just too many what-ifs on this. And I'm not going to be one that's going to tell the homeowner that all of a sudden now you have to use this supplier. And we're going to have a set of eyes on it, whether it's a consultant or someone at City Hall. And we're going to try to save you as much as possible. And like Councilor Caraviello said, if things go wrong, who are they going to point the finger to, Alicia Hunt? Or are they going to call the council and say, why the hell did you vote on that? My bill is more than it was last year. Who are you to get into my business? That's what's going to happen. That's what's going to happen. And ultimately, I have a problem with this. So you're not going to get my vote. I told you this last week. So this shouldn't be a surprise to you. You're not going to get my vote on this. If you came with some facts and figures on what it's going to cost for time, staffing, consultants, and then determine what the savings is and compare that, compare to what it's going to cost us in our budget to run this, then maybe I'd take a look at it. But I'm not going to do that after the fact. I'm not going to let the horse go down the street and say, well, now we're going to determine. So, you know. Not gonna get my support tonight, but I wish you well on it.
[Michael Marks]: Alicia, if you take five minutes out of your day to do something regarding this program, that's a cost to the city and a cost to the budget. And you've already spent numerous time on this already. So to say there's no cost to the budget, is being naive, to say the least. There is a cost in the budget. There's a cost of doing business, and there's a cost for consultants, and every other underlying issue in here. There's a cost for renewable energy. You may want to do renewable energy. My mother, who can't afford to do it, may not want to do renewable energy. And she shouldn't have to opt out every time. I want to opt out of this. I want to opt out of this. You know, because we know what's going to happen. Residents aren't going to opt out. We know it. I mean, let's face it. Let's face it. That's what's going to happen. That's why the state legislature created the way they did. You opted in automatically. What a crazy idea that is. Opt everyone in. But I thank you for your time.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? Just wondering if I can ask the petitioner what type of off-street parking do you currently have?
[Michael Marks]: When you say in front of the building, on Publix Road? Oh, no.
[Michael Marks]: Roughly how many spots do you have?
[Michael Marks]: And how many bays do you have?
[Michael Marks]: Two bays?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: So much. Thank you, Mr. President. I will support this tonight. But I can tell you firsthand, I've supported the last four times we've asked for Evans Street to be repaved. And we're still in the same situation. So I would ask my colleagues tonight The mayor asked for approval of 500,000 for sidewalks. We have over 8 million in free cash that we put contingent upon the 500,000 that Evans Street be repaved. So if we make it part of that report, we know Evans Street will be repaved and we won't be getting lip service anymore. I would venture to say that Evans Street is probably in the top five worst streets in the entire city without any hesitation. And it's getting worse. And pothole patrol is really not what's needed. You need a whole new grind down and repaving of the entire street curb to curb. So I would ask that my fellow colleagues, I'll be more than happy to put that forward when we discuss the paper for $500,000 for sidewalks, that Evans Street, Pinkett Street is probably the second worst street. So it's right next door to Evans. Then you have Wicklow, you have Pleasant Street. I mean, you can go down the list of streets that are in deplorable condition, but these residents have had to deal with the street for long enough. It's a public safety concern when you drive down the street, you kick up rocks, which is a very dangerous situation. And, you know, I think that's probably the best way of doing it because just merely another recommendation from this council is going to fall with the other four or five recommendations. So I would ask that we put that on the paper that's a little further on the agenda.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. I think one of the reasons that was brought up last week, the reason why we need new sidewalks is public safety. So we can have all the great sidewalks we want. And then when a resident steps in the street into a six inch pothole line throughout the street, that's a public safety concern. I think we have to address them when we see them. And this has definitely been an issue for a number of years. The council president mentioned a number of years. I think this is the time. This, this is an emergency. This, this isn't something a wishlist would say out of the street, but like they haven't repaid. This is an emergency. Um, and I, I did the same thing. Councilor Scarpelli did. I took a walk around the neighborhood and this street, I'd venture to say is one of the top five in the city of worst streets. So you can imagine the condition it's in. So we have a motion of approval on the floor. But I'm going to do it during, as Councilor Longo said, during that paper. People want to vote for it? If not, that's fine. But the money's there, and the need is definitely there on this particular street. And residents have been waiting a long time.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Roughly, how long will this job take and when will the work be performed?
[Michael Marks]: One to two months? Yes. And what time of the day will it be done?
[Michael Marks]: So you've worked with the police department already? Because this is definitely a high-traveled area.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, maybe at some point there should be a paper added to these reports dealing with traffic impact like we do for many other things in the community. And that may be helpful to see if there is going to be an alternate route that, you know, depending on the type of work and also what manpower is needed to protect the residents of this community around the construction area. I'm not sure when we can discuss that, or maybe if it's a public safety subcommittee can discuss that issue. But I think it's an important issue, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if we could, Mr. President, while we have a representative from National Grid, I was hoping that Tim could take back to his superior the fact that this council is overdue on a report for double polls throughout the community. And if you remember, Mr. President, we were on a quarterly basis with National Grid for a period of time because of the number of double poles throughout this community. And I think over the last year, we kind of let our guard down a little bit. But if you look around the city, you're going to notice an increased number of double poles. And I realize they're not all national grid. It may be the phone company, it may be the cable company, it may be the city on some of these poles. But I'd appreciate if you could send us a report on, I know there's a, a system that's used, I forget the name of the system, where you guys log in the double polls and who's currently on it. What's the name of the system?
[Michael Marks]: There's a system. If you could generate a report on the location, how long the double poll has been there and who is on the poll, that would be helpful to this council.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, and thank you, Mr. Reed, for your presentation. Um, I'd like to hear a little more about what your thoughts are or reasoning why, if there's funding available from the MWRA, what is the biggest hurdle in this city to not moving forward on some of these projects that are so much needed in this community?
[Michael Marks]: Is it a lack of manpower? Is it a lack of leadership?
[Michael Marks]: I mean, it has to be something. You were in the department for five months. You must have some indication why.
[Michael Marks]: So ultimately, in the engineer's office, who would be responsible for making sure that Medford takes advantage of these particular loans and grants from the MWRA?
[Michael Marks]: Who in particular?
[Michael Marks]: So the chief engineer would be responsible?
[Michael Marks]: Well, you've made a lot of accusations, sir. So, you know, I don't think it's fair to... Budgets are budgets.
[Michael Marks]: No, you're not accusing, but when I'm asking the questions on where has there been a lack of communication and where is the process failed, I mean, I think those are legit questions, and you were there for five months, and that's why I'm asking these questions. Who would know best than someone that worked in the department? And if there is funding available, and we were told on many occasions, because as you mentioned, Mr. Reed, that many of these grants and programs that are run by the MWRA are lengthy in nature. And if you don't take advantage in one year, you can actually take advantage the following year on projects. as long as you have a plan in place. So I've been told in the past that the city of Medford has exhausted all the revenue or funds, I should say, available from the MWRA and even the zero interest free loans that are, I think, outside of what you've discussed regarding what's available. So I'm very concerned that if there is funding that the city is not taking advantage This council has talked ad nauseam about INI. I think we're at about 50% inflow and infiltration. It's costing the rate payers that pay water and sewer in this community millions of dollars to pay for inflow and infiltration and treat it as raw sewage. The leak detection program is another issue that we've had in this community. And so I'm very concerned. I agree with Councilor Caraviello. I think this paper should be forwarded to the city engineer for response. Um, and also if need be that, uh, the mayor get involved, uh, to find out, uh, why we're not moving forward on projects. Uh, if, if that is the case that Evans street, uh, you were working on a project on Evans street for the water main back some time ago, you're right. It wouldn't make any sense for this council to approve the repaving of Evans street if the water main wasn't done. So that's the first I'm hearing.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I think what we're seeing now is that When you looked at the last financial report, it's clear to me that Republic is not taking in the money they expected. And these are the type of things we're seeing now throughout the community, is that they're generating revenue any way they can. And you're absolutely right. You know, when you outsource a program and lose local control, this is what happens. This is exactly what happens. Because if this was done in-house, like the original recommendation, we would have total control over what happens with the program, when the ticketing takes place, and how aggressive you're going to be. We were always told by Mae McGlynn, this program is not a revenue generator. It's just to provide parking enforcement and public safety in the community. And, you know, you bet your bottom dollar that when you hire an outside company, that's not their train of thought. Their train of thought is how much money and where can we maximize our money. And so that's what we're seeing right now. This is no secret. You know, we knew this was going to happen. And when revenue starts to drop, we're going to find more and more angles that Republic is going to use to generate money. So this is just the tip of the iceberg. You know, it'd be nice if I agree with Councilor Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Longo, and Councilor Knight's recommendation about asking that they receive their money back. However, I think we should take it one step further. And we heard from the mayor tonight that seniors are gonna be allowed to pay $25 up front for a senior pass per year. And the seniors I've spoken with are still waiting for the free parking for seniors. that they were promised back some seven or eight months ago that seniors wouldn't have to pay for parking in this community. So I'm a little disappointed in the negotiations that have taken place between the administration and Republic. And I think what we're seeing right now is a company running rampant in this community and really not caring what the administration has to say or what the administration wants to do about improving the traffic enforcement in this city. So I think, Mr. President, that, you know, Councilor Caraviello, I think you called for a meeting with Republic. I'm not sure why we can't meet with them. Maybe because we don't sign the contract. We can't meet with Republic.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I think it's only appropriate now. We're the ones fielding the phone calls. We're the ones getting the emails from angry residents that are concerned why they're getting ticketed and tagged. So, I think a meeting immediately, Mr. President, is appropriate. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Brian, I appreciate the list. This is more thorough than we had two weeks before us, two weeks ago. My question to you, Brian, I don't know if it was asked two weeks ago, but how do we rate when you get a call or an email from a resident, how do we rate the sidewalk? Do we have a key of conditions that we rate it and then give it a numerical number? How do we go about this?
[Michael Marks]: So on this particular outstanding request list that you gave us, Is there a reason why they're not listed as priority one, priority two, priority three?
[Michael Marks]: So we don't even know from this current list what might be a minor repair, you know, a hairline fracture. in the cement or something that requires, you know, a panel being raised because of a tree root. So we don't know the extent of what's on this list.
[Michael Marks]: I guess what I'm getting at is I don't think anyone behind this reeling is opposed to doing sidewalks over. But I could just state from previous experience, it was back in 2012 when I believe it was Jack Buckley was the DPW commissioner. that he came before us, he asked for the exact amount, 500,000, for sidewalk repairs. He didn't present any supporting documentation at the time, and the council asked that he go back and provide a thorough list of what work needs to be done, where the locations are, the age of the request, and he did that back in 2012. And I have a copy of it in front of me. And, uh, it's color coded. And let me just state that, uh, he provides us a key and I'm not sure why it would change from one DPW director to the next DPW director, unless you come up with a much better way of tracking. Then I can see why you changed the reporting, but I could just tell you from the two reports that I received, uh, the one back in 2012, uh, clearly delineates. what has minor repair, what has poor, what they consider poor, and major. And to me, that gives you at least an indication what you need to go after. On your list, there's no indication. I mean, you yourself just said we really didn't have the manpower to go out and do a thorough review of each of these sidewalks. This is just a report. So anyone can call and say my sidewalk is awful. Okay, with your name, address, ma'am, and they go on the list. So, you know, I still don't understand what we're going to accomplish on this list. Are we going to be replacing sidewalks that have a hairline fracture? I mean, is that what the intention is of this $500,000?
[Michael Marks]: So, Brian, I don't want to cut you off, but what do we, because I've been hearing this year after year after year, what do we tell residents when they call up? And they say, okay, I have a concern with my sidewalk. Doesn't it make sense to go out to the sidewalk, investigate it, then get back to the resident and say, ma'am, you know what? We noticed you do have, you can't eat off your sidewalk. There is a hairline fracture, but in the list of priorities, you're not at the top priority. Your sidewalk probably won't be done for several years. people led to believe this sidewalk is going to be done that may have a hailing fracture, and it never gets done. You know what I'm saying?
[Michael Marks]: What happened with the inspectors?
[Michael Marks]: They retired? They let go? You don't know?
[Michael Marks]: You know, Mr. President, I honestly, I'm tossed between approving this and not approving it. And I just don't understand how we can go based on this list that really doesn't prioritize sidewalks. I don't know how you do it. And I don't know how in good faith I could tell a resident that may be on this list that you may or may not get your sidewalk done depending on what. I can't tell them depending on what. I don't know. I mean, I really don't understand. This list that I'm not trying to compare you with Mr. Buckley, but this list of the past that we asked for, I don't know if you've seen this. It's DPW outstanding request. This was July 31st, 2009 to February 7th, 2012. But there is a key on this that really describes the nature of the sidewalk. And I can better understand what's gonna be done based on this color code. And to me it's very helpful. I don't know if you can, that would mean you'd have to review all these sidewalks. One by one council. That's correct. What do we do, Mr. President for future reference? Do we ask that a sidewalk be reviewed ahead of time before we get a list of sidewalks that need replacing? I mean, to me that makes sense. You know, don't present me with a list if it's not a list of sidewalks that are going to be replaced. You know, have a separate list. Have three lists out there, but have one that we're going to get through. You know, this — I don't know what's going to be done on this list. You know, this — you know, I don't know what to do, Mr. President. I don't feel I have all the information in front of me with this list. I don't feel comfortable just allocating $500,000 and say, spend it as need be. You know, we're the fiscal watchdogs. I don't feel comfortable with that. I'm going to wait to see what some of my colleagues have to say. But based on the list we presented tonight, I don't think I have adequate information to go forward and approve a half a million dollars.
[Michael Marks]: I think Councilor Lungo-Curran brought up a great suggestion about the 192 tree stumps which include panels, sidewalk panels. So I think that's a great suggestion. I would also ask my fellow colleagues that You know, if we do move approval on this, that we send a message or at least request from here on in that every sidewalk be reviewed and then graded, Mr. President. So in the future, it might not happen now, but in the future, we have a report that we can look at. You know, it's easy to say, let's just move forward. But guess what? We're accountable to the residents of this community and the taxpayers. And that's taxpayer money. That's a half a million dollars. and taxpayer money, and from a business perspective, we should be able to look at it and say, here's a half a million, this is what we're getting. This is not rocket science. It's not rocket science. And not one person behind this reel can tell me, this is what we're getting. Not one person. So I don't think this is, you know, something that we should be.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. I don't think it's something that We're asking that's out of the ordinary. I don't think, you know, it puts a strain on the department. If Mr. Kearns, which I believe tells me that staffing's low, then that needs to be addressed because next time we're going to be faced with the same list of sidewalks that need to be done, and we're not going to know what needs to be done, Mr. President. Where does it stop? The buck stops here with this council. So, yeah, it's easy to approve. I mean, you can put a paper, I'll approve everything. But it's our job to be the gatekeepers, Mr. President. That's what our role is, not just to approve. You can get seven monkeys to approve. Our job is to be the gatekeepers and make sure that we're operating like you'd operate any other Fortune 500 company. And that's what we should be operating the city like, Mr. President. So if we put a contingent on this particular proposal, whether it's Council Longo's, which I agree, but that the next reporting that the city, they'll have to hire someone if they don't have someone to manage it, the city, when they get a call for a sidewalk, that the sidewalk be immediately looked at and graded, Mr. President, like was done in previous years.
[Michael Marks]: It would be an amendment to this paper, Mr. President, because without it, I can't support any more work done, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: They're just placed. So you, you put in a C-Click fix, you get on the sideline list.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, a little while ago, I mentioned that I was going to ask that Evans Street be put on this for a complete repaving. And then we heard from the gentleman that worked in the engineer's office saying that there's probably a need for a major water main and gas main on Evans Street. So at this point, it doesn't make sense to ask for a major repaving. But I would ask, Mr. President, that the city administration, as a CPAPA, look into whether or not a complete water main and gas main needs to be replaced on Evans. And if so, that that work be done immediately. And then we can discuss the repaving of the street, which will probably be part of that work anyways.
[Michael Marks]: Sidewalks be assessed.
[Michael Marks]: That is regarding Evans Street and the water main.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Officer Tarantino actually grew up on Alexander Ave here in South Medford and went to the Kennedy School and also played youth baseball in the city of Medford. So Ron, in addition to his father being with the Medford Police Department for a number of years, also grew up in our community and he was a great police officer and he'll be sorely missed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Before you do that, I think a resident wants to speak. I think a resident wanted to speak on the committee of the whole report.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Anne Fretz for her thorough minutes that she presented to the council. based on a very lengthy and very important public safety summit that this council has called for for the past several years. And I want to thank you, Mr. President, for finally organizing this, because it is an important issue. This issue not only is for safety within the community, it's also to get a handle prior to the budget on what is needed to provide police protection in our community. And I think we heard loud and clear, at least I did, from Chief Sacco that there were a number of things he'd like to accomplish. However, his budget has been level funded at the very best over the last several years. And things he'd like to accomplish, like possibly having a separate truck unit in the community to pull over 18 wheelers that are going through our community. at great clips of speed. He would like to do this, but can't afford it because we don't have the manpower and the current manpower aren't trained to pull over these 18-wheelers and check the weight and the equipment they're driving with, if they have chemicals on board, and also their logs and so forth. So that was one issue that the chief mentioned he would like to have additional staff. It was also brought up at the meeting regarding the Mystic River and how many years ago you never really saw many people on the Mystic. On the upper Mystics you would, but the lower Mystics you never saw many people on. And now we have the Medford High School row team on the Mystic River. And one of the questions I brought up was regarding if we have, in case of emergency, a quick response to getting to anyone that's on the Mystic. And Chief Sacco said that really the police department's ill-equipped to handle an emergency on the Mystic. And the fire department does have a small boat that they would use. And largely, we would depend on the state police, who happen to be on the other side of the locks, to come to an emergency. on the Mystic River. And that was an issue of concern that was raised. One thing that Ann didn't mention is the fact that this council, and we've even had, I know Councilor Scarpelli had just recently, along with Councilor Caraviello and myself, a Committee of the Whole meeting, I'm sorry, a subcommittee meeting to discuss concerns with the bus stop in front of the Oasis and the need to create a truck area that would allow for deliveries, and also the corner of Harvard and Maine, which has been a concern about trucks parking on the sidewalk. And to date, and this has been going on for quite some time, to date, we have yet to address any of the concerns posed by the residents to keep trucks off of the corner of Harvard and Maine. So that has also been a concern, Mr. President. The one thing I would like to mention is that, you know, every community is faced with priorities. And in this community, it's easy to say, well, we don't have the funding. Oh, we can't afford to do this. We can't afford to do that. But when you have $8 million sitting in what I refer to a free cash account, you can call it a rainy day account, you can call it anything you'd like, but it's $8 million of taxpayer money sitting in an account that could be used for whatever the community considers a priority. And I think public safety has to be in the top one or two priorities for a community. And I'm getting tired of hearing, well, we don't have the manpower. We'd like to go out and enforce that, but we don't have the manpower. Or we'd like to do speed radar, we don't have the manpower. And, you know, I think that story is getting a little old. When taxes go up every year, and people are paying more and more on their taxes, and you're getting less and less for city services, I think, you know, we have to know what the priorities are of the administration. And clearly, public safety has taken a back seat in this community. So I'm happy that the meeting was called for the Public Safety Summit. I do, like Councilor Lungo-Koehn, wish that there were more ways to notifying residents by putting it up on the city website, reverse 911, putting it on maybe the government channel and the education channel to get the word out. But there was very little done to promote this particular very important meeting about public safety. The other issue that was brought up is the fact that we have to have better communications with the police department. And that is on behalf of The residents that I've spoken with would like to see an increased presence in the neighborhoods, and would like to see community policing brought back. And that was one thing we mentioned to Chief Sacco, and he said, well, there's a lot of different aspects of community policing, and we're currently doing some of them. But my vision of community policing is when an officer rides by on a bicycle in a neighborhood, or an officer is down in the square checking doors in businesses after hours to make sure that they're locked or to make sure that, you know, the parks are safe, to make sure that there is a presence in the community and not just a drive-by. As I told you, Mr. President, when I took a bike ride a couple of weeks ago, it's amazing what you can see in this community when you're not just doing a drive-by and when you happen to take the time either to walk or on a bicycle and you can see things at a very different perspective than you can when you're driving by. And I think that's what residents are feeling right now. They may see the occasional police car drive by, but they're not seeing the presence that they come to expect in this community. And, you know, I just can't buy the fact that Manning is so low that we can't perform these basic, basic tasks and basic city services. We took a large majority of, in my opinion, the workload from the police department, which was to issue tickets. And we said, you know what? We want to free you up from that issuing tickets. And that's not your job. Your job is to go out there, to be part of the community, and to prevent crime in our community. And I think I'd like to see more in that way. And I'm hoping that in this budget that whatever recommendations the chief made, unlike prior years, that the administration take a long look at each department head's wish list to make sure that it's not just a wish, but it's something that actually comes to fruition. And, you know, I hate to see the chief go through the motions of creating a wish list and nothing ever happened. And that's been the case over the last several years, not with just the police, with every single department in this community. So I want to thank Anne Fretz again for giving us that in-depth minutes. And I want to thank the council president for calling for this meeting. And I hope this is one of just many meetings throughout the course of the year, Mr. President, so we can stay in tune with public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Public safety is not redundant. It's important. Let me just state, Mr. President, I don't know if you read my article about four or five weeks ago in the paper, but I asked residents if they thought their neighborhood was safe and to respond back on several questions that I asked. And I was pleased to say that I received dozens of emails from residents who gave quite lengthy explanations on why or why not they thought their neighborhood was safe in ways that they believe method could improve on public safety in the community. Uh, so I told residents that it took the time to reach out to me that I would put this on the council agenda and I would go through each and every email and, um, make a list of concerns that residents had in our community. And as I stated a couple of weeks ago during an issue, uh, that we were talking about public safety, um, I was quite, uh, surprised, uh, because I thought the article that I wrote was going to, um, elicit responses of people feeling unsafe in their neighborhood, people feeling that there are an abundance of crime-related issues going on in this community. And exactly, it was the total reverse. And I'd say probably roughly 90% to 95% of the responses I received were not towards crime-related issues, but towards pedestrian safety issues. And for the most part, people in this community felt very unsafe traversing on city sidewalks and on city streets in this community. And I'd just like to go through a few, Mr. President. I won't be lengthy, but I think this merits, because I'm not aware of many polls the city sends out to find out what's going on in the community and ways of improving the community. Although there's been a lot of transition teams set up, But I haven't seen any responses really back from these transition teams or anything really done with these transition recommendations. But I'd like to go through a few, Mr. President, because residents mentioned to me that speeding traffic interferes with their ability to enjoy our neighborhoods. And traffic calming approaches, which is something that I've spoken about for the last several years, is a way of redesigning streets to slow down traffic, resulting in safer streets, returning the streets back to our neighborhoods. And there were a number of residents that really took the time to explain what they thought a safe neighborhood was all about in regards to pedestrian safety. And many of the issues that were mentioned to me via email, and I did have a few phone calls because I gave that option also, but mostly emails. people offered suggestions and I know one was, why don't we have more of the raised crosswalks throughout the community? And that's been something I know this council and I've personally worked on and raised crosswalks do have a traffic calming way to them. They reduce the pedestrian crossing distance. They improve visibility. And they also slow down speeding cars. And that was one thing that was mentioned. Why don't we have more? And I'm not quite sure why we don't have more, to be honest with you, in this community. Not just on major roads, but throughout our neighborhoods that are experiencing speeding. There was also talk about curb extensions. And curb extensions are just a way of making it quicker for a pedestrian to cross a street. It also narrows the pathway down for cars, and cars and drivers will inherently slow down because it's a narrower path. And many of these approaches are done by surrounding communities. As I mentioned many times, we don't have to recreate the wheel. If you go on the City of Cambridge website, they'll walk you through step one, step two, step three. They've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, thousands of hours to put together reporting on safe streets. and ways to improve pedestrian safety. And we don't need to recreate the wheel. We can actually go in and steal some of their ideas. And, you know, I think that would go a long way to improving some of the concerns that residents raised. There was also a lot of concern about, which this council has discussed ad nauseam, about vehicles parking on sidewalks, safe routes to school. I know there was something developed. I know we have two former school committee people. There was something developed by the school department, but residents were looking for something that was more widely known in the community and better routes to involve the entire community. There was also talk about the broken sidewalks, which I'm hoping this council will address very shortly with a bond appropriation. Crossing lights that are broken throughout the community. Crosswalks not clearly marked. We're almost in June, so think about it. We're almost six months, almost a half a year into the year, and our crosswalks still are not painted. Or I should say a majority of them still are not painted. They also mentioned about poor lighting in many parts of the community, in particular some of the business districts at night. I know the hillside area was mentioned on several emails about poor lighting, and even in Medford Square, although there's been some improvement to the lighting in Medford Square. They've talked about signage faded or misdirected, so they'll have a sign that tells you no left turn, but you could take a left turn there. or they'll have a sign that's too far back, a stop sign, so you don't know if you have to stop or not. So these are the things that are being brought up. And we heard from Chief Sacco, Mr. President, the other day. And I find this very interesting because I called for this years ago. The Traffic Commission does yeoman's work. And you have the chief of police who runs a very, very busy department. He's involved with internal investigations. He's involved with community outreach. He's involved with running a large, very important 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week department. And to have him the head of the traffic division, I'm sorry, traffic commission, to me does that position an injustice. Not that the chief is not a very worthy person to sit on that, but that really should be someone that can dedicate a good majority of their time to move these issues forward, to go out and do the research, I mean, the traffic commission just doesn't sit back and listen. They have to go out in the street, do the research, and a lot of the committee members do yeoman's work. But I really believe that that traffic commission needs to be looked at in the way it's defined, and possibly maybe have the chief as an ex officio member and not as the chairman of it. Because even in his own opinion, he said that's a lot of work, a lot of time, and it's very time consuming. to do the right job. It's extremely time consuming. So and then potholes and other issues were mentioned about safety. The crime related side of it was a lot less, as I mentioned. People thought there should be better communication between the police and the community as a whole. Residents were concerned that there's not enough available crime statistics reported. And I know Councilor Falco brought this up about possibly having crime statistics citywide and by neighborhood. And right now that doesn't exist, or if it does exist, it's not adequate enough to give people enough information on what's actually happening in the community. So that was a big concern of residents. Residents would also like to see neighborhood crime watch groups throughout the entire city that would communicate. They also mentioned about community policing, and would like to see a larger police presence within the neighborhoods. They mentioned about late-night solicitors. We do have a no-knock ordinance in the community. It covers everyone except for religious and political groups, I believe. We can't put any type of regulation on religious and political groups. But I can tell you firsthand, living in the Wellington area, right around dinner time, you can almost expect your door's going to ring with someone at your door. And it seems to be, in my opinion, the cable wars. One night I'll have Comcast, the next night Verizon's there. It goes back and forth. It's crazy how they do it. So that, I believe, needs to be taken seriously also. And also at the monthly community policing meeting that they mentioned, there needs to be a better exchange of info. Residents who attend this meeting said it appears to be just a venting So people go in and vent and never receive any feedback from the police department on ways to improve public safety in this community, helpful tips on improving policing or how to prevent you from being a victim of robbery or assault or anything else, home burglary. And they would like to see more communication rather than just a venting session. So those are the things that were brought up, Mr. President. I appreciate you allowing me to have the time, but this is a very important subject, and we may all feel safe in the community now, but safety could be like the wind. And it's important that we stay on top of this. It's important that we provide the financial backing to allow our police department to have the latest and greatest equipment, and also the latest and greatest facility, which we currently know is inadequate right now. and needs to be replaced. So, I appreciate it again, Mr. President. And I thank all those residents who reached out to me and took the time to explain what was going on in their neighborhood. And I'm hoping some of this will carry through to budget. I know it will with me. And some of my recommendations will be based on what I — what feedback I received from residents. So, thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. And, uh, I happen to have been on the council when this came forward. And when originally the Field of Dreams was in its infancy, there was a salt tower, as we all remember, which was going to pay for the field and the upkeep of the field. And that fell through. And at the time, I recall the mayor, it was Mayor McGlynn at the time, stating that they're going to be able to get a fair amount of revenue from the Field of Dreams, Edgeley Field. And that was going to pay for the bond and the interest, as well as any maintenance costs. So I'm not sure where along the line people in this community had a lapse of memory, because the superintendent the other night was at a public safety meeting, and he indeed said the same thing. And he even put it in an email to a resident that was kind enough to take the notes for the meeting, and Mr. Belson corrected the resident. And if I could just read it, Mr. President, it says, the payment for the bonded indebtedness is always paid from the municipal account. For some unknown reason, the Edgeley Field Bond was charged the school account. Now, I don't know why the superintendent has a lapse of memory, but he was superintendent at the time, And when this issue was going on, it was known. This wasn't a secret how the bond was going to be paid for. It was going to be paid through the revenues generated through the field. And I even have a copy, if anyone would like to take a look at it, boston.com, July 28, 2010. And the article's entitled, Field of Dreams Set for August Opening. And it says, the city which footed the roughly $2 million bill for the fields expects to recoup much of the money it laid out by renting the facility during the fall, spring, and summer seasons. McGlynn said the rental fees will eventually help the city pay for the bond it took out to pay for the fields. So this is not, I think people are trying to say something's wrong here. The superintendent alluded to the fact that this has never happened before for some unknown reason. Maybe I missed something, but it wasn't unknown to me when I took the vote that this was going to be paid back by the revenues generated. Now, if the revenues aren't enough to pay for it, according to the Director of Administration and Finance, in her letter dated May 9, 2016, in the Facility Financial Activity Review, she quite emphatically states, operationally, the fund is able to cover expenses with revenue. However, the bond interest and principal payments are not sustainable by the fund, and as reflected, have eaten away at any balance created the first year of operation. Efforts are underway with City Hall to identify funding to redirect and structure the debt payments. So apparently, that's already happening because the city administration gave $93,000 to the school department. I didn't vote on it. I didn't hear about it until I read it in this report. So apparently there's money shifting back and forth. And so I'm not quite sure that the issue is whether or not the school side has to pick up the bond indebtedness. I think that's a given, in my opinion. The fact is that the fields may not be generating the revenue that was anticipated. And that's fine. And if we have to look to pay for this bond another way, then we need to come forward and say that, but not to come out and say, uh, for some unknown reason, because the superintendent's a smart man. And, uh, you know, I, I think there are other smart people in this community and other people with memories. And I have a good long memory of what took place. Edgeley Field in fiscal 2015 generated $210,480. FY16 generated $172,982. So clearly, that is not enough to pay for the maintenance and the bond indebtedness. But, Mr. President, it's clearly the responsibility of the school side to pay for this. I have no reservation about that. And if the discussion needs to be had with the school department and the school committee, then they should have those discussions. But that's not trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and say that this was never a topic, it was never intended to be paid for by the school committee, by the school department, because that is quite emphatically untrue. And we all received a copy of the RFP. And I guess there was just another one voted on recently. But I found it quite amazing, Mr. President, that this entity that may put up the bubble structure on Edgeley Field for the winter months, the city is going to charge them $75,000 in rental for those months. And I find it quite amazing that if you do the math, and I did it on the back of a sheet with a pencil, so it's not exact. But if you look at the hours that are in the RFP and the days that are in the RFP that this outside entity has control of the facility, it comes out to roughly $62.25 an hour. So that's what the city of Medford's saying, OK, you want to go back there and practically own our whole edge of the field? We're going to charge you $62.25. The amazing part about it, Mr. President, Councilor Scarpelli could probably speak better than I could on it. Method Yutzaka is currently paying, I believe it is $75 per hour for Edgeley Field. And under this RFP, and the way I understand it is, The fees aren't cemented yet, so I guess they haven't really figured it out yet. But the RFP calls for rentals to groups affiliated with the city of Medford. And the Medford Public Schools would pay $145 per hour. So here we are. The residents bonded this. We all gave our money to put up $2 million to bond it. It's our edge of the field. We're going to take it. We're going to give it to an outside entity. And we're going to have that outside entity make money off our bond that the residents paid for by charging our students, our youth groups, double the price to rent the fields. It just doesn't make any sense, Mr. President. You know, if we want to get into the business of utilizing that field year round and put our own bubble, we should have that discussion then. Let's talk about it. But to outsource it to an outside entity, after the residents of this community are paying for the bond and then charging our own students and our own residents double the fee to use the field is a fleecing of the taxpayers of this community, Mr. President. There's no other way of stating it. And, you know, more needs to be done on this. I know the school committee is moving forward on this. But let me tell you, more needs to be done on this. More needs to be looked at. And the way I understand it is these prices don't even include the heating of the bubble.
[Michael Marks]: Well, that may be the case. I didn't see that. It's a rather large RFP. I didn't see that, but, uh, the fee has doubled, uh, unless it gets changed again, who knows? But I, as one member of this council, I'm not going to sit by, uh, after the residents are paying for this $2 million bond, giving it to an outside community, uh, an outside entity, uh, to make money off our residents. That's what's happening. They're making money off our residents. And then in 10 years, according to the contract, we own the bubble. You know what the bubble's going to look like in 10 years from now? The bubble's going to be burst in 10 years from now. It's not something we're going to want to inherit in 10 years from now. So we really need to take a closer look at this. I thank Councilor Lungo-Koehn. I hope we get answers on this immediately, because this is taxpayer money that's being expended. In the interest of our youth sports, in the interest of our sports at Medford High School, this needs a closer scrutiny before it gets approved, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And just one other aspect of the very lengthy RFP. It also states that this outside entity will be responsible for any snow removal leading up to the site. And in the case they don't provide snow removal, the city of Medford will provide snow removal and then get reimbursed. So that's great. We're going to have our manpower getting off the streets and doing what they need to do, freeing up the schools and and doing parking lots and everything else to go clean this for a men's soccer league that has nothing to do with the city. So there's a lot of things in here, Mr. President. If we start going through it line by line, I don't see how this is paying off for our community.
[Michael Marks]: So thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Mack Maskey was a fixture in this community for a number of years. He was a great family man, and he is gonna solely be missed. And Dorothy Selfridge was very active in the community also, and she lived on Warren Street and had a number of sons, and they were just a great family. And again, she will be solely missed.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think some of the initial concern was raised by a resident that went down to the building department and reviewed the building plans and plot plans for that particular piece of property. And there was some notes put on the plot plan, I believe it was, that said, this is not a buildable lot. A lot cannot be built on. And they were handwritten notes. I know, if I could just make my point. And I think at the time, and this is going back many years ago, is that someone from the building department went down and looked at it and said, based on this tree, this beech tree that's 125 years old that was probably there before many of the homes in the area, that in his opinion, you couldn't build Because the lot with that tree on it wasn't big enough to put a house. But legally, I guess, from what I was told by John Bavuso, is that lot meets every requirement as a buildable lot. And that was some of the confusion, because that was the original email I sent out on behalf of the resident.
[Michael Marks]: And just the other point I have, Mr. President, is that In addition to the tree, which I agree, I mean, that tree makes up the very fabric of that neighborhood. It's like the tree, the magnificent tree across from St. Joseph's School that's been on that front lawn for 150 years. And I don't know what the type of tree it is, but it's a beautiful, the leaves come out purple. It's just a beautiful tree. It's on private property. I could see why neighbors would get upset, but I think some of the concern I have also is with, I went by the other day and I noticed the curb cuts on Metcalf. And I'm under the impression that if there is another house built at the corner, that they're going to be petitioning for curb cuts on Walnut.
[Michael Marks]: That's what I'm under the impression. And, uh, you know, I think this is some of the concern, uh, it's tight neighborhood to park already. Um, as everyone is aware of and anytime you take, even if it's just a few spots of parking, especially in Metcalfe, it makes a big difference to the neighborhood. Although he did put a number of, uh, surface slots on his own property. Um, there still is a concern in the area, but, um, I'm not sure what can be done for the tree itself, not to make light of it, but I've seen some unique shows on A&E where they make beautiful tree houses. And I was thinking maybe if we could make a combination house with the tree somehow, maybe be the centerpiece when you walk in, something to that effect that we may be able to come to a compromise.
[Michael Marks]: I thought so.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President, um, many people may not be aware, but, uh, our building commission has been out with, uh, um, surgery, uh, and, uh, hope he recovers quickly. And I personally would like to thank, uh, solicitor Romley. because he stepped up to the plate on a number of issues to address things that maybe are out of his purview. And he's done a great job, and I know this is one of them that he stepped up to assist the residents. It may not be the answer the residents wanted, but at least they got some answers. And I just want to personally thank Solicitor Rumley.
[Michael Marks]: Councilman Miles. Thank you, Mr. President. I remember when DOT was before us and one of the questions that was asked regarding construction equipment. We had concern that equipment would be moved off the roadway during certain hours of non-work. But one of the questions that was asked was about power washing of buildings and windows in the area. To date, Mari, have you seen any power washing? I know you may. So that was one day that they cleaned windows? And the construction's been going on for, since October. So, Mr. President, as part of whatever recommendations, and I agree with the signage, that's important. I think we have to note, Mr. President, that when DOT came in, I think the city really could have played hardball at the time. This was a huge disruption to traffic flow, to businesses, to residents, to people catching the bus, you name it. And we allowed a temporary bridge to cross private property. We allowed them to put up barriers in front of well-established businesses, crippling these businesses in the area. No one, to be quite honest with you, wants to walk down by that area. And I can see how this is going to have an impact. And I wish I could tell you it's going to end soon. And as you know, it's going to be for a while out there. So I would ask, Mr. President, that I know when we ask them to come before us, they come and they don't really give us any answers, or they years us to death. And, you know, I'm not sure what the next step is. This council a while back recommended that we halt the project. and have the building commissioner go out there and put a cease and desist in that particular area until we get hard fact answers on some of the concerns that are being raised. And at the time, I thought it was a great suggestion, but I'm not sure if the city has the stomach to do that, Mr. President. But I can tell you, if I was in the corner office, that would be the first thing I'd do on behalf of the business owners and the residents of this community. And it's not to stop progress, and it's not to stop the Craddock Bridge, which we all know needs to be done. It's to make sure that we're looking out for the interest of our community. And I don't see that happening. I really don't. You can appoint all the point people you want, but I don't see any of the major issues being followed through. And lastly, Mr. President, When they did the Fast 14 project out here through the square, one of the largest building projects, highway building projects in bridge repair in this state's history. It happened over several months. It was a minor disruption. And the contractor, which was hired by the state, paid mitigation money to the city. and we repaved Hormel Stadium. I think we bought some new police cruises. We did a number of things with that mitigation money. They had a senior picnic because the seniors had to listen to the disruption and so forth. And now we have a gentleman that's practically, you already told us, he lost his afternoon business. He's being practically put out of business and the state will not discuss, the state said we do not pay mitigation. When they did the big project 93, they paid all those particular businesses, Techie and all the businesses going along 93 when they did the big dig. They all got mitigation money and they looked at their records and saw that the business went down during this particular period of time. And they paid the business owners, and rightfully so, Mr. President. And here we have a business owner in the city that the state won't even entertain it, saying they don't pay mitigation. I just find that difficult to swallow, Mr. President. And, you know, we're not against progress, but we're against local businesses. It's tough enough in the square to make business. And when you have a project like this and hurting these local people that are really trying to stick it out. Right? But, Mara, you're trying to stick it out there. You're trying to — it's a matter of day to day. It's a matter of day to day for these businesses. And, you know, I'm really at wit's end with this, Mr. President. And I can't imagine having a business for two and a half to three years put up with this type of debris, dirt, construction, barriers, and you name it, every day. I can't imagine. So I think we have to ask again, and it was unanimous vote last time, unanimous vote by this council for a cease and desist. But if councils aren't ready to vote on that, or if they'd rather discuss this with the administration, I think we should discuss it with the mayor first. The mayor has a lot of leverage with different state departments, in particular DOT. And I think we should call for a meeting with the mayor, Mr. President, to discuss this issue.
[Michael Marks]: So I look for your leadership, Mr. President, to set something up.
[Michael Marks]: What are your anticipated hours of operation? I know what they say on the paper.
[Michael Marks]: And do you anticipate how many cars can you fit on your exterior lot for parking on the exterior lot?
[Michael Marks]: Did you ever anticipate using the street to podcast?
[Michael Marks]: So I know recently there was a driveway put in from Riverside to that back part of the property. Do you anticipate using that as an entrance, also? Or is that?
[Michael Marks]: So you'd be using the front entrance and not the riverside. And that is your property. Also that driveway that's there, that's currently goes all the way.
[Michael Marks]: And you're moving all your current equipment into that site.
[Michael Marks]: And, uh, the paint fumes and all that stuff that requires elevated stacks and so forth.
[Michael Marks]: So who actually governs that? Who actually issues a permit for the painting? Is that a separate?
[Michael Marks]: So the building department and that has not been done as of yet.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. I wish you well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We all know Magoon Park was done over less than a year ago. And all four basketball rims at the park, which the basketball court area was done magnificently. Each of the little eye loops that hold the net on are all broken off. I don't know if that's from hanging on the rim, or if it's intentionally done, but without the eye loops, you can't string a net, and it's not fun playing without a net on a basketball rim, I can tell you that firsthand. So I would ask that the Pac department go out there immediately and replace the rims at Magoon Pac on all four basketball rims.
[Michael Marks]: We did get a lot of time a year. We did get a lot of email traffic, Mr. President. And it's unfortunate that, uh, it's groundhog day. Once again, in this community, we revisit the same issues over and over and over every year. rather than addressing them, creating meaningful policy to follow in this community, we just revisit the same issue. It's from August to September, April to May. I hate to isolate certain areas, but In particular, up the hillside, it's when I get the phone calls and the emails that students start to put out mattresses on the sidewalks, old furniture, trash, debris, nothing in barrels at all, which we all know the new barrel program, they won't pick anything up. Mattresses you have to call on, and they will come out. And I think we have to, in addition to stepping up code enforcement throughout the whole community, in particular in the Tufts neighborhood and all those streets, Mr. President, we have to do a better job in finding — it's tough to go after the students, but finding the property owners. You know, once we start hitting the property owners in their pocket, they'll make sure that their tenants are abiding by the rules and regulations. Also, I think Tufts University has to do a better job in policing their students. And I don't want to say they're all tough students that are dumping, but in this particular area, there are a majority of students that do it every year. This is nothing new. Every year, we feel the phone calls and neighbors say, how would you like to look at a mattress that's been out there for three weeks? And waste management won't pick it up. The city refuses to pick it up. There's TVs outside and curbs. It really is deplorable. And I wouldn't want this next to my house, and no resident should have to live like this. And I would ask that the city administration create a policy, Mr. President, regarding illegal dumping, in particular in the Tufts neighborhood, the Tufts area, and code enforcement start to get out there and start enforcing some of the rules and regulations that prohibit dumping on the sidewalk, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So by finding them, that'll help one aspect. And maybe we forget Barbara Rubel, who's the Tufts liaison to the city, help and sit down with this community on ways we can improve communication and have students abide by the rules and regulations. And you know, the one resident that mentioned Council of Penta, for all his different resolutions, he offered a suggestion a few years ago about cleanup week. And he said, why not have the city once or twice a week and once or twice a year actually at the time. He said, go out in trucks, let residents know you'll be in their neighborhood, and you can dump whatever you want in the back of our trucks. And I thought it was a great solution to getting rid of some items that may be tough to get rid of. And that would probably be a great idea for the Tufts neighborhood to have trucks out there during these times when they move in and when they move out, roaming the area. You know, it only improves our community and the quality of life of residents. So I would offer that, Mr. President, also that the city look at the clean it week or two week or whatever it may be that was offered some time back. I think it's a great suggestion.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Thank you. You know, that's a great suggestion. And it was back some probably five, six, seven years ago. We had a great debate with Tufts University about asking them if we can get notification where students live off campus. And at the time, Mr. President, I don't know if anyone remembers that debate, but I do. They refused to give out any information on any student living off campus that let us know who was living on the Method side or the Somerville side in Tufts housing, but not off campus. And that was one of the reasons we were trying to address ways we can contact students and possibly update them if Tufts is not doing a good job about city codes and enforcement and so forth. But maybe we could try that process again. But they were adamant back some years ago they would not release.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, the electronic speeding sign that is located on High Street right before Brooks School, if you're going up towards the square, is not functioning. And I know in this community, I'm hearing from a lot of different residents regarding pedestrian safety. And these are the initiatives that this council has been pushing forward. the electronic speed signs, raised crosswalks, widening sidewalks, thermoplastic crosswalks, and it's disheartening when you see something that was put up recently that's not functioning. And it's a real concern, Mr. President. You know, we've been talking about painted crosswalks, why we can't get them painted. A third of this year is already over, and our crosswalks are still not painted. I'm not sure, like, when do you do them? It just doesn't make any sense. You know, and, you know, I It seems sometimes they're done with chalk instead. Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, you know, I wrote an op-ed piece in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago regarding do you feel safe in your neighborhood? And let me tell you, the comments that I was expecting to get, and I'm going to make a presentation before this council, but the comments I was expecting to get regarding break-ins and car break-ins and home invasions and so forth are not the comments I received. It's pedestrian safety comments over and over and over and over again throughout the entire community. And that's the feedback that I'm getting. And this council, and I can speak for myself and my colleagues, we've been pushing for pedestrian traffic calming initiatives. And for some reason, even when they do implement something, the sign breaks within a year or the crosswalk never gets repainted. You know, these are basic things in a community. And, you know, if there wasn't a fatality on this street of this community, I'd say, you know what, we're doing a great job. But indeed, if you look over the past 15 to 20 years, there's been a number of fatalities on Method Roads in this community. And not all of it's due to a lack of signage and faded crosswalks. But let me tell you, It's largely a part of the city not pushing forward initiatives like they do in Cambridge. You go on the Cambridge website, they have a whole section under their traffic division of traffic calming approaches. We don't need to recreate the wheel. We can go and steal all their ideas, Mr. President. They hired consultants. They went through thousands, tens of thousands of dollars. And you know what? We have all this information in front of us. And for whatever reason, and I don't think it's funding, because where there's a will, there's a way, we just don't move forward on these initiatives. We'll create a bike path that leads to nowhere on a road, but we won't do the basic pedestrian traffic initiatives that need to be done. And I know that's a long way around this particular speeding sign being out, You know, I took a bike ride Saturday. And let me tell you, Mr. President, walking, you probably see a lot. Bike riding, you see a lot. When you're in a car, you see very little. You drive by things and you don't recognize anything for some reason. Maybe it's tunnel vision. But let me tell you, a lot of the things that I noticed just driving my bike around was eye-opening. And maybe some of the city administration around here should take a bike ride and see what's going on in this community. But that's all I have to offer, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, please. Just if I could, because, you know, I read about the Complete Streets, and I think that's great. Some of its funding, it might be yearly funding, or it might be funding that dries up after a few years. And that's a great initiative. However, the administration has to put forward policies and procedures. In particular, when we talked about thermoplastic crosswalks several weeks ago, when I offered for the fourth time a resolution that there be a policy created in our community that doesn't paint crosswalks anymore, but uses the alternative, thermoplastic, which is highly reflective, slip-resistant, and lasts up to five years. These are the initiatives that you've got to create policy around. It's nice to get one-time fixes from the state, and it makes for a great picture in the newspaper, and a photo op, and a great story. However, long-term, it does nothing for this community. And these are the initiatives I think we have to look at, and I just don't see it happening.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Every year, residents from Woodruff Ave that abut the BJ's Fence call up in concern about the fence and the particular debris that blows up as well as the overgrowth and weeds in that particular area. BJ's committed back some years ago when they put a brand new fence along the whole perimeter to help with some of the noise reduction in the area, that they would also maintain both sides of the fence. I know our DPW has been out there, but I would once again ask that we send a correspondence to the manager at BJ's to get out there and clean the area along the fence, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Martins. Thank you. So when will the bulk of the work be done? Will it be done during the day or is this going to be... We're flexible.
[Michael Marks]: Is there any interruption to the traffic flow in the area?
[Michael Marks]: Just one lane of traffic. So you won't be able to go east or west at a certain period of time. or one or the other?
[Michael Marks]: So on the other side, you'll have traffic on both ways?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this is a very wise resolution regarding the upkeep of our streets. and to hold the utility companies accountable. I would suggest, as Councilor Lungo-Koehn mentioned, that over the last several years, we've struggled as a city because there's really no oversight on behalf of the city to represent the city, to make sure, as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, that these jobs are being done up to our standards and according to the contract. So I would ask if Councilor Knight doesn't mind to amend his resolution that we put a section in there that puts who the clerk of the work is on behalf of the city. So at least, and there may not be someone, and that's the whole issue that we have, that there is no oversight, the clerk of the work for each job and each utility job, because someone here at City Hall has to sign off anytime a road is being broken into and so forth, excavated. So I would ask that we amend that to put who is the clerk of the work on behalf of the city, for each of the projects.
[Michael Marks]: I agree. In addition to the crosswalk pedestrian crossing signage, neon signage is very important to alert people. There is a crosswalk there. Being familiar with the area, I'm not sure exactly where the councilman wants to put the crosswalk, but I think if you put it close to the bridge, that may be a public safety concern, because coming from High Street down Grove, you're really cut off from visual at a great length. But when you're coming from... They have a mirror there. They have a mirror there, but when you're coming down from Winchester, you have a long strip and you can actually see someone. So my suggestion would be to put the crosswalk further down from the bridge. So if you're coming from Wellgate, you'd have to walk up Grove Street and then cross over. I think it adds a little bit more safety than having it too close to the bridge. It's an odd configuration of streets there. Right.
[Michael Marks]: So if you're coming up Bustle, you're saying?
[Michael Marks]: That way you have a line of vision both ways. Exactly. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I think it would only be appropriate, whereas this council voted unanimously a couple of weeks ago to prompt the administration to use thermoplastic crosswalks rather than the traditional paint that fades after six months. And thermoplastic, we all know, is highly reflective and slip resistant and lasts up to five years, that this crosswalk be installed with thermoplastic So the residents won't have to come six months from now saying, we can't see the faded crosswalk.
[Michael Marks]: So I would amend if Councilor Caraviello would mind that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I read an article in the Boston Globe back February 11th that talked about lead water pipes and the concern of lead water pipes in the Boston area. And I think the article was a result of Flint, Michigan. And we all know the disaster that took place in Flint. And the article went on to report that there are a number of communities that still have a high percentage of lead lines. And it listed the city of Malden having 47% of their total service lines in the city as lead lines, which is a very high percentage. And then it went on to say the city of Medford has 28%, which was the second highest. And this is in the MWRA district. It's not statewide, but is in the MWRA district. And I found that number to be, in my own opinion, very excessive, knowing that the city went through change back in 2004 when they created a policy to try to address lead service lines in the community. So I did a little research into it, Mr. President, but the reason why I bring this up tonight is to draw awareness to residents that may have a lead line still connected, to report on the fact and not what was reported in the Boston Globe, which listed Method as the second highest. And I don't believe, according to my facts and figures, we are the second highest in the MWRA district of lead lines. And also to let residents know that there may be some solutions to a very costly replacement of a lead line, which could run $3,000 to $5,000 to remove a line. So if your home was built prior to 1940, which many of our homes in this community were built prior, I know I live in a home that was built prior to 1940, your house most likely has a lead service line. And there are standards that were created that allows for a certain percentage of lead to exist within someone's bloodstream. However, for infants and young children, it could be very dangerous, even low, low levels. And what I found out, Mr. President, is that Medford has roughly 14,000 water service lines. And according to the MWRA, 28% of those, or 3,920, are made of lead. And after talking to Ron Baker in our water department, who's a very astute person when it comes to water in this community, he mentioned to me that, and he sent me a list, and I can provide that to members of the council, In 2004, the city started with a lead replacement program. And their hope was every year that they would reduce that by 7%. And I don't know if they met the quarter every year. I didn't go through the exact numbers. But from 2005, fiscal year 2005 to 2015, the city has replaced 1,768 lead lines in the community. And when I say they replaced, meaning that when a resident calls up and says, I'd like to, you know, they hire a contractor, get rid of my lead line, the lead line comes out to the curb. And then the city has another portion that leads to the main in the street. So there may be another six or eight feet that the city's responsible for. So the city keeps track of what they've done on their end through these figures, and they have reported 1,768 changes in lead lines since 2005. So if you look at the figures now, according to what Ron Baker provided me, and I would assume the Globe that wrote this article on February 11th would have updated information when they're reporting, there currently exist roughly 2,232 lead lines in the community. And this is a rough estimate, but it's a very close estimate. And that is only 16% of the total service lines in the community, not 28 percent. That's almost 1,200 lead lines off in that article. So I wanted to report the facts, at least I've received. And if anyone wants to dispute that, I'd be more than happy to sit down and discuss what I found out on this information, Mr. President. And, you know, when you look at what we received from the MWRA, it's virtually lead-free. So our water comes, for the most part, from the Quab and Rez. It's through steel pipes, concrete pipes, iron pipes, comes over to the city of Medford, might travel some 25, 30, 40 miles in piping, and then it comes up to your home, and if you have a lead line, from eight feet into your house, lead can leach into your water. So it travels 30 miles lead-free, it gets up to your home, and guess what? Your eight-foot connection to the main could be putting you at risk for lead poisoning. And it's a major concern, especially, as I mentioned, for young children and infants. However, there is some helpful hints in your cold water, as reported in the paper, which was helpful. I think they were accurate on that. If you run your cold water a few minutes, it takes any of the leaching that If the water's been sitting there a while in your cold lead pipes, it takes any of that and cuts it out in the drain. So you let that run for a little while. And the city of Boston, and I'm not proposing this tonight, but the city of Boston for their residents offers financing. So if you have a hardship and you say, geez, I can't afford this time to spend $3,000 to $5,000 to replace my lead line, although I have three infants in my home. and I'm very concerned, they do offer a financing program. My motion tonight, Mr. President, is to have the water department create a list of lead service lines that they're aware of, they may not be aware of every single one, but they're aware of, and notify residents of a lead connection. So I think it would be a very helpful PR that the city of Medford, we receive so many confirmations and calls. If I was a homeowner, I'd like to know, I may not be astute and realize that I have a lead line coming into my house. I'd like to know if the city of Medford thinks I have a lead line for my own sense of peace and knowledge. And so that would be the first resolution that I offer motion is the city contact those that may have a lead line for notification, nothing else but notification. And also that The MWRA, if we can get a report back from the MWRA, whether or not there's any way that they can assist residents in the replacement of lead lines, if there's any funding available. I know the city takes advantage of roughly a million dollars a year in 0% finance loans through the MWRA. And would any of that apply to residents that may have a concern with lead in their water. There's also lead testing done. The way I understand it, it's done randomly in every city and town in the MWRA district. So they may pick a few homes throughout the community, do lead testing, and report on that particular testing. But if anyone has a concern or believe that they may have, for whatever reason, high quantities of lead, they should be able to contact the Method Water Department. and find out more information on where they can get some lead testing done, Mr. President. And this is all — I don't want to alarm people, but I think it's only important that people are aware of some of the concerns, some of the health concerns with lead and ways that they may be able to combat the lead on their own by running the faucet and so forth. And again, the MWRA provides this water to us from 30 miles out. I remember a while back, someone made a presentation when we were talking about water and sewer rates. And it was, I remember at the time, and it's still stuck in my head, to deliver a gallon of water from the Corbin Res to your home of fresh drinking water, it's roughly one penny in cost. Now, the sewer may be a different pot. You know, the sewer may have a different cost. But to deliver, it's one penny. And I just find that amazing, especially with the job that the MWRA is doing to provide clean drinking water to our residents so we don't have a Flint, Michigan in our community, Mr. President. So those two offerings of motions I would offer tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: If you happen to go into your basement and see where the water's coming in from outside, the lead line is usually like a brownish, greenish color almost. But you can actually see the line coming in. It may not come in too deep into the house, but you can actually see it. Someone knowing the difference between pipes, copper, lead, should be able to tell you. And I think on your deed itself, or I know when we bought our house, I think it mentioned you know, like it says you have a paid driveway, you have asphalt shingles. I think it also said you have a lead line or copper line or, you know, two 20 electricity. I think it did mention that. So that might be another way of, of also checking. And then hopefully if we can get the city to go through their records, uh, you know, they should be able to give us an accurate assessment.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Mr. Capucci for bringing this topic up. It's a very important topic, and we know the old administration under Mayor McGlynn was anti-public access. I still can't figure out why, but for many years, that administration did everything they could to stop public access in this community, but still maintained the funding through franchise fees that we were all paying for PEG, government, public, and educational access. This current mayor now appointed many committees. I know, Mr. President, you chair the Business and Economic Committee, or co-chair, and I know there were recommendations just made by the Constituent Service Committee after having several public hearings in this community. And after hearing from residents, the main theme of their report was, we need more transparency in this community. And I find it ironic that the one thing that really would bring some great change in this community, and it's not a solve-all by any means, but government access. Community access. Those are the initiatives, I think, that as a government, we're obligated to let people voice their opinion. And I remember the good old days when they used to televise Medford High football games. And they used to televise the parade live. And they used to have talk shows on there. And they used to bring up current events in the community. And they'd have a cooking show, and they'd have other shows. It was just a great way of uniting the community. And I'm hoping this new administration practice what they preach in transparency and brings back local community access, Mr. President. We're paying for it. There's a need in this community. People want to have access. I hear it over and over again, and I'm not sure why it takes so many years. to get access after creating committees to advise the administration. We've been there, done that. The Judge Jackson report, we've been there, done that. Now we want access. So I agree with the speaker and I'm hoping this administration, I know Mayor Burke has a lot on her plate, but I too would like to hear more about community access. I read the article in the first 100 days and that's great. There's been some change in the community some initiatives that this administration has offered. But some of the meat and potato issues, I still want to hear about. And this community access has been an albatross around the city's neck for a long time. And I think we need to address it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank a council of Penta for, bringing up this important subject. I agree also with the location. I think the high school, although the building is currently underutilized right now and does have the capacity to take on public access and a portion of the building, I think having the building, don't forget the last two community access stations were in the square and they were there for a reason. They were there for a reason because of its location. and it's easy access into the square. And I think the library is one possible item. I think Springstep, you know, we all talk about Springstep and we'd love to have Springstep. It's a stone throw from City Hall. The building itself is made for the performance and the arts. As Councilor Caraviello mentioned about having it an art center slash possibly community cable would be a great suggestion. And, you know, I remember back some 10 years ago, maybe even a little longer, Mr. President, you probably remember, when we were looking at merging the yachts and the community access at the Swan building, the Swan School. And it missed by one vote of this council. We almost had that come to fruition. And I think that's a great marriage. And I think it would have worked out. The Springstep building is ideal for for that situation. It's centrally located. It steps from City Hall. There's ample parking. And really, I don't see why, if I were the mayor, I'd be on the phone with the owner of that property. Mr. President, from what I hear, they're looking to unload that building, and they haven't been too successful because of the setup of the building is conducive to arts and so forth. I think that would be a great addition to this city. So I think what the gentleman at the podium, Councilor Penter, is offering is just another alternative. You know, I, as one member, and I've stated this loud and clear, I don't want to see our high school used for anything else than its intended purpose to educate our children. And in this day and age, with everything that's going on, in my opinion, the least number of people we have up there that aren't students and teachers, the better off and the safer we're going to be, Mr. President. And that's a whole other discussion for another time. But I don't want to see that building opened up, even though it may be one separate door and at a certain end. I don't want to see it opened up for anything other than its intended purpose, which is to educate our children, Mr. President. So I thank Councilor Penta for offering this. I look forward to hearing back on Councilor Knight's motion to see if the library could be used for any other purpose. I didn't realize there was a a deed restriction on that if there is one. And you know what, several weeks ago, we had the issue of the Hegner Center before us. I mean, here's a small building in the city that could be used for local access. It might not be centrally as located as we like, but that may be a great addition if it comes back in the city coffers. And the one thing Councilor Penta mentioned is when you have a space that you're paying for, when you're paying $1,500 or $2,000 a month. A lion's share of your money goes to housing, community access, and not towards programming and hiring the people to get it up and running. And if it wasn't a city building, I think a lot of that money could be put towards programming and hiring the right people to run the access station, rather than on the physical property itself. So that's a great point that Councilor Penta mentioned.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, this, this is the issue that I've had a concern with, uh, for, uh, a number of months now regarding, um, the original estimate that the city hired, uh, an outside consultant to come in and give us an estimate on the contaminants at the DPW yard. And, um, The estimate was off by, I believe it was $500,000. The estimate was off by $500,000, Mr. President. And I know we had many discussions with Louise.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, she's answered them all. And I am in opposition of this paper. And I want to explain why, for the viewing audience, Mr. President, that I feel... If it's too comcastic tonight, it will be viewable.
[Michael Marks]: And I want to explain my position, why I'm opposed to this, for the fact that The city went out and hired a consultant to come in and provide the city with facts and figures on what it would cost to remove the contaminants at the DPW yard and to be off by $500,000 on a project that was originally estimated at, what was the amount?
[Michael Marks]: So the project ended up costing us a million dollars, Mr. President. And I'm not sure what would we pay this outside consultant.
[Michael Marks]: So we paid $150,000 to an outside consultant to ask or to let us know what it was gonna cost to remove the contaminants. They said 500,000 We started the project. It was closer to $1 million. So we lost $500,000 on that, and we paid $150,000 for a consultant that gave us bogus information. So it's actually $650,000 in net, which I have a real problem with that. And I realize that the remedial treatment of what was under there may have differed based on what they found and so forth. I have a tough time thinking. It's almost like being a meteorologist. You can be right 50 percent of the time, and you're doing a good job. And I don't understand why we'd pay a consultant to come in over $100,000 and be off by 100 percent. It just doesn't sound right to me, Mr. President. And for those particular reasons, I cannot support this particular funding. for the cleanup, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just wanted to thank the subcommittee that was sent to, Councilor Knight, and under his leadership on that subcommittee, they vetted this even further, the paper that we received from the administration, and I wanted to thank that subcommittee for their due diligence on this.
[Michael Marks]: While we're on the suspension.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I received a number of e-mails regarding some of the work that are being done at local parks. And I made a phone call and talked to Mike Nesta, the park foreman, and he provided me with a list of parks that are in the process of being rehabbed. And I thought it was quite interesting, and I'm not sure maybe other members of the council are aware, There was some linkage money approved last year for the rehab of several parks. Morrison Park is undergoing right now new tennis courts, new basketball courts, and fencing. Harris Park, if you go by Harris Park, the old tennis court and the basketball court is totally leveled now. It's just dirt, and they're getting a new basketball court and a new tennis court, as well as fencing around that area. Dugger Park is receiving two new steel basketball backboards in their courts, which appear to be in good shape. And Victory Park had some work done to clean some of the brush and debris along the fencing of Victory Park. So that work, from what I understand, is underway and within the next month or two will be completed. So hopefully for this summer, We'll have, at least for these parks, updated tennis courts and basketball courts. And the tennis courts, we're having a revitalization in Method. Tennis is really on the rise in this community, and the demand for tennis courts is really sought after.
[Michael Marks]: Well, maybe that's why there's such a demand in this community. But the tennis courts, that were, I know at Harris Park, were in deplorable shape. Actually, there were no nets, so I guess you could say they were worse than deplorable. But it's going to add to this community having a lot of other options to play tennis in this community. So I want to thank the administration, and I know the council president also has a vote on linkage. Thank the council president, because this is well needed.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just before we return, if you don't mind. I don't mind at all. I just want to congratulate, because it doesn't happen often. Charlotte and Frank Scuderi, they are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. And you would only think she's 55, Charlotte. She actually is celebrating her 50th wedding anniversary. And, Charlotte, and I want to congratulate her. In this day and age, when you hear 50th, you know, people think a milestone is five years nowadays. And, you know, 50th is quite a — it's quite an accomplishment, Mr. President. Both Charlotte and Frank are tremendous people, very active in this community. And I want to say happy 50th to both of them. And if we can get him a citation, May 1st is the happy day, Mr. Clerk.
[Michael Marks]: If Councilor Longo doesn't mind, I'd like to amend it to add on Salem Street. There's a portion of Salem Street where you can see the old railroad car tracks underneath the road from 100 years ago. Roughly where? It's in front of Ronnie's place. Is that still on the corner over there? All right. Yeah, right on Salem Street.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, no, no, where they used to be. Park and Salem. Yeah, Park and Salem. OK. Right in that area. You can see the tire tracks. And on Riverside Ave, there are a number of manhole covers that have some real giant holes right next to the manhole covers. They look like they appear to be sinking. But that's at roughly Riverside and Locusts and Riverside and Spring Street. So further down from where that whole stretch was repaved. Right. And that stretch there. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I received an email from a resident on Roosevelt Road, which we all know is the road when you're coming right off of Roosevelt Circle, the first road on the right-hand side. And residents are very concerned that cars coming off of Roosevelt Circle are coming down Forest Street and they're really coming at a great clip. And residents are concerned that have children in the area and want some additional signage along that portion of Forest Street and possibly to look at maybe a raised crosswalk in the area to slow down some of the traffic coming off that particular area. So I would want to offer that as a resolution tonight asking that the Traffic Commission look into increased speeding signage at Roosevelt Road and Forest Street and also Roosevelt Circle and that the possibility of a raised crosswalk or any other traffic calming approaches in that particular area, which is posing a real safety concern for area residents. be discussed by the Traffic Commission.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This was approved several weeks back by this body and signed by the Mayor. It's my understanding that it's currently before the state legislature. And whereas, there is some time sensitivity on having this go through the state legislature, I would ask that representative Donato provide this council with an update on the current status and what else maybe we as a community can do to shepherd this along through the house and the senate.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, I want to thank Jean for her comments, and many of them hit home because they're true. The one thing I do want to mention, I think it was two weeks ago, Councilor Lungo-Koehn offered a resolution to find out from the administration how people can apply for the exemption for the Community Preservation Act, and we didn't receive a response, as I know from that. And last week I offered something very similar that the administration, because a letter went out in the tax bill alerting people of the Community Preservation Act, but there was never any discussion about how to apply for an exemption. And to date, we have not received on two separate — dating now 14 days — two separate resolves dealing with the exemption for residents. And it's one thing, Mr. President, that this was voted on, and, you know, the people are going to have to pay the additional 1.5 percent surcharge. But it's another thing not to alert people that may be eligible for an exemption that could surely use it, that this is available, and how to apply for it. So, again, I would ask, Mr. President, that we receive a correspondence from the mayor and that the citizenry be notified on how to apply for an exemption for the Community Preservation Act and what are the eligibility requirements based on state law.
[Michael Marks]: I just wanted to present some good news. Uh, last night, uh, the method dog park committee met, uh, they've had a number of meetings. Um, and, uh, the grant application was submitted, uh, for a future dog park just recently to the Stanton Foundation for a request of $250,000 to get this dog park underway. And I just want to recognize there have been five members of this dog park committee who have set up a website, who have done yeoman's work keeping this issue up on behalf of the thousands of dog owners in this community that have really no place to walk their dog or exercise their dog or have their dog mingle with other dogs, which is very important. And I want to thank Patty Flynn, Jim Silva, Gary DeStefano, Diane Savoni, and Britt Fitch for their work and their countless hours in moving this forward steadily. And I also want to thank Mayor McGlynn and also Mayor Burke, who now is on board with moving this park forward. And I'm hoping that this grant goes through, Mr. President. And, uh, it's going to be a real plus for method residents to finally have a place they can exercise and walk their dog.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Caraviello is right, I think it was about two years ago I offered a resolution and it was based actually on the city of Somerville. The city of Somerville has a program that the city will have, whether it's a private owner or a public building, they will have the owner sign a waiver form. And if the owner is unable to remove the graffiti based on financial means, the city will step in, as long as there's no liability from this waiver, and they'll remove the graffiti off the side of a home or a building and so forth. I think the one thing that I emphasized two years ago was that if I happen to own a business in the square and someone comes up and tags the whole side of my building, And then the city, the next day, knocks on my door and says, if you don't remove this graffiti, we're going to start fining you. I think that adds insult to injury. The business owner, really, by no fault of their own, was tagged by someone. It's a hardship first of all, and that could be for any property owner too. That could be your house, my house. If someone comes up and spray paints the side of my house, I may not have the means to have that removed immediately. And I think the city of Somerville offers a great service to the residents of the community to allow that service. And I believe it was two years ago that I asked that we be able to do our own graffiti removal rather than rely on, right now, the Middlesex County Sheriff's Office does a bulk of our graffiti removal within the community, upon request. So, I'm not sure what the machinery costs, but I think it's worthwhile looking into. It's similar to what Councilor Falco offered not too recently about the plowing of the sidewalks, Councilor Scarpelli about the Porter Party. and other initiatives in the community that I believe as a community this size, we should be offering, Mr. President. So I would ask my council colleague, if you wouldn't mind amending it, asking through his resolution, once again, that the city administration look into buying the equipment for removal, because again, I want to stress I'm not in favor of going out and just start fining people that were under the unfortunate circumstance of having graffiti sprayed all over their building or whatever it might be, your home. And I'm more in favor of having the city have an option that frees us from any liability that will remove graffiti. And I agree with Councilor Falco and Councilor, what's your name again? Caraviello, Councilor Caraviello, Mr. President, that, you know, the more you leave the graffiti out there, it's like the old broken window concept, and it creates more broken windows. So I agree we have to clean it up, but I just don't agree with going after the business owner or the homeowner if they're financially strapped, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll just speak briefly on this because I have a resolution under suspension. However, I did receive an email from a gentleman in the community that just used the C-Click Fix website and he reported graffiti on the Route 16 West sign and it's spray painted with all black spray paint on it and he used C-Click Fix and he got a response back within minutes saying thank you very much for reporting your issue. However, that road is operated by DCR and here's the phone number to DCR. And I'm not sure my opinion of C-Click Fix is if you bring an issue to the city, they should work on that issue on behalf of the resident and not just give the resident a phone number to call. Whether it's a state road or a city road, That should be the resident alerting the city of what needs to take place and then the city taking action. But I'll speak to that in a later.
[Michael Marks]: I'd rather keep that, but where Councilor Falco was talking about where it's such in vague form. Other places that need graffiti removal, I would also add the Route 16 West sign entering Method now says, Ernie Me Moomy, because you can't read it. So I would ask that that be done, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we have a president here who'd like to speak.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just recently, within the tax bills, there was a letter sent out by the city of Medford explaining the recently passed Community Preservation Act for FY17, fiscal year 17. And it goes on to state what the Community Preservation Act is, the amount of surcharge, which is 1.5% surcharge on your property tax bill, and for what purposes this money could be used. And the fact that I know there was an ad hoc committee chaired by Councilor Knight that is working on creating an ordinance to govern the four members that will serve on this board, as well as some other issues. And the one thing that this letter did not explain, and I received several calls to date, is the fact that there is an exemption for seniors and low-income residents. And there's no mention within the letter made of that. I know Councilor Lungo-Koehn brought this up last week about how do you apply for this and who is eligible and so forth. And I think it's only appropriate that now we're going to be hitting up residents and their tax bill. We should equally let them know that there is an exemption available. and who to contact, what is the maximum and low income requirements, what are the qualifications, the household size, and so forth. So I would ask again that the administration provide, because I'm not sure if the committee has any, the ad hoc committee has any whereabouts with this particular function of the exemption. I know it's created under state law, But I'm sure there's a due date to file for an exemption, and I'm sure the law currently spells out, which I have a copy in front of me, the maximum and low income levels that would apply. It says income is, it's only based on your income and not assets. So that's very important, Mr. President. Not everyone can afford to pay this additional surcharge. And I think it's only appropriate if it's available. And this is what was stated by the proponents during the last election, when this was a ballot question, that there will be an exemption, that we also promote the exemption to let people know what's going on. And for those people that are eligible, that they sign up and make sure they take advantage. So I just want to make sure that it's out there and that we get a response from uh, the city administration.
[Michael Marks]: I won't repeat my comments, Mr. President. However, the, um, newly created C click fix program, which this council, uh, actually, is on record, uh, originally asking back three or four years that the city implement this program is now up and functioning. And, um, I was under the impression that, uh, residents, this would make it easier for residents through electronic means to get ahold of the city and to accomplish getting, um, uh, results, uh, on behalf of residents and, um, dismayed to hear that a resident already, uh, used this particular program and was told that they should contact the state to do away with some graffiti that's on a City Welcome to the City of Method sign that's in our city but maybe falls on a state road. And I think that's, to me, what this whole process is supposed to be set up for is to help residents in their search to get results of this community and not to pass the buck. So I would ask that we ask the administration that, um, in what regards will residents be asked to make contact outside entities, outside agencies, um, and, uh, should that be the responsibility of the city? Whereas they use and see click fix to report something directly to the city. And I think it should fall under their scope of work to be done, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, chief. You just referred to a second set of turn out gear.
[Michael Marks]: Um, it was, uh, I believe two years ago, uh, during budget that a second set of, uh, turnout gear was actually made a promise by then mayor McGlynn, uh, to supply this. Why have we not seen this? I asked this, I believe it was two weeks ago, and I was told that we went into great detail about the need, first of all, for a second set of turnout gear. The fact that many, especially the newcomers, some of the old timers had two sets, but many of the newcomers didn't have a second set. Why are we at this point where we don't have a second set?
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, the whole issue was surrounding a second set of gear and many of the firefighters had a concern that they'll go out and they'll be in a fire and then they have to wear the same gear that they just were in a fire with. So just off the top you had what percentage of the firefighters now don't have a second assigned to them? I'm not talking about one assigned to a station, assigned to firefighters?
[Michael Marks]: So what percent is that of the force?
[Michael Marks]: So you're saying currently, right now, there's only 20 people that don't have a second set assigned to them? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and the walkie-talkies, how are the walkie-talkies working? Communication? Radios? I don't have a problem. There's no issue, there's no issue with the towers, there's no issue with the... No, no, please, no. So everything's been working fine? Yes. Yep. And any need for new trucks?
[Michael Marks]: I saw yesterday in the snowstorm, uh, the old fire pickup truck going around salt in the streets.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But that was his truck. I've never seen it out salt in the streets.
[Michael Marks]: So it's not one of your vehicles. No, no. Even though it says fight department on the side. Thank you, chief. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Before we read the records, Councilor Marks. Longtime Method resident and Method High School Spanish teacher, who we all know, Mrs. Lepore, just received the Mustang Spirit Award. Yes. Any time that you receive an award, not only from your peers, but from students, I think says a lot about the teacher. And Mrs. Lepore has been an advisor for the Foreign Language Club for a number of years. She's been a Spanish teacher for over 20 years, and also organizes the trips to Puerto Rico, Spain, Mexico, Cuba, and does a great job.
[Michael Marks]: In Italy. And I wish her well in her future endeavors and also want to congratulate her on this prestigious award.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before we end the meeting.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Myself and Councilor Caraviello had the opportunity last week to attend the first meeting of a new neighborhood crime watch group in West Medford at the Shiloh Baptist Church. And there were probably over 100 residents there, and it was well attended. And members of Medford's finest, the police department, were present. And there were many concerns from area residents As we all know, there's been a rash of home break-ins in the West Medford area. And according to the police department, since January, I'm sorry, I think it was March 15th of this year. Counsel, do you remember how many break-ins there were altogether? There were 12 break-ins with a number of them in the West Medford area. So residents are concerned on what's going on. ways they can help assist the police department. There was also a lot of discussion in bringing back community policing, which everyone behind this rail I think supports wholeheartedly. And I know there's another meeting coming up soon about creating a crime watch group that will actually go out and walk the neighborhood and be the eyes and ears of the police department and also have a network where residents can notify each other. And I'm hoping that this will spring to other parts of the city so we can now communicate from Wellington to North Method to Salt to West Method to the hillside and allow all these particular groups to network and assist the police in doing their job, Mr. President. But I want to thank the residents that turned out that night. It was a great showing and there were a lot of concerns about issues taking place in the area. And, um, uh, I, I recommended when I spoke that, uh, if, uh, the residents would like to come up to the council meeting and speak before the council and some of the concerns they have. I know I've been asking for, I think it's three years now to have a public safety summit. And I look back at some of my old records. Council Penta wasn't the only one to keep records for 30 years. I look back at some of my old records. And I found a resolution back, it was three years ago. And at the time, there was a rash of robberies in the city. And I think there was 87 house break-ins back some three years ago. And I asked for a public safety summit to sit down with the elected officials, sit down with public safety, and see what we can do. And to date, I have yet to get a call from Chief Sacco. I have yet to get a call from anyone from the administration about setting up a public safety. And I know you said you were going to work on setting something up, Mr. President, but this is a major concern. You know, when people feel like they're being followed, you know, when people are going to church and people know when they're going to church and their house gets robbed, that's a concern in this city. And when the police department states that this may be part of a ring that's operating in Brookline and some other communities, you know, of robberies, that's a major concern in this city. And I just don't feel the outcry, to be quite honest with that. I have to be frank. I don't feel the outcry from public safety officials in this community. And when residents say, you know, I don't see police coming up and down my street, and a police officer says, well, ma'am, you're not at your door seven days a week, 24 hours a day, I think that's a lousy answer to give a resident. I really think that's a lousy answer to give a resident. So, I think we have to do more, Mr. President. And maybe this could be a shot across the bow to the administration, as well as this council, to set this public safety forum up so we can welcome residents and public safety officials to have a discussion and dialogue. There's nothing wrong with that. That's healthy to discuss issues that we may be having in this community, Mr. President. I thank you for the time.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of counsel. Mr. President, just if I could. You triggered something off in my head. One of the other issues that were brought up that night was residents were asking, well, why don't we see more police on the street? Why don't we see more visual patrols around? And they were told that due to budget cuts. So right away, myself and Rick were the only elected officials in the room. And the meeting turned to us. And I couldn't explain budget cuts for the police department. All I know is for the last 20 years, taxes have been going up in the city. There's been no budget cuts that I know of directly within the police department. You know, they should be calling for a list every year that this council has been asking to increase the manpower, but it's not due to budget cuts. It's due to priorities. And if the police department had a priority of community policing, and bringing back police on bicycles and motorcycles and maybe even foot patrol in certain areas, that would be the priority. So the excuse of budget cuts in the police department, I just don't buy. And also the fact that It was a year and a half ago when the administration, as well as this council, voted to take a bulk of the responsibilities from the police department of ticketing, which is a major job, away from the police department, although they still have responsibilities. That was supposed to be to free them up to do these other activities, to make sure that they're out there and they're doing the networking, in community policing, and not give them the menial stuff of going out tagging. And I don't see a difference, to be quite honest with you. So these are the things I think we have to sit down at a table and discuss, because the residents have every right to say, well, budget cuts. What's being cut? My taxes are going up every year. The administration, everything's going up around this city. What are we talking about cuts? Who's cutting the police department? It's not us. I haven't asked for cuts in the police department. And I don't see that as an excuse. If the levels are low, the administration should be asking us every year when the chief comes before us, I need men, I need more boots on the street. I need women and men on the streets. And then this council can act. Or then this council can make recommendations. It's the same with cruises. I mean, you're talking about police cruises that have 90, 100, 120,000 miles. They're running seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That should be an automatic. Every budget, there should be five or six cruises that are put on in the budget process. That's just a part of operating a city. And to me, we're falling short of the mark. And some of the excuses we're coming up with now, with budget cuts and lack of manning, To me, you know, residents aren't going to buy this. And we need to sit down and discuss these issues, Mr. President. Ma'am.
[Michael Marks]: Sharon brings up a great point, and I think a reverse 9-1-1 call would be adequate, especially to target certain areas. With that system, it has the capability of you can notify particular neighborhoods, streets, wards, precincts. You can notify whatever section you like. And to me, that would be the intent of the reverse 9-1-1, to allow, when there was a rash of robberies in West Medford, they called the West Medford area and failed to call other parts of the city. And in my opinion, if there's robberies in one section of the city, I think the whole entire city should be on notice. Because robbers are smart. They're not going to stay in the same neighborhood. They're going to move to a different section of the city. So I think we could use the 911 for that purpose. But that's a great comment.
[Michael Marks]: Present.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I know many other members of This council have offered this same resolution over the past several months. Our streets are getting worse and worse as the days go by. It's really no longer pothole patrol now. I think it's a complete street repair for many of our roads. And I asked back some several months ago that there be done a complete audit of our streets. And I have yet to see any response from the city administration. However, I do see potholes being filled here and there, but clearly it's not enough. All you need to do is go down any of the major roads in the city and you'll see it littered with potholes. And secondary roads are equally as bad. And I think with money coming in from what we heard recently that the city is combining with the state, with this complete streets grant program, that we should be receiving some funding shortly that that be earmarked for street replacement, as well as pothole improvement throughout the commonwealth. And actually throughout the city, but actually throughout the commonwealth, too. But in particular, this city is in very bad shape. And I would ask that we receive, Mr. President, a complete rundown and assessment of the current conditions of all our city streets and also recommendations by the administration on what we're going to do, Mr. President, because I realize that our streets are old, and after the frost of the winter and after the plows go up and down our streets, it creates gullies and potholes and so forth. But there has to be a better way of approaching our streets, seven square miles of road in this city of Medford. We have to be more proactive. And maybe we should have a hotline like the city of the Boston has, um, with, uh, calling in, um, uh, complaints to a hotline that's dedicated for potholes. Uh, and I know the city's moving forward with the C click fix program, which, uh, this council has been pushing for, for a number of years, but maybe a program dedicated to, uh, just potholes in the community. And that way we could have, thousands of residents be our eyes and ears in the community and alert city officials, in particular the DPW, that there are potholes. And some of these potholes, Mr. President, I took a number of pictures on my phone, and I'll pass them around if people want to see them. Some of them are six, eight, 12 inches deep. So it's not just a small hole now, but you can have front-end damage, tire damage, accidents, and, you know, trip and fall. There's a lot of circumstances that these potholes create throughout the community. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned about catch basins. I would ask any one of my council colleagues to take a ride around the city and I guarantee you on every street you go down you're going to see a catch basin, not a sewer, a catch basin that along the curbs You're going to see them collapsing inwards. And you're going to find these on almost every street throughout the community. And it's prolific. And we have a big problem. A pothole, you can throw a little tire in and then move on. When you have a collapsed catch basin, that's a very big concern in this community. And don't forget, the catch basins are used to cut off rain runoff water into the Mystic River. So they serve a purpose for flooding and other issues in this community. And if we neglect these for years and years, in years and not use the $8 million we have in surplus to address water and sewer surplus to address some of these issues, we're going to have some grave concerns in this community. And I don't know what it's going to take, Mr. President, but I think what we're seeing right now is that it's becoming overwhelming. And we had the DPW Commissioner, Brian Kerins, the acting DPW Commissioner, at a meeting several weeks back, and I posed the question to him, and he agreed that this is a major concern. And many of these, uh, catch basins, uh, have been neglected over the years and now we're going to pay the price. And, uh, you know, I'm hoping maybe with, uh, some of this complete street program grant money, we can address the potholes. I'm hoping we can address crosswalks, which I have another resolution on next. And I'm hoping we can address some of the catch basin issues that we have, uh, Mr. President, as well as, You know, no one wants to talk about the water and sewer infrastructure, as well as our sewer infrastructure, which is costing ratepayers about 50%. If you look at your sewer bill, about 50% of it is through I&I, inflow and infiltration. The water seeping into our older sewer pipes, it's being carted out to Deer Island, and it's being treated as raw sewage. All it is is rain, runoff water, and it's costing about 50% to the ratepayers of this community. on their, on their sewer bill. And, you know, unless we can start tackling these issues, realigning some of our hotspots we have in the community, which we have countless reports in, uh, in the, uh, um, the engineering office, uh, from studies that were done in the past to alert us where these hotspots are, uh, that are accepting groundwater. and the city has done very little to nothing. They've done some stuff, but very little to nothing on obtaining 0% finance loans from the MWRA and also using our own surplus, which the intent of our surplus is there for, particular projects, and these projects would all be infrastructure improvements and would also eventually reduce some of the rates that we're paying in this community. People always ask me, well, how are we going to get a hold of our water and sewer rates? One of them is to have a systematic long-term approach to addressing these issues. And we have yet to create anything in this community You know, because it's underground, you can see what we do with our buildings that are above ground. We neglect them. You can imagine these sewer pipes that are 90, 100 years old underground. The city is paying no attention to them. And guess what? The ratepayers in this community are paying for that lack of attention over the years. So I would just ask, Mr. President, that we get back a citywide assessment of all our streets. And also, if and when the street state complete streets grant program. that's a mouthful comes in that we also look at addressing some of the concerns we have with our infrastructure, uh, throughout the community and also look at the, uh, $8 million in surplus of ratepayers money and the water and sewer enterprise account to start addressing these issues that at least I've been speaking about for at least 14 years now of addressing. And, uh, the city will go ahead here and there on small projects, but never really want to put a full, long-term, systematic approach to tackling some of these issues on behalf of the ratepayers.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I've offered this resolution at least four or five times. over the past number of years, uh, relative to pedestrian safety in this community. Uh, for those that have been around for a while, know that, uh, that has always been, uh, one of my major concerns, uh, throughout the community is pedestrian safety. Uh, it was back in 2006 that I offered the resolution asking for the city to look into the use of thermoplastic, uh, because, It seems year after year, it was like Groundhog Day. Every year, this time of year, we're faced with faded crosswalks. If you go around the community, I'd say probably roughly 70 to 80% of our crosswalks are faded or barely visible. And these are supposed to be the areas where pedestrians know to cross because it's safe to cross in these particular areas. And year after year, bringing the subject up every year, saying, well, we painted them six months ago. Now they're faded. Well, the winter gets to them, and the plows scratch them up, and they fade away. I thought thermoplastic, which is used by a number of surrounding communities, Arlington, Cambridge, Boston, the state uses thermoplastic when they do their markings, was an effective and efficient way of not only having our personnel go out every year and take the time to paint. the hundreds of crosswalks throughout the community, but also have a peace of mind knowing that once thermal plastic is laid down, that it lost up to five years. So it won't be Groundhog Day every year saying, you know what, we gotta get out there and paint them again. Why aren't they painted? Who's not doing their job? Why are things aren't getting done? Why is it unsafe to cross? And it didn't make any sense. So back in 2006, after my resolution, the mayor at the time, Mayor McGlynn, put forth 66 crosswalks throughout the community that were done with thermoplastic. And I remember at the time it was actually a proud moment that when these were done and for many years these crosswalks did stay in great shape and they were highly visible. because thermoplastic is very reflective and it alerts cars that someone's in the crosswalk, which ultimately is what is the intent of these crosswalks, to let people know. The signage is great. You'll see the city now putting up neon signs, yellow and green, around the crosswalks. but the crosswalks themselves are faded. And this particular thermoplastic over the years has improved. It's slip resistant. It's highly reflective. Like I said, it's life expectancy is up to five years. It's a little more expensive to lay down, but in the long run, it's cost effective because you're not having to go out there every year and take a certain number of city employees to paint them. And that's if they all get done. And I asked through this resolution that the city create a policy, and I believe there's a policy in Cambridge that you can go on their website, but any new road construction, any re-digging on Cambridge streets, they require it to be replaced, even if it was originally painted in an area, they require it to be replaced with thermoplastic. So I'm asking that the city administration create a policy in our community that any new roads, thermoplastic is placed down, and that from here on in, the painting of crosswalks throughout the community be done with thermoplastic and not regular paint. And I ask that we as a community do a better job when it comes to pedestrian safety. And it's one thing to talk about pedestrian safety. It's one thing to say that we're a safe community. But in my opinion, you have to put your money where your mouth is. And in my opinion, thermoplastic is the way to go. Thermoplastic will provide safe crossing areas in our community. It defines where you're supposed to cross. Right now, you don't know if you're in a crosswalk or not because it's faded. This clearly defines and delineates where people are supposed to cross, and it makes it a safer crossing area, and especially at nighttime in this community. So to me, This should be done. It should be part of the city policy. I look forward to a response from this administration. There is money, again, through the state Complete Streets grant program that specifically earmarks money to pedestrian safety, and this would be an ideal situation so we don't have to talk about it year after year after year after year, every year since I've been on the council. It's 14 years now since I've been on the council. Every year, at a certain point, April, May, we start complaining that our crosswalks aren't painted. Then we hear back from the city saying they're gonna get to it, they're not sure if they can get to all of them, and so forth. And that's alleviate that situation, and that's ensure our residents have a safe place to cross in our community, and I ask that we send this to the administration for response.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to say, I think, uh, one of the speakers brought up a great point and, Why hasn't this happened over the years? It's a great idea. It's not new. It's used all over the country. The state uses it. And I'm sure they did their homework and research. And many local big surrounding communities use it. And I think one of the issues is that in this community, common sense doesn't always prevail. And efficiency doesn't always prevail. And I think that's what we've seen over the years. And you could just take a look at Ring Road. When they did Ring Road behind the square, the city in the contract spent $56,000 on one crosswalk, one electronic sign crosswalk on Ring Road, $56,000. And I termed it as the crosswalk to nowhere because it leads into a parking lot. It was supposed to be set up for the seniors. But it leads into the parking lot across the street, which doesn't have any sidewalks or anywhere for seniors to walk other than behind parked cars, which is a very dangerous situation. So I think that's what we saw over the years, the priority of putting one crosswalk for $56,000. And it's a beautiful crosswalk. It has airport markings that light up. And on the street, when someone's in the crosswalk, the sign lights up, you get a handshake when you go by it. It's a beautiful crosswalk, but for $56,000, we could have painted every crosswalk in the city with thermoplastic. So these are the type of decisions that were made in a vacuum, in the mayor's office, with no regards to the rest of the city. And I think that's why the person that spoke at the podium said, well, why doesn't these things happen in this community? Why does it take so long? And I think that's what we're seeing. These are the reasons why the administration's talking about getting voicemail now. Guess what? City employees are going to get voicemail on their phones. That's an item from 30 years ago, Mr. President. They're going to have voicemail now. And they may even, thanks to Councilor Longo, they may even get email. They may even have their own email address now. This is amazing what transformation we're going through in this city, and I think this is one of the reasons why we don't see these things enacted upon because of the lack of attention over the years. I hope it changes, Mr. President, but thermoplastic makes sense in every stretch of the imagination. There's no reason to research. It's been on the pavement for years throughout this entire state and throughout this entire country, very successful. And, you know, just because the city of Bedford wants to keep their head in the sand doesn't mean this isn't a cost-effective and a safe manner for people to cross on our streets and our road, Mr. President. So I appreciate the support from my colleagues and hope for a thorough response from the administration. We look forward to all these innovations.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with Councilor Falco. I think this is a long sought after issue. This council, let's not forget, we're the legislative body in this community and zoning falls under our responsibility. So it's this council that's been neglect over the years of reviewing the zoning ordinances within our community. But I do have to say that we have department heads at City Hall for a reason. And we have the Office of Community Development, which is the first to hear from developers that come into the community saying, we'd like to do this. We're interested in doing that. They don't come to the council, these developers and these business people. They come to the city administration, the mayor, they come to the Office of Community Development, and they're the ones hearing these issues over the many, many years. And they're the ones that should be presenting. This has always been an issue I've had with the administration. They should be presenting to the legislative body, like they do on the state level, the state department heads present to the legislature what they'd like to see done, that would perhaps help the Department of Energy or the Department of Transportation. That's how it works at the state level. And the city, you'd never hear from a department head saying, you know what, if we created this ordinance, if we worked on amending this ordinance, it would help our community move forward. You'd never hear that. And the excuse of, well, there's no one really in the office of community development is no longer an excuse. It's no longer an excuse. So in my opinion, I agree with Councilor Knight. I think at this point, a meeting between us, Community Development, Lauren D. Lorenzo-Paup, and the mayor, because the mayor has a key component in the direction this city's going in, sit down and discuss what are some of the concerns that they've been hearing about some of the needs in our zoning ordinances, and hear from our department head that we're paying $110,000 to do a job, and hear from that person, rather than, and I'm not criticizing Councilor Falco, rather than hiring a consultant at this point, I'd like to hear from our department head. and like them to come out with a list of recommendations that would go to the subcommittee on zoning, which Councilor Knight chairs, for review by this legislative body. And that's how we move items forward. And to me, you never hear a department head, even during budget time, come out and make recommendations or say, geez, we'd like to see this happen in the community, but our hands are tied because of city ordinances. You never hear that communication. It's really unfortunate, but you never hear that type of communication. And, you know, I'd like to hear from the Office of Community Development, you know, to see what can be done to improve the process. You're right, we have many areas in this community that are commercial zone, that are residential districts, and we have another issue off of Walnut Street where someone wants to make an extra large opening for a driveway, and it's taken at least three spots off the street, which is a major concern. We're the only park on one side of the street already. So there's a lot of issues that we could address as a legislative body. And I don't think we have to go out and try to, you know, move mountains. I think we could tackle some of the issues that are presented from our department heads. That's what they should be doing, Mr. President. Our department heads should be coming to us saying, we'd like for you to enact You know, the process in this city is reverse. We get, it doesn't originate with the council. We get correspondences from the mayor with ordinances that don't have any committee input, and they just come to us for a vote. It really is backwards. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't happen on the state level that way. It shouldn't happen on the city level that way. So I appreciate Councilor Falco offering this. It's definitely long sought. Zoning is the lifeblood of a community. It's one of the most important, besides the budget, it's probably our second most important job, the zoning of this community. Without zoning and proper zoning, the community will go to hell, really will. And it's probably the second most important job other than the setting of improving of the budget. And I think we've been neglect over the years, to be quite frank, in moving any initiatives forward, or getting the appropriate people at the table, like Councilor Falco mentioned, you know, possibly a consultant or even the Office of Community Development. So that would be my recommendation, Mr. President, any meeting that the head of community development be present, as well as the mayor, to sit in a room and discuss issues of zoning.
[Michael Marks]: Southern New Medford. Can you get any smaller guys going?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, thank you. And I appreciate the city solicitor coming tonight. And, uh, I remember we had a few outdoor dining licenses, uh, one being Wendy's that came before us, uh, with, uh, a need to approve the outdoor dining that was on their own property and, uh, some clarification in the language. is needed. However, I would recommend, even though this may seem minor in nature, where this is a change in city ordinance, that it be sent to the Business and Economic Development Subcommittee just for a quick perusal and see where it fits within the zoning laws and rules and regulations, and then move from that committee, Mr. President, with the recommendation, rather than just approve it here tonight. So I would ask that it just receive the ample opportunity for review in subcommittee first.
[Michael Marks]: So Louise, has the engineering firm been paid? I guess I'm not sure about that.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So is any portion of this 350,000 going to the engineering company?
[Michael Marks]: But it's going back to the city with the purpose of what?
[Michael Marks]: And not to pay the engineering firm?
[Michael Marks]: OK.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Just where this has been several months now, can you refresh my memory on the consultant firm that was hired by the city? what their actual report back to the city was regarding the cost for the contaminants to be removed, and ultimately, what did it end up costing us?
[Michael Marks]: Have they been paid in full?
[Michael Marks]: And I know we had discussions with the city solicitor regarding trying to recoup some of our money. Is that futile right now or is that ongoing?
[Michael Marks]: Right. That, that is one way of looking at it. And then another way is if there were other options on how to treat this, it could have been a plan a plan B plan C. And based on the dollar amount, we could have opted for a different plan. So I hear what you're saying. And you know, if it had to be removed, it was going to cost us that. But I have a tough time paying a consultant company that comes in and this is their expertise. and for them to go over $500,000. We're talking originally a million, and they said, oh, we're off by $500,000. Why pay this consultant company? I mean, why are we paying them?
[Michael Marks]: And we had a discussion some time back regarding what the protocol is with these particular companies. And I was under the impression that choosing anywhere from 5 to 10 percent, the margin of error, and to have the margin of error that's 50 percent, to me, would lend itself to some type of action. And I just see it on a number of fronts that Yeah, I could have gave him that estimate. It's a million dollars. I mean, and I have no background in it. Here's a company that we bring in. What do we pay this company? I don't know.
[Michael Marks]: We were better off just doing it off the cuff. could have saved the $200,000 and just estimated ourselves. I mean, really, when you think about it, to be off $500,000, you know, I know we have to pay the bill, but it just really troubles me that, you know, they're allowed to get away with this. And, you know.
[Michael Marks]: We've used them in the past on a number of things.
[Michael Marks]: And you're saying the city stance right now is that we're not going to use them going forward?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, can you read the items so people at home and people here that maybe came for it know what's happening?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I move the waiving of the remainder of the reading. That was just to give anyone that's in the audience here or anyone at home to know that that issue has been withdrawn by the mayor.
[Michael Marks]: I'd like to be recorded in opposition based on my stance regarding the need to update the current ordinance dealing with tax caps.
[Michael Marks]: Council Mars. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, uh, a few years back, we were approached by the owners of, uh, Panera and smash burger and noodles, uh, regarding a common vigilance license. And at the time, uh, we put some stipulations on, uh, their particular permit. And one of them, uh, we put one on the drive through and a number of other things. Um, but one of them was that they were going to improve the sidewalks across from their business. And they agreed to do the sidewalk across from their establishment on the opposite side of Riverside Ave from, I believe, the length of the Christie's Market on down to the gas station and also the crosswalk to have that repainted. And to date, we haven't seen any action on that sidewalk. It's in very poor condition. A lot of people catch the bus up by the gas station And now that that area is highly traveled, I would ask that they keep up with their commitment to the city and based on the Community Development Board and also the council vote that they be asked if and when, not if, when the work on the sidewalk will take place across from Panera, Mr. President. So I put in a request before. I don't think we got an answer. So this is a second request.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not sure. Was the city going to do that or were they going to do that? I thought the city was going to undertake that, but we can also ask that as a secondary, because you're right. Cars are now stopping. The people that are gracious enough are stopping and allowing traffic to come in and out. But someone that lives in the area, I can tell you that's gridlock around the clock in that particular area. go in and out of that entrance. So I would ask that be added, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: While we're under suspension, Councilor Marks. We have members from the Method Arts Council here tonight. Can we take two papers? 16-054 offered by myself and also 16-055 offered by Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: And also Councilor Falco's too.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Felkel for also offering his resolution of the same subject. You know, Medford's on the move, Mr. President, and we have many great volunteers to thank, and we're getting a lot of good press in this community when it comes to the arts. Of most recent, Mr. President, as you just mentioned, the Massachusetts Cultural Council announced a few days ago that the Method Arts Council is the recipient of the 2016 Council of the Year Award for its dedication to community arts and culture over the past year. You know, this is a recognition, Mr. President, that is comprised of 329 local cultural councils. This is not one of five, one of 10. This is 329 statewide cultural councils. And our great council volunteers received the number one recognition, Mr. President. And here we have a group, Mr. President, until just recently, the last two to three years, had zero funding from the city. There was no direct funding mechanism to support the arts in this community from the administration until, I believe it was three years now, two to three years, that there was a resolution offered by this council requesting that the administration look into creating a line item for the arts in our community, which funds thousands of projects a year in the community, involves people from three years old to 83 years old of the community, And it really touches every aspect of our community. And without the Method Arts Council and these dedicated people to organize, a lot of this would never happen, Mr. President. And I just personally would like to thank all the members of the Method Arts Council. I'd like to also recognize them here tonight through a citation, Mr. President, a future citation. I know many members are here tonight. So I'd just like to recognize, Mr. President, The chair of the Medford Arts Council, Gary Roberts, is here with us tonight. Laurel Siegel is the treasurer of the Medford Arts Council. Anita Tucker is the secretary of the Medford Arts Council. Bettina Lentzfeld is the grant coordinator of the Medford Arts Council. Patricia Davis is a member. Jenny Gilbert. Jenny Gilbert. Linda Malik. And Allie Fisk is also a member of the Method Arts Council. And, you know, I had the opportunity, I think it was probably eight months ago or maybe a little longer, to sit down with the chair of the Arts Council, Mr. President, Mr. Roberts. And he presented to me a portfolio of accomplishments over the years, also a projection of what they'd like to see done over the next several years regarding how we can improve arts in the community and involve more community outreach to different aspects and segments of the community. And I found it quite enlightening One of the things that, and I bring it up quite often, I brought it up during the debates, when we had our council debates. Gary mentioned to me about things that are done in other communities. And he pointed out, he had a PowerPoint presentation, he was well prepared, which was great. And he pointed out what they do in Lowell, Mr. President. And I don't like to compare ourselves to other surrounding communities, but I think it's important to look when the success in other communities and try to capture that success in a way that represents our city, in a way that works for our city. And there was one particular thing that stood out to me, and it was the performing arts, and how they utilized pox and lull that were downtrodden and crime-ridden and filled with drugs. And they opened them up to the arts community, built small performance stages at very minimal cost. They encompassed their park with wrought iron art and signage. And they made it so welcoming that people wanted all of a sudden to say, you know what? This is no longer a drug park. This is no longer a park I'm afraid to take my kids. It's a welcoming park. And the performance stage, you know, it was very modest. But it was enough to attract people back, make these community parks, which we are very fortunate in our community to have so many community parks, as once again part of the community. And I would submit to my fellow colleagues that, you know, years ago we used to have the park leagues, and there used to be a lot of activity in the parks, as Councilor Scarpelli could probably attest to. And over the years, our parks have really grown to just a large open space that's, in my opinion, underutilized. And I think we have a real gem here with, at least with the Method Arts Council and their vision to utilize this open space, attract people in the neighborhoods so you can meet the people. Nowadays, you only know the people that live across the street or next door to you. Wouldn't it be nice to go to a local park that's right down the street, and meet neighbors in your neighborhood. It's just a great concept. And I know these are the small things that the Method Arts Council is working on towards under the leadership of Mr. Roberts and the whole group that's been active for years. And I just want to personally thank them, Mr. President, for putting Method once again on the map and letting people know that this community is an art community. We are a cultural community. We have a lot of assets in this community, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I see a bright, bright future based on the volunteers that we have here tonight and the other hundreds of volunteers throughout the community that are part of the Method Arts Council and all the different groups that are comprised of MACI and so forth. So, again, Mr. President, I'd like to thank the members of the Method Arts Council and that they be duly recognized. uh, by an official citation of the Medford city council.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, please, by all means. Because I'm glad Councilor Falco brought up the funding. And I received several emails from members of local artists in the community. And with the change in leadership in the community, they were asking whether or not The commitment that was there under Mayor McGlynn for the budget line item would still be present in this year's budget in July. And I think as a council, we should send, along with this paper, a message asking the administration if they would continue, because the budget's created by the mayor, continue the funding of a line item for the Medford Arts Council, and taking it one step further because The commitment that we made as a council back some years ago was, you know, we're going to give you an amount of money. I think it was $10,000 or $12,000 at the time. And knowing that was just a small amount in a city of this size, but then to revisit it in a year from now saying, what were you able to accomplish? Is this money being well spent? And I think everyone behind this reeling, and I won't speak for them, feel that we got our best bang for our buck for that $10,000 or $12,000. and the amount of programming that took place in this community. So I would ask, Mr. President, along with asking the mayor once again for the commitment to the line item in the budget, that we also ask that it be increased, Mr. President. And it seems to be that the $15,000 range from 15 to 30, maybe to 45, would be the next natural progression in this funding. And I can just speak for myself that I know every penny of that goes towards improving and also reaching out to people in the community to make them aware that the arts are alive and well in this community. So if I can make that part of the paper, Mr. President, that in addition to the council citations to the Method Arts Council that we ask that the mayor continue the line item in the budget and also to increase the budget Um, uh, this year, uh, you know, we can put in an amount or not. Sometimes it's a double edged sword. Uh, maybe the mayor wants to fund it to 100,000. Uh, so, uh, you know, it'd be up to the council, but I think we should just ask for increased funding, Mr. President, in the line item for the city budget.
[Michael Marks]: So those, those two motions.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank you too Mr. President, for meeting with area residents of the Salt Method area over the weekend to try to resolve this very important, what I consider a public safety concern in the area. I think anyone that's tuned into the council meeting has heard over the last at least six months, a year, that there's been a concern with the parking of trucks at the corner of Harvin in Maine, in particular, and also Yield in Maine. And it's been a real concern of residents for a number of years. And after a safety walkthrough, it was recommended by the chief and by a number of area residents that took the walk that ball would be placed on both corners. And I think they've done some help in alleviating some of the concern with cars and trucks parking on the corner and on the sidewalk. In particular, on Harvard and Maine, there still is a concern with large trucks, 18-wheelers pulling up, parking down Harvard Street, right on the sidewalk, where it poses a real public safety concern for pedestrians in the neighborhood. So, I would ask, Mr. President, and I know we've had a lot on our plate, but I think it's about time that we have a Committee of the Whole meeting on this issue. This council has taken several unanimous votes to requesting a committee of the whole meeting. But to date, we have not had any. And I would ask that it be on site because the major issue is relocating the bus stop, which is in front of the Oasis Restaurant, possibly down another 20 yards down Main Street, Mr. President. And that is not just because we want to relocate a bus stop. It's to create a delivery spot, which currently does not exist in that business district. You can go to Medford Square. There's delivery spots. You can go up to Hillside, which is a very congested area. There's delivery spots. Almost every business district has delivery spots for area business. However, none exist in this particular area. And what we're seeing is that these trucks are being very careless in where They park their rigs. They're only concerned about one thing, and that's to get the product to the business. And that's what they should be concerned about. But we, as a city, Mr. President, and as elected officials, have to be concerned about the public safety in our community. So I know there's a couple of residents that would like to speak, but I would ask, Mr. President, forthwith, and I think you appreciate the situation here and realize that something needs to be done. And that Committee of the Whole, on-site Committee of the Whole meeting be addressed with Chief Sacco, with the MBTA, and whoever else wants to attend to address this issue, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President. On that motion. I think Anne brings up a great temporary fix for the Harvard Main Corner with the signage that she mentioned. So I would ask that this council send that recommendation, Mr. President, to the Traffic Commission. And it's only a temporary fix. Absolutely. But the no standing, no stopping signs how many they believe is needed. You said four or five, but six. Whatever the Traffic Commission feels is necessary to solve that issue, Mr. President, I would ask that that be sent. Also, Anne mentioned about Method, Salt Method in particular, receiving recognition, Mr. President. And that is a real estate brokerage firm, Redfin, which is a nationally known real estate brokerage firm once a year comes out with their three hottest Boston neighborhoods. And, you know, it's amazing to see Method number one, Cambridge and Somerville two and three. You see how the tide is changing, Mr. President. And it's incumbent upon us and groups like SMARTO and other involved residents in the South Method area to keep doing what they're doing. because they're not doing it on behalf of themselves. They're doing it on behalf of improving the quality of life in that neighborhood. And we're already seeing the benefits of being named number one hottest market, real estate market, in Boston. That's an amazing, amazing feat, Mr. President, knowing that, in my opinion, very little has been done. And I'm not speaking out of school. Very little has been done in the South Medford area, Mr. President. to improve any type of pedestrian safety, to improve traffic flow, to improve business and economic development in the area. And, you know, we're seeing that it's a hot market. And I think as a community, it's incumbent upon us to parlay that into really moving forward these traffic improvements, pedestrian safety improvements, and making the South Medford area something that our Neighboring communities will envy, Mr. President, the same way we envied what they did in Somerville and a lot of their business districts. We could be that, Mr. President. And I think it's starting to make a turn, but only if the city is able to cooperate and move these issues forward. So I just want to thank Anne Fretz and Anita D'Antonio for coming up tonight. I want to thank Jim Silva. from the Salt Method Neighborhood Group, SMARTO, who organizes a lot of what goes on in that area and gets feedback from area residents. And I look forward, Mr. President, to a Salt Method that we're all going to be very proud of in the future, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information council members. And I appreciate what council and I just had to say, uh, I consider this, uh, like the residents, a temporary fix. As we heard from the council president, this particular issue is already in the transportation subcommittee. So it has to be voted on by the transportation subcommittee. If I'm correct, Mr. President, I think that's what you were alluding to. And the, it's under the council purview to move the bus stop, but the loading zone is not under the council purview. That would be under the traffic commission. So then we have to take another step, even when we do eventually move the bus stop, we have to wait for the traffic commission to meet. which, but they don't meet every day. They meet twice a month, once a month. So you may be talking several months out before, and I know you're saying enforcement, but in my opinion, the enforcement will happen for a day or two and then it'll stop happening. That's only my opinion. And I'd rather have signage at least there on a temporary basis, but you know, I don't mind separating it cause I'm going to vote.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd like to start by thanking Andrew Castagnetti, who brought this issue to my attention as a former graduate of the Medford Vocational School. I'm always looking for ways to improving upon our vocational education within our community and also by also bringing in other people to take advantage of the vocational school. And this is a unique opportunity, Mr. President. Right now, the advanced manufacturing sector And the Commonwealth has, I guess, a boom in jobs and the need to fill these jobs. The average salary is about $75,000 for someone in this particular field. And the city of Somerville just recently put together a course that they're offering. They have two courses, one during the day and one at night. And they're offering local residents over the age of 18 to and take courses in the advanced manufacturing training. And this opens up a whole new networking for young adults that are 18, 19. Maybe they didn't end up going to college. Not everyone goes to college. They're stuck in a low-paid job, and they're looking for advancement, a way to create a career. And this really, I think, would be a win-win, not only to promote our vocational school, but also to allow area residents to attend courses at a local school that's accessible, Mr. President. And I think it would be a win-win for our residents. So I would just respectfully ask that the new director of the vocational school, who's doing yeoman's work in improving vocational education at the high school, and also bringing in new state-of-the-art technology equipment and courses at the vocational school, look into, Mr. President, the offering of this advanced manufacturing training to see if we have, first of all, the capability of doing it, and secondly, if we can offer courses to local residents that may have an interest in potentially looking at jobs in the 75 to 80 grand range for this particular trade, Mr. President. So, again, I want to thank Mr. Castagnetti for bringing this to my attention. and ask that this be moved for approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caravielloli. He's been a real advocate for the public library and the children of this community when it comes to the public library. So I want to thank him for his action on this. Uh, the reason why we didn't receive funding for the past, four years was that the city of method during budgetary discussions didn't meet the state mandated threshold that's required for funding of a public library. So we therefore were ineligible to participate in any state grants. And we also, anyone that uses their library card, we lost membership in surrounding communities, the ability to go to another library in the network, the Minuteman network, and use their library because of our lack of funding our library. And I'm hoping to see that change, Mr. President. I also just want to touch upon the roof, because the report that we received had a various range from a couple of thousand dollars on a very temporary fix to I believe it was $125,000 or $130,000 for major roof repair and replacement throughout the entire library. So I think it's only incumbent upon the administration to at least update the council Because if the option three, which is I believe 130, 140,000 of repair is necessary, we're probably going to be looking for a bond for the roof. And that would be approval by this council. So I think it's important that the city administration at least give us a direction on what the plans are. And that roof has not been touched in 25 years. That's the last time that roof was replaced. And much of the pointing of the bricks, not only the roof, but the pointing around the bricks are accepting water, standing water from the roof itself, some of the flashing. So it's a lot of work that needs to be done on that roof, Mr. President. So I would ask that I thank Councilor Falco and Councilor Lungo-Koehn for bringing that up, and Councilor Caraviello about the roof repair, Mr. President, that we get an immediate response on that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, I'm under the impression that the new administration was putting on a position that was in the mayor's office that was also a liaison between the mayor's office and the council. And if I'm not mistaken, that position, I haven't seen anyone. I haven't had any outreach like, hey, look at me. I'm the new person that's going to be taking your request back and getting a quicker response to the mayor and I haven't seen that yet, so maybe, Mr. President, maybe not to a resolution, but maybe if you could find out what the situation is with the liaison to the council, with the mayor, because that seemed to be a big point during the election. Thank you. On the motion for approval, all those in favor?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with all my colleagues. I think we all felt it was necessary to have a contact person, a clerk of the work, whatever you want to call them, uh, to be responsible. Um, you know, At one point in this city, we had a person by the name of Jack Buckley, who was a project manager. And Jack Buckley was responsible for the oversight of the building of the new schools, which was probably the largest endeavor in this city's history. He was responsible for the refurbishing of the fire stations. He was responsible for the oversight of a number of large projects happening in the community. And he retired recently. And I think one thing that's lacking in this community, Mr. President, is that type of oversight. Jack had great expertise on building trades, how to deal with manufacturers, how to make sure that these particular companies were compliant with contract. And, you know, he had a great depth of knowledge. And you could rest assured if you asked him a question on anything regarding construction or what's taking place, timeframes, he was always there to answer the question. And I really believe someone in that capacity is needed, Mr. President, because what we heard tonight from the administration was the question was asked, who's the point person on this project? I don't know if it was, I think it was Councilor Knight that asked that. And we were told, well, Lawrence said, I can answer questions. The city engineer, Cassandra Koudelaitis, said I can answer questions. Or you can send them to Paul Mokey. He may be able to answer questions. I think when we get back to accountability, get back to having a central depository where you know who to call, I think it's very important, Mr. President. And I would just like to mention that to the city administration, The project manager was there for a number of years for a reason, and it was successful. In my opinion, it was very successful, maybe based on the person that we had in that position, but it was a successful position in moving projects forward and alerting residents on the ongoings of what's happening in the community, and I do want to point Point that out, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: But Mr. President, with all due respect, it's on a Medford road. It's affecting Medford business. It's affecting Medford pedestrians. It's affecting method traffic. For us not to have a clerk of the work or a project manager, whether it's state or city, makes no sense. It has no bearing at all. The project is a method project. I'm in no disagreement with you. I know, but I think you were trying to point out that that was only for city projects. And even with the FAST-14 project, the bridge repair, that was a state project. It was the largest bridge repair in this state's history that went through this city, the heart of this city. And at the time, we had someone on board, and that was Jack Buckley, Mr. President. We had someone on board that was there to make sure that the I's were dotted and the T's were crossed and that all contractual language was adhered to. and to make sure that resident, business owner, and everyone's questions were addressed. So, you know, I would disagree with you. I think that position was for any project in the community, whether it was bonded by our city or not, to ensure that the rules and regulations and that this city is heard when issues need to be addressed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we're all aware, there's a no heavy trucking ban on Spring Street. And I think it was about a year and a half, two years ago, a number of residents came before this council concern that the city was not enforcing enough the trucks that are using Spring Street, the heavy trucks. And for a period of time, the problem was solved. And now it's rearing its ugly head again that Spring Street is being used as a cut through for Penske truck, Budweiser, and a number of other businesses in the area, Mr. President. And for whatever reason, there's been a lack of enforcement by our police department. Back, I think it was a year and a half ago, I offered a resolution to create a trucking team. Many surrounding police departments have a trucking team. And it wasn't just to put on additional police officers. It was to address an issue of 18 wheelers traversing our roads, Mr. President, and at no fear of ever getting pulled over. It really is, from what I've been told by members of the police department, it's a particular training to pull these 18 wheelers over. You have to have the ability to be able to look at the log. You've got to have the ability to be able to read markings on the side of the truck, the type of liquids they may be carrying, the type of goods they may be carrying, the weight of the truck, and so forth. And you have to have ample training, and you have to have the equipment to pull these trucks over. And many of our police officers that I've spoken to aren't willing to pull these trucks over because they're not trained and not equipped. And that was the statement I got from them. So I think after a while, these truckers know, hey, you know what? Don't go through Cambridge-Somerville. Go through Method. They won't pull you over. And I think it's posing a problem in our community. And again, I would ask for enforcement, Mr. President, of the heavy trucking on Spring Street. We all know what happens after a period of time with heavy trucking. It creates the waves in the road. It really does. And we saw that firsthand on Spring Street in particular. I'm not sure if it was poor quality of tar that was put down or whatever it might have been, but it created a lot of ripples throughout the whole road. And that was from the heavy trucking. So I would ask increased enforcement on Spring Street And I would also ask the chief of police to once again look at the creation of a truck team. I was told when you issue a ticket to an 18-wheeler, it could be upwards of $1,200 for a ticket. So the truck unit would pay for itself. doing the basic enforcement. And don't forget, we have major truck routes running through our community, through our neighborhoods. We saw what happened at Centilli Circle in Everett back some 10 years ago, when an 18-wheeler went off and went into the side of elderly housing over there. These are trucks speeding through our community and so forth, and it really poses a public safety concern. So I would ask that the chief look at the truck unit, Mr. President. And if I could just put in a plug while I'm speaking, we also don't have police patrol on the Mystic River. And people might say, oh, the Mystic River, you can walk over the Mystic River. No, that's not the case. We have Medford High School, our young students, rowing on the Mystic River. And we don't have, other than the fire department, which does have a way of getting onto the Mystic River. We don't have any patrol of the Mystic River at all. We would have to wait for state police to come through the locks in Boston. God forbid there was an accident on the Mystic River. We've had tournaments there. Just recently, the Medford Bowl Club had a tournament, a national tournament, actually, on the Mystic River. And I think, really, as a city, we fall short of the mark when it comes to protecting our riverway and also protecting against these 18-wheelers that are coming through our community without any fear of ever getting a ticket, Mr. President. So I would offer those two, as well as the enforcement on Spring Street for the heavy trucking.
[Michael Marks]: While we're on the suspension, Councilor Marks. We have members from the Method Arts Council here tonight. Can we take two papers? 16-054 offered by myself and also 16-055 offered by Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: And also Councilor Falco's too.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Felkel for also offering his resolution of the same subject. You know, Medford's on the move, Mr. President, and we have many great volunteers to thank, and we're getting a lot of good press in this community when it comes to the arts. Of most recent, Mr. President, as you just mentioned, the Massachusetts Cultural Council announced a few days ago that the Method Arts Council is the recipient of the 2016 Council of the Year Award for its dedication to community arts and culture over the past year. You know, this is a recognition, Mr. President, that is comprised of 329 local cultural councils. This is not one of five, one of 10. This is 329 statewide cultural councils, and our great council volunteers received the number one recognition, Mr. President. And here we have a group, Mr. President, until just recently, the last two to three years, had zero funding from the city. There was no direct funding mechanism to support the arts in this community from the administration until I believe it was three years now, two to three years, that there was a resolution offered by this council requesting that the administration look into creating a line item for the arts in our community, which funds thousands of projects a year in the community. involves people from three years old to 83 years old of the community, and it really touches every aspect of our community. And without the Method Arts Council and these dedicated people to organize, a lot of this would never happen, Mr. President. And I just personally would like to thank all the members of the Method Arts Council. I'd like to also recognize them here tonight through a citation, Mr. President, a future citation. Many members are here tonight. So I'd just like to recognize, Mr. President, the chair of the Medford Arts Council, Gary Roberts, is here with us tonight. Laurel Siegel is the treasurer of the Medford Arts Council. Anita Tucker is the secretary of the Medford Arts Council. Bettina Lentzfeld is the grant coordinator of the Medford Arts Council. Patricia Davis is a member. Jenny Gilbert. Jenny Gilbert. Linda Malik. And Allie Fisk is also a member of the Methodist Council. And, you know, I had the opportunity, I think it was probably eight months ago or maybe a little longer, to sit down with the chair of the Arts Council, Mr. President, Mr. Roberts. And he presented to me a portfolio of accomplishments over the years, also a projection of what they'd like to see done over the next several years regarding how we can improve arts in the community and involve more community outreach to different aspects and segments of the community. And, you know, I found it quite enlightening. One of the things that — and I bring it up quite often. I brought it up during the debates, when we had our council debates. Gary mentioned to me about things that are done in other communities. And he pointed out — he had a PowerPoint presentation. He was well prepared, which was great. And he pointed out what they do in Lowell, Mr. President. And I don't like to compare ourselves to other surrounding communities, but I think it's important to look when the success in other communities and try to capture that success in a way that represents our city in a way that works for our city and There was one particular thing that stood out to me and it was the performing arts and how they utilize pox and lowell that would downtrodden crime-ridden and fill with drugs and And they opened them up to the arts community, built small performance stages at very minimal cost. They encompassed their park with wrought iron art and signage. And they made it so welcoming that people wanted all of a sudden to say, you know what? This is no longer a drug park. This is no longer a park I'm afraid to take my kids. It's a welcoming park. And the performance stage, you know, it was very modest. But it was enough to attract people back, make these community parks, which we are very fortunate in our community to have so many community parks, as once again part of the community. And I would submit to my fellow colleagues that, you know, years ago we used to have the park leagues and there used to be a lot of activity in the parks, as Councilor Scarpelli could probably attest to. And over the years, our parks have really grown to just a large open space that's, in my opinion, underutilized. And I think we have a real gem here with, at least with the Method Arts Council and their vision to utilize this open space, attract people in the neighborhoods so you can meet the people. Nowadays, you only know the people that live across the street or next door to you. Wouldn't it be nice to go to a local park that's right down the street and meet neighbors in your neighborhood? It's just a great concept. And I know these are the small things that the Method Arts Council is working towards under the leadership of Mr. Roberts and the whole group that's been active for years. And I just want to personally thank them, Mr. President, for putting Method once again on the map and letting people know that This community is an art community. We are a cultural community. We have a lot of assets in this community. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I see a bright, bright future based on the volunteers that we have here tonight and the other hundreds of volunteers throughout the community that are part of the Method Arts Council and all the different groups that are comprised of MACI and so forth. So, again, Mr. President, I'd like to thank the members of the Method Arts Council. and, uh, that they be duly recognized, uh, by an official citation of the Medford city council.
[Michael Marks]: Just a quick question. Oh, please, by all means. Because I'm glad Councilor Falco brought up the funding. And I received several emails from members of local artists in the community. And with the change in leadership in the community, they were asking whether or not The commitment that was there under Mayor McGlynn for the budget line item would still be present in this year's budget in July. And I think as a council, we should send, along with this paper, a message asking the administration if they would continue, because the budget's created by the mayor, continue the funding of a line item for the Medford Arts Council, and taking it one step further because The commitment that we made as a council back some years ago was, you know, we're going to give you an amount of money. I think it was 10 or 12,000 at the time. And, uh, knowing that was just a small amount in a city of this size, but then to revisit it in a year from now saying, what were you able to accomplish? Is this money being well spent? And I think everyone behind this reeling, uh, and I won't speak for them feel that We got our best bang for our buck for that $10,000 or $12,000 in the amount of programming that took place in this community. So I would ask, Mr. President, along with asking the mayor once again for the commitment to the line item in the budget, that we also ask that it be increased, Mr. President. And it seems to be that the $15,000 range from 15 to 30, maybe to 45, would be the next natural progression in this funding. And I can just speak for myself that I know every penny of that goes towards improving and also reaching out to people in the community to make them aware that the arts are alive in wellness communities. So if I can make that part of the paper, Mr. President, that in addition to the council citations to the Method Arts Council, We ask that the mayor continue the line item in the budget, and also to increase the budget this year. We can put in an amount or not. Sometimes it's a double edged sword. Maybe the mayor wants to fund it to 100,000. So it'd be up to the council, but I think we should just ask for increased funding, Mr. President, in the line item for the city budget, this year's budget.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we may have someone from the United Finance Council who'd like to speak.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank you, too, Mr. President, for meeting with area residents of the Salt Method area over the weekend to try to resolve this very important, what I consider a public safety concern in the area. I think anyone that's tuned into the council meeting has heard over the last at least six months, a year, that there's been a concern with uh, the parking of trucks at the corner of Harvard in Maine in particular, and also yield in Maine. Um, and, uh, it's been a real concern, uh, of residents for a number of years. And after a safety walk through, uh, it was recommended by the chief and by a number of area residents, uh, that took the walk that, uh, ball would be placed on both corners. And I think they've done some help in alleviating some of the concern with cars and trucks parking on the corner and on the sidewalk. However, in particular, in Harvard, in Maine, there still is a concern with large trucks, 18-wheelers pulling up, parking down Harvard Street, right on the sidewalk, where it poses a real public safety concern for pedestrians in the neighborhood. So I would ask, Mr. President, and I know we've had a lot on our plate, but I think it's about time that we have a Committee of the Whole meeting on this issue. This council has taken several unanimous votes to requesting a Committee of the Whole meeting, but to date we have not had any. And I would ask that it be on site, because the major issue is relocating the bus stop, which is in front of the Oasis Restaurant, possibly down another 20 yards down Main Street, Mr. President. And that is not just because we want to relocate a bus stop. It's to create a delivery spot, which currently does not exist in that business district. You can go to Medford Square. There's delivery spots. You can go up the hillside, which is a very congested area. There's delivery spots. Almost every business district has delivery spots for area business. However, none exist in this particular area. And what we're seeing is that these trucks are being very careless in where they park their rigs. They're only concerned about one thing, and that's to get the product to the business. And that's what they should be concerned about. But we as a city, Mr. President, and as elected officials, have to be concerned about the public safety in our community. So I know there's a couple of residents that would like to speak. But I would ask, Mr. President, forthwith, and I think you appreciate the situation here and realize that something needs to be done. And that Committee of the Whole on-site, Committee of the Whole meeting be addressed with Chief Sacco, with the MBTA, and whoever else wants to attend to address this issue, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President. On that motion. I think Anne brings up a great temporary fix for the Harvard Main Corner with the signage that she mentioned. So I would ask that this council send that recommendation, Mr. President, to the Traffic Commission. And it's only a temporary fix. But the no standing, no stopping signs, how many they believe is needed, you said four or five, but six. Whatever the Traffic Commission feels is necessary to solve that issue, Mr. President, I would ask that that be sent. Also, Anne mentioned about method, assault method in particular. receiving recognition, Mr. President. And that is a real estate brokerage firm, Redfin, which is a nationally known real estate brokerage firm. Once a year, it comes out with their three hottest Boston neighborhoods. And, you know, it's amazing to see Method No. 1, Cambridge and Somerville 2 and 3. You see how the tide is changing, Mr. President. And it's incumbent upon us and groups like Smato and other involved residents in the South Medford area to keep doing what they're doing. Because they're not doing it on behalf of themselves, they're doing it on behalf of improving the quality of life in that neighborhood. And we're already seeing the benefits of being named number one hottest market, real estate market, in Boston. That's an amazing, amazing feat, Mr. President, knowing that, in my opinion, very little has been done. You know, and I'm not speaking out of school. Very little has been done in the South Method area, Mr. President, to improve any type of pedestrian safety, to improve traffic flow, to improve business and economic development in the area. And, you know, we're seeing that it's a hot market. And I think as a community, it's incumbent upon us to parlay that into really moving forward these traffic improvements, pedestrian safety improvements, and making the South Medford area something that our neighboring communities will envy, Mr. President. The same way we envied what they did in Somerville and a lot of their business districts, we could be that, Mr. President. And I think it's starting to make a turn, but only if the city is able to cooperate and move these issues forward. So I just want to thank Anne Fretz and Anita D'Antonio for coming up tonight. I want to thank Jim Silva from the Salt Method Neighborhood Group, SMARTO, who organizes a lot of what goes on in that area. uh, gets feedback from area residents. And, uh, I look forward, Mr. President, to assault method that, uh, we're all going to be very proud of, uh, in the future, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: First point of information, counsel, and I appreciate what council and I just had to say. Uh, I consider this, uh, like the residents of temporary fix. Uh, as we heard from the council president, uh, this particular issue is already in the transportation subcommittee, so it has to be voted on by the transportation subcommittee. If I'm correct, Mr. President, I think that's what you were alluding to. And, uh, the, uh, it's under the council purview to move the bus stop, but the loading zone is not under the council purview. That would be under the traffic commission. So then we have to take another step. Even when we do eventually move the bus stop, we have to wait for the traffic commission request, which, but they don't meet every day. They meet twice a month, once a month. So you may be talking several months out before, and I know you're saying enforcement, But in my opinion, the enforcement will happen for a day or two, and then it'll stop happening. That's only my opinion. And I'd rather have signage at least there on a temporary basis. But I don't mind separating, because I'm going to vote.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd like to start by thanking Andrew Castagnetti, who brought this issue to my attention as a former graduate of the Medford Vocational School, I'm always looking for ways to improving upon our vocational education within our community and also by bringing in other people to take advantage of the vocational school. And this is a unique opportunity, Mr. President. Right now, the advanced manufacturing sector And the Commonwealth has, I guess, a boom in jobs and the need to fill these jobs. The average salary is about $75,000 for someone in this particular field. And the city of Somerville just recently put together a course that they're offering. They have two courses, one during the day and one at night. And they're offering local residents over the age of 18 to and take courses in the advanced manufacturing training. And this opens up a whole new networking for young adults that are 18, 19. Maybe they didn't end up going to college. Not everyone goes to college. They're stuck in a low-paid job, and they're looking for advancement, a way to create a career. And this really, I think, would be a win-win, not only to promote our vocational school, but also to allow area residents to attend courses at a local school that's accessible, Mr. President. And I think it would be a win-win for our residents. So I would just respectfully ask that the new director of the vocational school, who's doing yeoman's work in improving vocational education at the high school, and also bringing in new state-of-the-art technology equipment and courses at the vocational school, look into, Mr. President, the offering of this advanced manufacturing training to see if we have, first of all, the capability of doing it, and secondly, if we can offer courses to local residents that may have an interest in potentially looking at jobs in the 75 to 80 grand range for this particular trade, Mr. President. So, again, I want to thank Mr. Castanedi for bringing this to my attention. and ask that this be moved for approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Caravielloli. He's been a real advocate for the public library and the children of this community when it comes to the public library. So I want to thank him for his action on this. The reason why we didn't receive funding for the past, Four years was that the city of method during budgetary discussions didn't meet the state mandated threshold that's required for funding of a public library. So we therefore were ineligible to participate. and any state grants. And we also, anyone that uses their library card, we lost membership in surrounding communities, the ability to go to another library in the network, the Minuteman network, and use their library because of our lack of funding our library. And I'm hoping to see that change, Mr. President. I also just want to touch upon the roof. Because the report that we received had a various range from a couple of thousand dollars on a very temporary fix to I believe it was $125,000 or $130,000 for major roof repair and replacement throughout the entire library. So I think it's only incumbent upon the administration to at least update the council, because if the option three, which is I believe 130, 140,000 of repair is necessary, we're probably gonna be looking for a bond for the roof, and that would be approval by this council. So I think it's important that the city administration at least give us a direction on what the plans are, and that roof has not been touched in 25 years. That's the last time that roof was replaced. And much of the pointing of the bricks, not only the roof, but the pointing around the bricks are accepting water, standing water from the roof itself, some of the flashing. So it's a lot of work that needs to be done on that roof, Mr. President. So I would ask that I thank Councilor Falco and Councilor Lungo-Koehn for bringing that up and Councilor Caraviello about the roof repair, Mr. President, that we get an immediate response on that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, I, I, I'm under the impression that, uh, the new administration, uh, was putting on a position that, uh, was in the mayor's office that was also a liaison between the mayor's office and the council. And if I'm not mistaken, that position, uh, I, I haven't seen anyone. I haven't had any outreach. Like, hey, look at me, I'm the new person that's going to be taking your request back and getting a quicker response to the mayor. And I haven't seen that yet. So maybe, Mr. President, maybe not to a resolution, but maybe if you could find out, you know, what the situation is with the liaison to the council, with the mayor, because that seemed to be a big point during the election. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with all my colleagues. I think we all felt it was necessary to have a contact person, a clerk of the work, whatever you want to call them, to be responsible. At one point in this city, we had a person by the name of Jack Buckley, who was a project manager. And Jack Buckley was responsible for the oversight of the building of the new schools, which was probably the largest endeavor in this city's history. He was responsible for the refurbishing of the fire stations. He was responsible for oversight of a number of large projects happening in the community. And he retired recently. And I think one thing that's lacking in this community, Mr. President, is that type of oversight. Jack had great expertise on building trades, how to deal with manufacturers, how to make sure that these particular companies were compliant with contract. And, you know, he had a great depth of knowledge. And you can rest assured if you ask him a question on anything regarding construction or what's taking place, time frames, he was always there to answer the question. And I really believe someone in that capacity is needed, Mr. President. Because what we heard tonight from the administration was the question was asked, who's the point person on this project? I don't know if it was, I think it was Councilor Knight that asked that. And we were told, well, Lawrence said, I can answer questions. The city engineer, Cassandra Koudelaitis, said, I can answer questions. Or you can send them to Paul Mulkey. He may be able to answer questions. I think when we get back to accountability, get back to having a central depository where you know who to call, I think it's very important, Mr. President. And I would just like to mention that to the city administration, The project manager was there for a number of years for a reason, and it was successful. In my opinion, it was very successful, maybe based on the person that we had in that position. But it was a successful position in moving projects forward and alerting residents on the ongoing of what's happening in the community. And I do want to point that out, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: But, Mr. President, with all due respect, it's on a Medford road. It's affecting Medford business. It's affecting Medford pedestrian. It's affecting Medford traffic. For us not to have a clerk of the work or a project manager, whether it's state or city, makes no sense. It has no bearing at all. The project is a Medford project.
[Michael Marks]: I know, but I think you were trying to point out that, uh, that was only for city projects. And even with the FAST-14 project, the bridge repair, that was a state project. It was the largest bridge repair in this state's history that went through this city, the heart of this city. And at the time, we had someone on board, and that was Jack Buckley, Mr. President. We had someone on board that was there to make sure that the I's were dotted and the T's were crossed, and that all contractual language was adhered to. and to make sure that resident, business owner, and everyone's questions were addressed. So, you know, I would disagree with you. I think that position was for any project in the community, whether it was bonded by our city or not, to ensure that the rules and regulations and that this city is heard when issues need to be addressed, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we're all aware, there's a no heavy trucking ban on Spring Street. And I think it was about a year and a half, two years ago, a number of residents came before this council concerned that the city was not enforcing enough the trucks that are used in Spring Street, the heavy trucks. And for a period of time, the problem was solved. And now it's rearing its ugly head again that Spring Street is being used as a cut-through for Penske Truck, Budweiser, and a number of other businesses in the area, Mr. President. And for whatever reason, there's been a lack of enforcement by our police department. Back, I think it was a year and a half ago, I offered a resolution to create a trucking team. Many surrounding police departments have a trucking team. And it wasn't just to put on additional police officers. It was to address an issue of 18 wheelers traversing our roads, Mr. President, and at no fear of ever getting pulled over. It really is, from what I've been told by members of the police department, it's a particular training to pull these 18 wheelers over. You have to have the ability to be able to look at the log. You got to have the ability to be able to read markings on the side of the truck, the type of liquids they may be carrying, the type of goods they may be carrying, the weight of the truck and so forth. And you have to have ample training and you have to have the equipment to pull these trucks over. And many of our police officers that I've spoken to aren't willing to pull these trucks over because they're not trained and not equipped. And that was the statement I got from them. So I think after a while these truckers know Hey, you know what? Don't go through Cambridge, Somerville. Go through Medford. They won't pull you over. And I think it's posing a problem in our community. And again, I would ask for enforcement, Mr. President, of the heavy trucking on Spring Street. We all know what happens after a period of time with heavy trucking. It creates the waves in the road. It really does. And we saw that firsthand on Spring Street in particular. I'm not sure if it was poor quality of tar that was put down or whatever it might have been, but it created a lot of ripples throughout the whole road, and that was from the heavy trucking. So I would ask increased enforcement on Spring Street, and I would also ask the Chief of Police to once again look at the creation of a truck team. I was told when you issue a ticket to an 18-wheeler, it could be upwards of $1,200 for a ticket. So the truck unit would pay for itself doing the basic enforcement. And don't forget, we have major truck routes running through our community, through our neighborhoods. We saw what happened at Centilli Circle in Everett back some 10 years ago when an 18-wheeler went off and went into the site of elderly housing over there. These are trucks speeding through our community and so forth, and it really poses a public safety concern. So I would ask that the chief look at the truck unit, Mr. President. And if I could just put in a plug while I'm speaking, we also don't have police patrol on the Mystic River. And people might say, oh, the Mystic River, you can walk over the Mystic River. No, that's not the case. We have Medford High School, our young students, rowing on the Mystic River. And we don't have, other than the fire department, which does have a way of getting onto the Mystic River, We don't have any patrol of the Mystic River at all. We would have to wait for state police to come through the locks in Boston. God forbid there was an accident on the Mystic River. We've had tournaments there. Just recently, the Medford Bowl Club had a tournament, a national tournament, actually, on the Mystic River. And I think, really, as a city, we fall short of the mark when it comes to protecting our riverway and also protecting against these 18-wheelers that are coming through our community without any fear of ever getting a ticket, Mr. President. So I would offer those two, as well as the enforcement on Spring Street for the heavy trucking.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President, if someone happens to come to your home and they're doing door-to-door solicitation, my recommendation would be if they don't have a badge or a proper ID, that the person find out where this person is from that's knocking on the door, contact the city clerk's office, and let the city clerk's office know where this person was from, and then the city clerk's office can reach out and let them know that we have a city audience that requires door-to-door solicitors to have proper identification, Mr. President. So, that would be my recommendation.
[Michael Marks]: And, um, I would like to speak on the fact that, The waving of readings has not really been a common practice of this council over the years, and it's been used in the past for negotiations, for city employees, and with the hope of expediting whatever contractual agreements were made between the union and the city. And I would caution, especially when we have a few new members of the council that, and we've all spoke about transparency, is that anytime you waive the remaining readings, you're canceling transparency, you're canceling public debate, you're canceling the opportunity for people to appear before the council that may have a concern. So the first reading, as I'm not sure if my colleagues may or may not be aware, the first reading is when it first appears on the council agenda. That's the first reading. So that's the first time it's up for debate and discussion. The second reading is when it's passed on to go for publication in the paper. And that is notification to the general public that may have not saw it on the council agenda the first time or wasn't aware. So it goes out in the paper and it's duly advertised. People read it and say, you know what? I'm interested in this issue. I'm going to go up to the council meeting when this appears for the third reading, And I'd like to speak on it. However, if we waive the reading, we're doing away with all the processes that are set up for a good government, in my opinion. And I would ask, Mr. President, respectfully ask, because I don't think my colleague's intent is to do away with the public process or do away with public meetings. But, you know, the three-reading process is state statute, and it's there for a reason. And I know in the past it's been used, and not often, but it's been used to expedite the process. But in my opinion, any time there's a change in city ordinance, we don't want to expedite the process. We want to make sure everyone has the equal opportunity and ample opportunity to be heard before this council. So I would respectfully ask my council colleague to withdraw the request to waive the readings, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with Councilor Longo's comments that the city administration has to take a more active role on this particular project Although Medford only has a small footprint in the overall project itself, there should be ample public notification for residents, particular abutters that are impacted by this. We all know the traffic was going to be an issue. This council has gone on record for the past, I believe it's four or five years now, asking that the cut-through road in the back that leads up to Murray Hill Road be closed. And we had the chief of police here, I believe it was about a year, year and a half ago, And he said he will never let that particular road be opened. That would be a shortcut to 93 and be a terrible impact on the neighborhood, Grover and Murray Hill Road and Fry and that whole particular area up there, Mr. President. So I'm happy to see that we did take a step on assuring residents that that cut-through road will not be reopened again like it was years ago, and that the buffer between the project and the homes be maintained. because part of the project called for some of the shrubbery and wooded area, which acts as a buffer between the project and the neighborhood, be removed, Mr. President. And that's a large issue of contention with neighbors and the project itself. And I want to thank Councilor Falco for bringing this up. I think an ad hoc committee, any time we put together at least some oversight on behalf of this community is a good idea, so I would support this.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is a worthy suggestion, although I would ask my council colleague, maybe if we could send it to the licensing subcommittee and have it originate from the licensing subcommittee. I think it would hold a little more weight coming through that angle. First, I would also ask that, uh, although the request now says the traffic commission, council Kaviello just said he likes it with the police department. Those are two separate entities, traffic commission and the police department, the two separate entities. So if you like what the police department, you don't like this because this is sending it to the traffic commission. And right now I'm not aware of any licenses. The traffic commission is responsible for. They are responsible for signage, street markings and other important issues in the community. Uh, but, um, this would be a difference in what they are currently responsible for. I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but I think maybe if it's before the subcommittee on licensing, uh, we can come up with a better option. And I would probably tend to agree that the police department would be probably the best option where we already have someone that's in what we refer to the hackney division. that's responsible to make sure these cars are properly registered, make sure these cars adhere to city ordinances and codes and so forth. So I would just respectfully ask my colleague if we could send it to the licensing subcommittee, maybe hash out some of these questions and then move it forward. I think it's a very worthy suggestion.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, can I just ask a question?
[Michael Marks]: Have you been denied access with your service dog with Medford cabs?
[Michael Marks]: And just one other question too. You mentioned that Cambridge requires testing of their cab drivers?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Sure. Mr. President, if we just could, maybe where the licenses are issued by, they're approved by the council, but issued by the city clerk, that we can send out a letter or contact these drivers to let them know that they are required to take residents that have a service dog, and I assume that's state statute, Mr. Clerk, is that correct? Federal statute? Yes. Or it's the ADA? Yes. Okay. Can we send a letter, Mr. Clerk, to let these drivers know? It will be made as such. Right. I love the idea of testing. I think that's a great concept that Cambridge uses.
[Michael Marks]: That's the written exam, yes. Very interesting. Well, this is why Councilor Knight wants to look into the issue.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Councilor Marks. What council Caraviello just mentioned was one of the reasons why we asked the licensing subcommittee to reconvene. and come out with an ordinance that addresses some of the concerns that we're, you know, hearing tonight. And one of them was that we bantered around was that if you had a cab company in the city that had more than, I believe it was three or four cabs, that they were required under city ordinance to provide at least one handicap cab. And those were the things that we wanted to build into the ordinance. But the licensing subcommittee, for some reason, never met on this, Mr. President, and never addressed some of the concerns. But maybe now we can eventually move this on and maybe give it to someone more equipped to looking into these issues and presenting these issues, Mr. President. Very good. So on the motion approved by Councilor Knight as amended.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I think this is one of the reasons why the school department felt they need a public relations person to not get back to a resident, a business owner. This gentleman's owned a business in the city for a number of years. He was here in the square for a lot of years. Now he's on Salem Street, he runs a reputable business, and that sends a lousy message in this community when people don't return phone calls or e-mails, Mr. President. And if they're not the right person he should be talking to, then it's a two-second call saying, you know what, you have to talk to this person. Or as Councilor Scarpelli said, circle the wagons and re-talk to the principal. But to not to get back to someone sends an awful message, Mr. President. And just let me speak as a parent tonight, if I could. And if the PR person wants to work on something with the superintendent, it's a nightmare, Mr. President, trying to get out of the Medford High School parking lot on a Friday afternoon, on an early release day on a Wednesday. It takes you a half hour to 45 minutes to get out of the Medford High School parking lot. It's unacceptable. And in the case of an emergency, Mr. President, God forbid someone had to get out of there in an emergency, I don't know what would happen, Mr. President. It's unacceptable. It's not the first time, it happens every Friday up there, every early release day, and it's unacceptable that it has to continue that way. Last Wednesday, I witnessed kids coming down the hill on the ice, we got a little rain and some ice there, and there wasn't any salt or anything put, and you had to see the kids try to traverse down the hill, which many kids do. It's unacceptable that the property's not kept after. We all remember years ago what happened in the city of Boston when they didn't shovel sidewalks and kids walked in the street and were struck by a vehicle, Mr. President. And it's unacceptable. I don't know what's going on with that high school. But let me tell you, they're putting positions up there, they're hiring administrators, and we can't get them to salt and sand for the kids, and we can't get them to move the parking lot cars out of the high school. You can't get them out. I would ask anyone of the council here to go up there at 2.15 on a Friday, park in the lot, and see how long it takes you to get out. See how long it takes you to get out. That's a major concern, and it shouldn't be happening this way. We have a police officer that's assigned up there. We have an officer that's a high school safety officer that's assigned up there. And he does his best. Mr. Mosaic has been up there a lot of years, and he does his best. But he's one person, and there's hundreds of cars trying to pick up students, buses, and so forth. And it really is — it's a shame that, as a city our size, that we can't get a handle on how to alleviate the trafficking issues that are going on at the high school. I really — I really have to say that, Mr. President. And I hope this gets to the superintendent of schools and the school committee, because it's unacceptable. And they should be well aware of this. This is nothing new. This has been happening for years up there, Mr. President. And the students walking down a slippery sidewalk is a concern of mine. It should be a concern of everyone behind this railing, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: As amended by Councilor Marks. All those in favor.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Longo for putting this on. Regarding customer service, we're all aware that the City of Method will implement the 311 C-Click and Fix program. I believe it's going to be March or April, and that's long awaited. And I thank the administration for moving forward on this. However, Mr. President, I read online inside Method that the C-Click and Fix has been used for the past several years so Method residents can go on and put on a request that they may have for city service. So I went online. I put C-Click Fix Method, and indeed it brought up 240 postings since 2009 of Method residents going on the C-Click and Fix saying, I have a pothole in front of my house, or I'm concerned the stop sign fell down in front of my house, how do I get it repaired? And needless to say, these requests that residents believe are going to someone here at City Hall are going nowhere. And I looked through to see if there were response or if any of these issues were closed and I couldn't find one response. I couldn't find anything. So I sent an email back to the editor of inside method saying, um, you know, where did this all come about that people are reaching out to see click and fix when it's not implemented in the city yet. And they've been doing it since 2009 and she had no idea why people would have gone on that site. But this gets back to, the issue we've been talking about, customer service, and the fact that the city never had anything set up. So people in the community are reaching out to, in any format they can, they're reaching out to an application that the city doesn't even subscribe to, to try to get answers. The department heads on on. So I'm hoping with this new administration, and I think we're seeing some movement now, which makes me quite happy in that direction. And, you know, I'm looking forward to this implementation. Last week I mentioned that you can implement all the systems you want, but unless we have the boots on the street, unless we have the capability of responding back and actually fixing some of the concerns, this program will not be a success. So I think it has to be followed with additional personnel in DPW, additional personnel in some of the other departments, like we're seeing police, fire, across the board on the municipal side. Otherwise, you know, we're going to have a great system set up to capture requests from residents, but not be able to resolve any of the issues, Mr. President. So, I think that has to be the second part. I'm not sure if the administration has that as a second option.
[Michael Marks]: That could be a request, and Councilor Lungo and I offered a couple weeks ago that we receive a full training of the program itself, and we have yet to get a response back. Mr. Clerk, have we got a response back regarding training for members of this council? That just went out last week. But we even asked before that, we asked before that, that we be part of the process. In December or? I believe in December, but department heads have been trained on this system already. There's no reason why we as city officials who failed a lot of these calls should also be trained on this and be able to point people in the right direction when they reach out to us, phone call, email, and be able to explain this new particular program that's going to be implemented, the 3-1-1 system, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Awesome. Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Last week, the council brought up the issue with the Craddock Bridge and the business owners in that particular area. and the lack of addressing some of the concerns by DOT. Have we heard any response back regarding the barriers and access to some of the properties?
[Michael Marks]: If we didn't receive a response, that's what we discussed last week. So it'll be up to the council. Chair recommends Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: I don't know if the city solicitor is prepared to discuss this, but maybe if we can ask his legal opinion, what our next step is as the legislative body in this community, because I hear what Councilor Knight's saying about sitting down and coming up with comprehensive plans and so forth, but this has been an ongoing issue for a long period of time. And I don't think we can, in good faith, tell the business owners any longer that we're going to, you know, hold this up any further. A day lost is a dollar lost for these businesses. And I, as one member, think we're at the point right now. I want to work with people. But I think we're at the point right now where we have to send a stronger message, and that message may be a halt at work. And you better believe they'll sit down at the table immediately and address some of the concerns. But I'd like to pose that question to you, Mr. Solicitor.
[Michael Marks]: So should we be bringing in the building commissioner and office of community development to work on or in concert with this council?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It was brought up by Councilor Caraviello during a Committee of the Whole meeting that the position of procurement officer requires a special license. Yes. Now, this new job title is Procurement Plus Budget Director. And as Councilor Caraviello mentioned so eloquently inside the Committee of the Whole meeting, is that Louise Miller now has her license. But what's to say the next person that's hired is going to have that procurement license or is brought in for budgeting and doesn't have a procurement license? I just think the administration is tying their hands with putting both positions. together.
[Michael Marks]: I take it respectfully. My only issue is that when Louise Miller was originally hired, she was hired as the procurement officer. And then her description morphed into a number of items. And I'm not, to be quite frank with you, I'm not opposed to any of the changes that is offered by the administration. I think it's a long time coming. I was hoping to see a constituent person, which was mentioned on many, many occasions, something that I feel is needed, in addition to a chief of staff, someone that will handle the constituent calls and be able to get back to people in a timely fashion. And I've yet to see that. But my only concern is that many of these positions have morphed into other positions over the years. And as we know, we used to have a director of personnel and a budget director that no longer exist. Then we had someone that was a procurement officer that was doing the duties, because as far as I know, Louise was still signing off on the paperwork and also was budget director and I believe at some point was personnel director. That's correct. For a period of time. That position morphed into three what I would consider department heads. So I only bring up that issue because I would hate to create a city ordinance and then in six months from now, a year, two years, whatever it might be, be unable to find a person that suits the procurement requirements, which is certification, and also the budgeting requirements. And that may be a special person that is unique to Louise and not unique to a lot of people out there in that profession.
[Michael Marks]: I don't think anyone's saying that this is the end and the final. But, you know, for many years, we've received piecemeal. And one of the biggest issues with this council, besides transparency, was the fact that we receive things in piecemeal form. And as we receive tonight, These are great first steps, but I as one, like Councilor Longo mentioned, would like to see the overall picture. What is the current organizational chart of the administration? What's it going to look like? What's the additional staff that's going to be needed? There's talk about a 3-1-1 system. The 3-1-1 system is only as good, and we heard from Councilor Scarpelli, who happens to work in Somerville, and they've had this system for a number of years. It's only as good as the staff that you have on. And we all know many of our departments, DPW, you can go through the list, are understaffed. So it's great to say we're going to implement this new program, which I've been pushing for for a number of years. But I've yet to see any substance behind it that's going to say, with this new program, we're going to be able to staff it appropriately so people get timely calls back and their issues are addressed in a timely fashion. So these are the things, I guess, I'm not part of that 28-person transition committee. But these are the things that I have questions on. And the reason why we asked that it be tabled is that we see an overall picture.
[Michael Marks]: There's no yielding chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe Mr. Solicitor, if you could answer something that does the treasure collector report to the city auditor in the normal course? Yes. So, so I can see what you're saying, but how does the oversight exist? when it's one and the same person?
[Michael Marks]: So, so getting back to the question regarding the auditor's responsibility. Yes. Then where is the oversight now with the treasurer collector? Is it within an Baker in the auditor's position? Yes, it would have to be.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, that is true. So she has a concern in the treasurer collector's office.
[Michael Marks]: She reports back as the acting treasurer-collector. As incongruous as that may sound. OK. And why is it assistant treasurer-collector? There is one. Why would that person not assume the responsibilities?
[Michael Marks]: I just want to, uh, reiterate what council Longo just said that, uh, we need to have a presentation on how this is going to work. This is a very important system, uh, in our community. And, um, at the very least, I think we should have a committee, the whole meeting. So, uh, the sooner we can set that up, the better.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. It's a breath of fresh air to have someone with a council of Falco's background in budgeting, uh, in his, uh, profession, uh, on the council, because that's been a bone of contention, uh, with this council for many years, uh, receiving a line item budget from the administration and really nothing else. No narrative, no clear direction on which way the city's going. And with that being said, I happen to have done a little research on outcomes-based budgeting. And you're probably familiar with it, Councilor Falco. But if I could, Mr. President, I just want to read a little narrative. Because I think this is the exact direction, at least I as one member of the council, and from what I'm hearing from other members of the council, would like to see take place in this community. It states the new fiscal reality facing cities and towns across the Commonwealth necessitates that communities must be more judicious and prudent than ever before in their approach to providing services. Outcome-based budgeting, as opposed to the more traditional line-item incremental budgeting where expenditures are increased or decreased by a percentage from prior year levels, outcome-based budgeting is unique in that it ties in strategic planning, Performance management. Outcome-based budgeting requires the mayor and department heads to develop an improved set of government priorities for the coming year, such as enhanced public safety or increased economic development. These larger priorities then cascade down through the departments and permeate each of their own annual work plans. Resources are then calibrated toward the specific activities that are designed to realize those outcomes. I mean, I think that's exactly what we as a council have been talking about for years. You know, it's great to get a line item budget, and there's 10,000 line items on that, and we go through and we say, okay, last year you gave line item 003 10,000, this year it's getting 11,000. There's no rhyme to reason. Why is it getting 11,000? We don't know. You know, one line item goes down, one goes up. And it never really addresses priorities. We've been talking about public safety, the police department. We've been talking about the need for additional cruises. We've been talking about the need to repair roads and sidewalks and so forth, the leaking ceilings and preventive maintenance in our community on some of our city-owned buildings. And really, every year, we never really address those particular issues in the budget. It's more or less just looking at last year's budget and adding or decreasing lines. There's really no rhyme to reason. And this outcomes-based budgeting, I think, it may not be the solve-all, but it allows us to hear from the different departments. It allows us, as Councilor Peto would state year after year, that if you had a wish list, you used to ask every department head, what is your wish list? And, you know, the department heads would either be open with you or not. But this outcomes-based budgeting forces their hand to say, hey, the administration wants to act upon public safety in this community. And those particular department heads that have public safety within their budget would have to raise particular areas in their budget to address the needs of the community and what direction the mayor wants to go in. So, I support this wholeheartedly, Mr. President. I thank Councilor Falco for putting this on. And, you know, the ultimate goal is to ensure that each dollar in the city has a well-designed purpose. each dollar is accountable to whatever resources they're earmarked to. And as we all know, at the end of a budget year, at any given year, we're transferring millions of dollars that we thought were appropriated for this particular use. A million dollars is going towards this, and at the end of the year, we have a million dollar surplus. And I think that speaks volumes on the need to dig a little deeper, I think, So, that's what Councilor Falco is saying, and I hope this is part of the new process and the budgeting process. I thank you for offering this.
[Michael Marks]: Just a quick point, too. This council has requested, I believe, unanimously over the last several budgets that also within our budget book, we receive a column that shows whether the account was in a deficit or had a surplus the previous year. And I, as one member, know that's very helpful to look at. And, for instance, snow and ice, we end up funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. It's the only account that you can budget deficit spend. And but it's helpful, I think, especially as new members of the council, those two new members to see what accounts every year go into deficit, whether it's overtime or whatever have you, and then make adjustments accordingly. And, you know, I think any good budget person will make those adjustments on the fly. So year after year, you don't have the same accounts that are in deficit or surplus. where money is being transferred. So I would again ask that be part of this report that the previous year that we receive whether or not that account was in a surplus or deficit.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Many of us know Johnny Amari for many years in this community. Johnny has been an active member of this community for a number of years. He's a great guy. He just celebrated his 50th birthday, Mr. President. I had the opportunity to attend his birthday party. And let me tell you, Johnny hasn't changed a bit over the years. He's the same guy I remember. I grew up on Stearns Ave, right next door to Johnny. And he's the same gentleman I remember from years ago. And many of us refer to him as the mayor of South Method. And he truly is, Mr. President. He's a staple in that particular section of the city. And I just want to wish him a happy 50th and another 50 for Johnny.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. MassDOT came out with their construction detour information just recently, and I received a number of calls from area residents that were concerned about the increased traffic coming down some of the side streets. And I know the south side of Harvard Street is to be completed and reopened on January 22nd. After the sidewalk is reopened, the gravel sidewalk on the north side will be closed for grading, curb, installation, and paving. The north side walk is estimated to be completed by February 5th, assuming no weather-related delays. And work cannot occur on the north side until the south side work is completed. Each side requires its own lane closure. During the construction of the Harvard Street sidewalks, Winchester Street, and this is why I bring this up, Mr. President, is being used to detour traffic. The result of this is that there is an increase of speeding vehicles. Residents trying to exit their driveways onto Winchester from Morton, Granville, and Wareham are experiencing near misses trying to get out of their driveway. The recommendation from the neighbors I spoke with They'd like to see, at least for the next several weeks, the temporary electronic flashing speed sign, speed limit sign, appear on Winchester Street to try to slow down some of these people that are using this particular area now, and that an increase in police patrols during rush hours be implemented to help alleviate some of the concerns of the neighborhood, Mr. President. So I would ask that those two recommendations, the temporary electronic flashing speed sign be placed on Winchester Street, and increased patrols during rush hour, during the rush hours on Winchester and those surrounding Morton and Granville and Wareham.
[Michael Marks]: I thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing up this important issue. However, I would state, Mr. President, when DOT was before us, with all their high-paid salaries. They mentioned there's going to be a 24-hour hotline. There's going to be contact people we can get a hold of. Now we're hearing we have to petition our own traffic commission because we're unable to get a hold of DOT, as Councilor Caraviello just mentioned, to make some small — these are minor changes, which makes — Mr. President, we met with them at 10 o'clock that evening, and they agreed to make these changes, and they just ignored it. Right. Right. So — so, that's my issue. You know, if — elected officials, as Councilor Caraviello, are unable to address some of the minor concerns, Mr. President. Maybe we have to put a halt on this project. Maybe it's about time. And I mentioned this several months ago, and, you know, I got a lot of feedback from people that were supportive of it, that we put a temporary halt on the project until some of these questions that are being asked by area businesses, Mr. President, and issues that Councilor Caraviello just mentioned about the Jersey Barriers are addressed, because it seems to me that DOT is not a willing partner in this, and they're going to go down kicking on every issue. And so, you know, if the council sees fit, I think we should offer a resolution, Mr. President, asking that if these issues are not addressed immediately, then a halt to the project be taken. And we take a vote on that, Mr. President. The President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Clerk, if you would please call the roll timeline. So we know when we can, uh, should we wait a week to get a response? Well, we'll go into the traffic commission, which means monthly on this. Um, they don't meet again until next month. Correct. Which is right. It seems like a long time to wait.
[Michael Marks]: I would say if we don't hear, if this is not resolved by next Tuesday, And next Tuesday we take a vote to stop the project to stop the project.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, over the last, I think it's been three months now, I put on two separate resolutions that were voted unanimously by this council asking about the temporary speed bumps that were placed on Harvard Street and Central Ave. I'm under the impression that the one on Harvard Street now is gone. as recently as a day. That has been removed. I have yet to get a response on two separate resolutions. Those two locations were part of the pilot program that involved three raised, not speed bumps, three raised crosswalks, of which Winthrop Street was the only one that was placed in. And I've yet to get a response, Mr. President. I know there's a new administration now, but I'm hoping that we can get a response back from someone in engineering or someone in DPW. or someone in the building that's in the know why these two speed bumps have popped up in the community, why one now is gone, and what's happening with the raised crosswalks that the mayor came out with a press conference saying that this was part of the initial pilot program to help with pedestrian safety in our community.
[Michael Marks]: Right, three years ago, and to help mitigate some of the concerns we have with increased speeding in our community, Mr. President. So I really would like to get an answer on that. This is a public safety concern. This is, this is not just some pie in the sky issue. This is a public safety concern. We read all the time in the paper about pedestrians being struck and killed. And it's not in every other community. It's in our community too. And, and really, uh, to not address these concerns is a detrimental Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Penta. There's been no bigger advocate for public access in this community than Councilor Penta over the years. But he hit the nail on the head. Where else, Mr. President, can you pay for a service and not receive it, and then no one says anything? It'd be like going to the gas station and saying, give me $10 worth. They give you $9, and then you say, thank you very much, and you leave.
[Michael Marks]: It doesn't happen that way. That's not the way it works. And for several years now, residents of this community have been paying, take a look at your bill. You're paying a franchise fee for local access peg, which is public access, the government and educational channel. And for several years now, public access, in my opinion, which is probably the more important of the three, which allows people to come in and do local programming. You know, it's great to watch 4, 5, 7 and all the History Channel and all those channels. They got great programming. But what better to have local access where you can watch a local show and talk about local issues and see local people on TV discussing politics, discussing athletics, discussing education, discussing a myriad of issues in the community. And we've been cheated out of that for several years now. And it's unfortunate, as my council colleague mentioned, It's almost half a million dollars. This is not chump change that we're talking about. It's a half a million dollars of ratepayer money. And, you know, for the most part, you know, people may be looking for it. But now public access has been out of the public realm for so many years now, I don't even think people know that they're not getting it anymore, Mr. President. And it's a real shame. It really is a real shame. And I agree with my colleague. I hope, you know, under the city charter, the only one that signs contracts in the community is the administration. It's the mayor. And the mayor has put together a contract with Verizon and Comcast, which includes public access. And the mayor says, Verizon and Comcast, it's all right for you to charge every person under my city an additional fee. But the mayor has been the one to neglect not to provide the service, Mr. President. So the mayor is saying, Comcast, Verizon, go in and tax these people. Take money out of their pocket. but I'm not going to provide the service. That's what's happening. Because if you call Comcast and Verizon, they'll tell you they have nothing to do with local programming. That's up to the community. So it's been the mayor, Mr. President, that's been reaching his hand in the pockets of each and every ratepayer in this community and not providing the service. Where else can you do that, Mr. President? There should be a class action suit in this community. Where else can you charge people for a service you're not getting? It makes no sense at all. It really doesn't. And I can appreciate the fact that there were some tough times back a few years ago, but it doesn't take two, three, four years. to put together a cable operation, public access. It doesn't take that long. We have plenty of capable people in the community that are willing to step up and run this particular channel. We have students from Medford High School and the elementary and middle schools that want to partake in this. We're missing precious sports events that we could be taping, like the Thanksgiving game, although this game we probably didn't want to tape. this past game. But, you know, we're missing a lot of things, Mr. President, that are going on in this community. And it's a real shame. It really is, Mr. President. And I hope, you know, before the mayor leaves, I hope that he acts on — there's a number of issues on the table that the mayor is yet to act on. And I'm hoping the next week or two he acts on them. But this is one that's too important to let go. This is one that, you know, everyone's paying for. And if the mayor is against, public access, just come out and say it. And then say, okay, we're going to stop charging for public access. That would be the right thing to do. Maybe the mayor's opposed to public access. Maybe the mayor doesn't want the laundry issued out on local access and wants to keep everything in a vacuum. And he's doing a great job of that. But the case is, he's also charging us for that service. So I thank my council colleague, Councilor Penta, on this issue. And I hope maybe under the next administration, there's more transparency, and that that administration realizes the need for public access, and especially in a community of this size, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. If my memory serves me correct, it was about probably A year and a half, two years ago, the mayor created a raised crosswalk pilot program in the city. Three years ago, thank you. And at that time, they came out with three locations, Winthrop Street, Central Ave, and Harvard Street for raised crosswalks for the first phase of implementation. Winthrop Street, as we all know, has been done and quite successful from what I hear from area residents. However, over the last, I think it was six, seven months ago, Central Ave, a speed bump popped up in the middle of Central Ave, and now just recently Harvard Street now has the same speed bump, which is very different than a raised crosswalk, and many surrounding communities that have used speed bumps are now removing it, like the city of Malden had several speed bumps, and have removed them for various public safety issues and concerns. I asked, I believe it was two weeks ago, that we get a response back from the city administration regarding why speed bumps are popping up on our streets rather than the raised crosswalk, and we did not get a response, Mr. President, to date. So again, I am asking that We reach out to the administration to find out why they are installing speed bumps rather than the anticipated and proposed raised crosswalks, which are far better in traffic calming than a speed bump. So I would again ask that question, Mr. President. I know there's been some e-mails going back and forth. I know the bike, method bike is concerned about these speed bumps also. And there have been a number of issues raised. And residents that were waiting for these raised crosswalks now are questioning why speed bumps are showing up. And we have yet to get any response from the administration.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to table, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up. You know, this is not a new issue. This issue of the lack of funding that the city has taken a backseat for many, many years on providing seed money, if you want to call it seed money. And we have to remember, this is a city building. This is not a private building. This is a city-owned building that has been neglected for many years, and thanks to the Friends of Chevalier and the Chevalier Commission that have done Yeoman's work over many, many years, and with all open transparency, I am a member of the board of the Friends of Chevalier, and I can speak firsthand about the countless hours that no one sees behind the scenes of how these performances get put together. And it's not because the city's pushing, or if the city's providing seed money, it's the volunteers that are putting this all together and spending countless hours, as May just mentioned and Susan just mentioned, about the performances. This weekend will be the BJs, BJs, the BGs, and I can just tell you wholeheartedly that that type of performance should bring out a group of 800, 900 people. And I would hope that we anticipate that because I think that suits well to the age group, not only in this community, but surrounding communities that grew up with that type of music. But I just want to mention, Mr. President, that until this city gets serious about its public facilities, and, you know, it was only just recently within the last couple of years that the city finally acknowledged that the arts were part of the community and put a line item in the budget to support those, a minimal line item, but it showed in good faith that the city's behind the arts. And there's no reason why, and the master plan is probably already in the workings with the commission, I'm sure, but there's no reason why there shouldn't be a line item in the budget to support performances. Also, an issue that's been around for a number of years is there's no air conditioning in the building. So you can take out three, four, five months out of the year that it's very difficult to bring in acts when there's not air conditioning. And that's a major concern. I know there's been discussion about the facade and other aspects of the building that need to be looked at. But really, until the city steps up to the plate, and after three master plans for the revitalization of Medford Square that mentioned Chevalier as an economic engine for the revitalization of Medford Square, three master plans You would think someone in the Office of Community Development would have read it and said, wait a minute. What a gem we have here. Look at this. It's standing right here. We have a building that potentially could bring in thousands of people a week into our community and provide foot traffic throughout the community. And nothing has been done by this administration for years. Nothing has been done. And, you know, we could talk about other areas, but Lowell did it right. Lowell provides seed money for their auditorium. They bring in a lot of top-notch performances. And as I think it was Councilor Penta that mentioned it, it takes money to make money. So if you don't want to invest into Chevalier, we're going to be stuck with the need to have improvements done to the building. And I'm sure there's reasons why Performers don't want to come here based on some of the things that we lack. And so this is the wish list I think we need to sit down with the commission and the friends and say, what do we need? You know, if we're going to have a chart the course and a capital improvement plan, it should include Chevalier. And we should be able to look at it and say, for $150,000 or $200,000 or whatever it might be, the figure, this is what we'll need. And based on this, we believe we can bring in these many more performances. Based on this, we believe that it could be used for other purposes. And, you know, it was talked about, I think, John Veneziano and some people talked about movie night there a while back. And I think that's a terrific idea for kids that are 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 years old that really have nowhere to go in this community. after 7, 8 o'clock, and would love to see a movie in their own town, to go in there and see a movie on a giant screen in an old-fashioned theater. And as was mentioned, that night, I had several people come up to me and say, this is the first time I've ever been in this building, and I've been here my whole life. Not that they didn't know about it. It's just the first time they've been in the building. And I think that speaks volumes to where this city has Chevalier on a priority list. And I'm hoping that changes. come January of next year. And I'm hoping that this city wakes up and realizes that we have a gem in this community. And we really do need to step up to the plate, Mr. President, and put our money where our mouth is. And, you know, we don't need three reiterations of an economic revitalization plan to tell us that this is a true gem in our community. We should all realize that, and I think we do. I just want to thank Mr. President, if I could, because the Friends just passed out a pamphlet. And I just want to mention the co-presidents, Cindy Watson and Mike Cerullo, they do a great job. The treasurer, Kenneth Krauss, watches every penny that's going through the Friends. And then you have board members, May Makibrek, who was one of the founding members. Representative Donato, Susan Fairchild, who's been a very active and involved member and now part of the Chevalier Commission. Russ Rossetti, who's been on the Chevalier a number of years, and Keith Barry. And they do a tremendous job in trying to solicit funds and keep that building up to where it should be, Mr. President. The President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And first, I'd like to thank the city administration for sending out, at the request of this council, a reverse 911 to notify residents of Eversource's presence here tonight to explain the project. Although the reverse 911 went out today, it was still notification. So I just want to thank the administration for sending that out. At the last meeting, I believe it was back in May, that you were before the council. Yes. There were several questions asked that I don't believe we've received responses to. Which questions are those? There was probably a dozen. Maybe the city clerk can get the papers from that meeting. They weren't responded to. Some of it was because of the fact that I guess much of the design has not been done.
[Michael Marks]: So the question I posed back in May was the fact that this project is roughly 3.2 miles through our portion of the city. And along that 3.2 miles, there'll be an eight inch steel pipe, 24 inch wide by 60 inch deep trench. The full length of this 3.2 miles. And the concern I raised at the time is approximately 17 manholes uh, will be neat to install. And that's for the whole entire project or just within the city of method.
[Michael Marks]: So at the time I asked how many manholes will be installed within the city. It's my understanding that at least 10 by 10, uh, and, um, and they're going to be anywhere from 2000 to 2400 linear square feet apart. And, um, Do we have an idea where these 10 by 10 manholes are going to be located?
[Michael Marks]: So you do know where currently you plan on putting them?
[Michael Marks]: Because, in my opinion, the 3.2 miles of the 24 inch by 60 inch deep is going to be a huge inconvenience. But these manholes are going to be a giant inconvenience on our roads, on roads that, if you go through in the morning, you'll realize just even trying to get your kid up to Medford High School in the morning is a task in itself. And I think I asked at the time, It was going to be along the curbing, I believe the gentleman said, with the underground trench that was going to be dug. It was going to be close to the curb. Is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: So based on what you have to design right now, where will the eight inch pipe steel pipe be located?
[Michael Marks]: So a typical trench, would that be located in the middle of the street or towards the curb?
[Michael Marks]: So from what you're telling me in a 3.2 mile stretch, uh, we, we could have an obstacle course. Uh, our streets could turn into an obstacle course because you have piping that goes across the street. You might have a trench that's located on the other side of the street. It doesn't seem to be, It's systematic.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I'm talking about the trench itself.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if you have a trench that's 10 by 10, and what's the average street width on Winthrop Street?
[Michael Marks]: No, no. I'm talking about the manholes. The manholes.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if you were gonna put that in the middle of the street, you're talking probably, no matter how quickly you work and how efficiently you work, lots of detours.
[Michael Marks]: What's the average width of just say Winthrop Street down towards the Winchester line?
[Michael Marks]: You don't know what the average is? Is it 20 feet wide? Is it 25?
[Michael Marks]: Right. You know, I just think at some point, I realize you're only 50% there. But at some point, we really need to see some type of, and I know the project's slated for 2017, but I really, and the reason why we called for this meeting, I know members have been thanking Eversource for coming up, but we actually requested that you come up here.
[Michael Marks]: Right, and provide a presentation, and I'm happy you came up, and honestly, I've been very pleased with the outreach and the documentation we've received. But I think at some point, as a member of the council, because I'm receiving the phone calls and emails. Uh, you know, people would like to know what's going to happen and you know, they're curious about the project, but they want to know what's going to happen in front of the house and you can't blame them. And that's why I'm trying to get more specifics so we can tell people, uh, you know, on this stretch, you may have a manhole on this stretch. You're not going to have a manhole, but you're going to have just the trench or, you know, So when do you think we'll be able to see that prior to the construction?
[Michael Marks]: Right now. Uh, I read online that the Winchester project, which is about a third smaller than our project in terms of length, uh, was expected to take place within a six month construction period. Is that going to be comparable on our side? Can we take the six months and say, well, we're a third larger? It's going to be roughly, you know, eight months?
[Michael Marks]: Right. But the, the length of the project is anticipated two years altogether, right? Is that 17, 18? Is that the ballpark? Entirety of the project, including substation work, the entirety of the project. So is it safe to say, because of how you're going to do the work, that it's possible that our roads will be under some sort of construction for two years? I wouldn't say that. Well, what can you give us? You know, I realize on your end, you're going to try to do it the most efficient and probably cost-effective way. And on our end, I want to see you come in and get out of our city, to be quite honest with you. And, you know, so it's not advantageous for us or the residents or our traffic, so it's cost-effective for you. to be here for two years. So I wanna see you do your work and get out. Just so you know that.
[Michael Marks]: You may or may not, but the city of Cambridge right now is putting a moratorium on any openings of their streets for non-emergent purposes. And I'm not sure what this project would be classified as, but it begs to be looked at because as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, our roads have been dug up so many times Not just for underground utilities, but for other reasons. We have mains from the MWRA that run and feed other communities. And we're constantly under construction in this community. And the Winthrop Circle, as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, has really borne the brunt for the last several years. So, you know, I realize the overall project is to help with, you know, electricity for communities that are further out.
[Michael Marks]: And just the last point, Mr. President, I'd like to make, and again, I thank Eversource. You know, the project slated for 2017, 2018, we're trying to get a handle, and I can appreciate the fact. I do have an issue with the mayor, negotiating mitigation, a mayor that's going to be leaving in a couple of months, and the project doesn't start until 2017. And the next mayor come this January might have very different ideas on mitigation and what they may want to do to Winthrop Street and some of the areas that are impacted. And, you know, I'm not quite sure why the mitigation, although I think it's warranted, has to be discussed with this current mayor at this particular point. And, you know, I'm not sure how other councilors feel, but I truly think this should be an issue that is confronted with the next mayor and their vision and their ideas that they have, Mr. President. And on that note, I'd just like to thank Eversource again for appearing.
[Michael Marks]: Just one last question, if I have a source. I don't think we discussed the potential disruption to driveways. There's many driveways along the uh, course of this route. Um, and, uh, will residents be notified that they won't have access to their driveway for particular periods of time? I'm sure during the construction, there may be hours and hopefully just a few hours that they won't have access. How will that notification, be sent to residents.
[Michael Marks]: So what do you anticipate?
[Michael Marks]: So residents will have access to their driveway throughout this whole project. There won't be any interruption.
[Michael Marks]: So when the machine's doing the digging, you're talking a good hour and a half maybe in front of a driveway then? The length of a driveway, five, six feet? Right. You're talking a good hour, an hour and a half. I would just...
[Michael Marks]: I think we have one more point, Mr. Chairman.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. The utilities now are assessed. So what was the assessment for the City of Method, do you know?
[Michael Marks]: The Vice President Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President. I have an update on the dog park. I know it was mentioned by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Last night at the school committee meeting, we were invited by the school committee And when I say we, it was Leonard Design Associates, who is the site planning and landscape architect for the dog park, along with Paws for Method, which was the committee that was created of a group of interested citizens in creating a dog park. And we appeared before the school committee last night to discuss the potential site for the dog park, which is Riverbend Park along the river. And where it's on school property, we needed school committee approval. And I'm pleased to announce that the school committee voted unanimously for approval of this particular park. If anyone's interested in looking at the schematic presentation that was presented last night, if you didn't catch the school committee, you can go on pause, the number four, medford.org. So it's pause, the number four, medford.org, and you can also leave a name and email address on the site and you will be receiving updates of anything that goes on. There's a timeline of the project and where the two particular parks, there's gonna be a small dog park and a large dog park for larger dogs on the site itself. A lot of time and effort went into this particular proposal from the Dog Park Advisory Committee, who created the website on their own, at their own expense. The members of the committee are Patty Flynn, Jim Silva, Diane Gitner, Britt Fitch, Gary DeStefano, John Sardone, and myself. and this group was established in November of last year, and to date, we have brought on board a landscape and site plan design person who put together this schematic presentation last night. I asked the gentleman, along with the other committee members, to appear before the Medford City Council in the next several weeks to give us the presentation, Mr. President. Come this November, The committee will be applying for a grant through the Stanton Group, which is a private foundation that funds dog parks. They funded dog parks in Somerville and in Arlington at no expense to the taxpayers. And they will also fund maintenance and upkeep for a period of time, too. I believe it was in Arlington they funded, I think it was $20,000 for a three-year period for the upkeep. This particular site is handicap accessible. There's lighting in the area, so we don't have to have a great expense to add lighting to the site. There's water in the area. They're going to have obstacle courses for the dogs. It's going to be a real great, great top-notch dog park in this community. And we are projected for hopefully a grand opening sometime in maybe July, August, September of next year, if everything goes well, Mr. President. And that includes approval from the grant, the Stanton Group, and any other design things that need to be worked out. But I just want to update the Council, and I will invite at a future meeting within the next several weeks for a PowerPoint presentation. It's a rather short presentation, but it's really been a labor of love. for many residents in this community and long overdue. Uh, if we all recall the fast 14 bridge project that took place, the mayor negotiated as part of the mitigation $60,000 for the dog park. And we are using some of that money now to bring on this Leonard design associates, uh, to pay for this initial schematic, uh, design that was done. So, um, I look forward to this presentation. in the next several weeks, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'd be remiss if I didn't mention, uh, the, uh, the Crystal Campbell dedication that took place, uh, on Sunday, It was a real heartfelt event and well attended. And the administration did a tremendous job putting this together, Mr. President. And I just want to say it really put our city in a great light and is a real tribute to this community and how we honor our residents, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, have received the same complaints and concerns and want to thank my two colleagues for bringing this up tonight. I think it's great that we get a correspondence back from the Director of Medford Housing, but I think it's only appropriate with the seriousness of these particular complaints that the Housing Director appear before the Medford City Council. If you choose executive session, that'd be fine with me or here at the council meeting. I think it's only appropriate that he appear before us, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's perfect.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate what Councilor Penta had to offer. However, I know there are people here from the Garden Club, and it may be interesting to find out what the current expenditures are, the number of plots, and based on that information, because if we have a figure of 10,000 that's currently in the ordinance, to go down to 3,000 if they're already expending 5,000, It doesn't make any sense to me, so.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question to the city solicitor or maybe someone from the guiding club, but the way I understand it right now, the Riverbend Park for many years had a waiting list. And I'm glad to see this program expand to other parks. We do have 26 parks in the city, many of which are underutilized. But currently, I guess I'd like to find out if there is a waiting list, just say at the Riverbend Park. And under this particular ordinance, if I was on the waiting list at Riverbend Park and not knowing anything about fees or anything else at that park, And an opening came up at McNally or Winthrop Street. Am I eligible to fill that opening? Would I have to pay the fee that's dictated by the commission based on Winthrop Street and McNally?
[Michael Marks]: What is that again? I'm sorry, I didn't get the last.
[Michael Marks]: That's what we're doing. But if you're following their, from what we just heard, their rules and regulations and trying to mirror exactly what they're doing, then why wouldn't it be a combined effort? And why would there be a separation?
[Michael Marks]: So there'll be an ability to cross-pollinate memberships?
[Michael Marks]: OK. And just if you could, just because I've seen the McNally and also the Winthrop, how many plots are at Winthrop?
[Michael Marks]: And McNally Park?
[Michael Marks]: Four. And are they roughly the same square footage?
[Michael Marks]: And as an organization, how do you control the use of water within any of these sites?
[Michael Marks]: Is it metered?
[Michael Marks]: I just think maybe for future reference, it may be worthwhile for your group or even this council recommend that a meter be put in just to safeguard the group and to make sure that it'll be a way of tracking year after year to see what's currently used. Because as you know, that is considered unaccounted for water. And we all pay for that as rate payers. And I think it's a great use and it's worthwhile, but I think there needs to be a way of seeing what's being used and also the ability to control it. But I applaud everyone for their work on an ordinance. As you can see, I'm sure a lot of time and effort went into this. And it's easy to pick it apart, but I know there's a lot of work that went into this. And I look forward to the eventual expanding of this program. I remember the days of the Victory Gardens on Grove Street, and there had to be 100 plots in there, and it was real bustling. And I would love to see this expanded in other neighborhoods where people can walk down and do their own garden.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for your involvement.
[Michael Marks]: A question for the speaker from Councilor Marks. You may not know, but what is the current waiting list at Riverbend? Do you know?
[Michael Marks]: Are there any provisions that would have people maybe have a lot for a year, two year, three year, and have to turn it over?
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, because I agree on all this. If the Riverbend group wants to stay separate right now at this particular point, there is no animosity among the groups. The friends are fine with that. I don't see this. The city is not supporting the Riverbend and they're not supporting the friends other than allowing to use city land, then I don't see this disparity that one speaks about. And I see it as different organizations. We have little leagues that are different in the city. We have football leagues that are different in the city. And I don't see this as any different for now. And maybe someday they'll join together. So I would support leaving it as is. I can't support right now. the amendment that Councilor Camuso put forward. I think it has some valid points, but at this particular time, there's no one in opposition, and I don't see why I'm going to create opposition when there seems to be harmony among the group. So I just want to go on record, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President. Because the gentleman brings up a very valid point. And as I've stated in the past, our parks, in my opinion, are underutilized right now. And I think all you have to look at is what Lowell did during their revitalization of their downtown business district. They also included their many parks throughout the city of Lowell that were in disrepair. And residents got together, and in some parks, they built little performance stages and did nifty artwork around the perimeter of the park with steel and metal and really made it an inviting and attractive place for residents to come. And they're seeing these parks now gone from drug dens, to be quite honest with you, and places that were in disrepair to places where there's performing arts right now. And it's used as a community gathering spot. And we right now in this community don't have many of those areas. And I think what the gentleman just mentioned about bringing some life back into our parks is a very valid point. And I look forward to that discussion in the future.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you. Thank you both for your diligence in this. You have an opportunity now to give out a website or any way of people sending a donation. So at this point, if you could do that.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for all you do.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Patty, for coming up. I think Councilor Knight just hit the nail on the head to get the information on the number of business permits that are out there and how many are being sold. But also, and we have the Chief in the audience, I was under the impression that only Medford residents can get commuter parking stickers. Is that still true, Chief?
[Michael Marks]: They're not selling them to anyone outside the community?
[Michael Marks]: But, Chief, what I'm getting at is if the intent is to have business owners be able to park and Method residents be able to have commuter parking, and we're selling them to people outside the community, which I'm led to believe is happening now, then that takes from business owners, because we can shift, you know, if we don't have enough people going for commuter parking that live in the city, and there's an overflow of people outside the community that can come in and buy passes, that defeats the whole purpose. And I'd rather see a business owner that can take that spot rather than an outside commuter.
[Michael Marks]: But that's one area.
[Michael Marks]: What about along Playstead Road?
[Michael Marks]: I think we're going to find chief and this has nothing to do with you. they're overselling these business permit parking stickers.
[Michael Marks]: Don't forget, the mayor's original plan was to charge $400 for a business permit parking sticker. And when the businesses heard that, they were outraged.
[Michael Marks]: I have a tough time believing nothing happens without the mayor's input.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But I think now what we're seeing is the fact that they had to lower it to the $100, they figure they'll just sell four times more the passes and make up the difference. But if you could check into that, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of approval by Councilor Penta, as amended, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, because I have a lot of respect for Dr. Starella and his eagle eye for budgetary concerns in this community. I think I'm struggling with the same thing, doctor. We had a conversation prior to the council meeting. And I appreciate the fact that you're saying the 0% interest loans that the MWRA offers is all the community's money combined. And you're right, because the MWRA doesn't generate money on their own. rates and through charging communities rates for water and sewer. So you're right, that pool is money that's out there that's generated from my water and sewer consumption, your water, everyone, and not just in Method, throughout all the MWRA district. And you're absolutely right with that. And my only concern is that if there is a grant out there, and at the end of this all being said and done, Dr. Estrella, and I know what you're saying. $954,000 of this project will not be taken from our $6 million reserve. It'll be given to us by the MWRA, which is money from all the communities. I see that as a win for our community. It's no different, in my opinion, when we built the new schools in this community. You could say the same thing with the reimbursement we got from the state, the state building assistance program with the new schools. Why would the state come in and give the city of Medford 90% to build new schools? And you're right, that's every taxpayer in the commonwealth's money that's in that state building assistance. But why as a community wouldn't we take advantage of that? And that's the only issue I'm struggling with. Why wouldn't we take advantage of the grant? I realize we paid into it, Malden paid into it, Somerville paid into it. Everyone paid into it, but why wouldn't we try to get our fair share of it? Rather than saying, you know what, we can afford out of the excess we have in the water and sewer, the surplus from all the rate payers paying too much for water and sewer over the years, we can take that $2 million out without a problem. That'll leave us with $4 million. I'm saying, let's only take $1,166,000 and let the MWRA give us the balance. Have to take the whole $2 million. Right, right. And then we get reimbursed. And then we get reimbursed. I just think it's a difference of opinion. I really — I can't leave that on the table. I can't leave that on the table and say, okay, we can afford it, let's do it on our own. And I'd take it one step further. I don't even agree with saying that's paid off right away. If I'm not paying interest on that, why would I — if I had money in the bank and I don't have to pay interest on purchasing something, why wouldn't I want to leave that money in the bank collecting interest? It just, I don't know, I have some real concerns. As Councilor Knight mentioned, I've been talking about water and sewer infrastructure since I've been on the council, 14 years now. And I've been talking about the lack of infrastructure because it's under the ground and so forth. I've been talking about INI, inflow and infiltration. And you're correct. And so I know these projects are needed. I think you know and I think everyone behind this reeling realize these projects are needed. With this particular project, We have catch basins right now that are supposed to collect runoff rain when it rains out and sends it to the Mystic River. We have them directly connected to our sewer system. So anytime it rains, rather than that go out to the Mystic, we're taking it and sending it out to Deer Island. So you can imagine the volume. We have about 16 connections in the community right now that are directly connected to our sewer system. This is going to address six of them. Now, it's not all of them. but it's going to address a portion of it. We're making some headway in the community on infrastructure that's been neglected for many years. If the mayor can neglect a building that we can see, imagine what he's neglecting under the ground. There's no argument there. You know, so, but these are the things that, you know, I just, I just have a problem with not going after a grant. And I know what you're saying. There's nothing free in this world. It's a grant out there. that we could take advantage of, and it doesn't — that $954,000 will not come out of our surplus. And under your thinking, it will come out of the surplus.
[Michael Marks]: No, no, no, doctor. I'm not saying don't tap the reserve. Well, then we did. But I'm saying if we could tap the reserve and also tap the MWRA, which you're saying is our money, well, we could dispute that until the cows come home. Cannot dispute it. Well, I think it's disputable.
[Michael Marks]: It's everyone's money. It's 54 cities and towns. So it's not just the city of Medford. That wasn't money put aside just for the city of Medford.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I can't dispute that. So it's all money. Right. And so was the building of new schools. It was our money. So I guess we didn't get 90 percent on the dollar with the new schools. And maybe we should raise taxes in the community to raise that hundred and something million dollars. But We thought better of it.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, could we just allow a citizen to speak?
[Michael Marks]: Motion for approval.
[Michael Marks]: Is the plan for you?
[Michael Marks]: Does that have to pass practice if there was a tree around to use a tree? Why would it be connected to a tree?
[Michael Marks]: Right, but how did it first get installed on a tree?
[Michael Marks]: So that's not the practice to put a guide wire into a tree?
[Michael Marks]: So at some point you did?
[Michael Marks]: At some point you did put guide wires to trees?
[Michael Marks]: When's the last day to get an absentee ballot, Mr. Clerk?
[Michael Marks]: The last day you can obtain one?
[Michael Marks]: Probably before. Eddie, did you say- Supposed to get it back. Right, when's the last day to submit it?
[Michael Marks]: Up until August 31st?
[Michael Marks]: But if you mail it on that day, you're not going to get it for that election. So would he count it the following? No, I'm kidding. Postmark. So that's what I'm trying to figure out. So when's the last day that someone can submit something to the clerk's office? So it would be counted.
[Michael Marks]: So if it's postmarked September 1st, you'll take it?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. My resolve is regarding Winthrop Circle and to clarify some of the confusion that's out there regarding the entering of the circle itself. So I would just ask that yield signs be posted at Winthrop Street Rotary on the approaching roads and that a sign be placed inside the circle facing Route 38 North that says Rotary. So people that are coming up realize it's a rotary, and that may help with some of the confusion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: You see a 10 on that? Where is it? Oh, okay. I have 22 by Marks and then 10 by Penta.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sure many other councils received the same phone calls and emails regarding a meeting that was held here at City Hall several weeks back by Eversource. It was a combined meeting of Somerville, Winchester, and Medford because this particular two and a half mile stretch of an underground utility impacts several communities, and residents that attended from the city of Medford were quite disappointed to see that Somerville had representation from the city administration, Winchester had someone from their town hall, and the city of Medford did not have one person from the administration representing the community and the residents regarding this major problem project. that's going to cut through Winthrop Street and down South Street, down Mystic Ave, through the heart of our community and disrupt the roadways. In particular, as we all know, Winthrop Circle that's been under repair for the last two and a half years, they're going to re-dig this road up. And there are still a lot of outstanding questions. This council put a resolution on several weeks back And many of us asked representatives from Eversource a number of questions, of which we have yet to receive any responses. So I had asked through this resolution that we have a full-blown public hearing on Tuesday, October 6th. That gives Eversource time to prepare. It gives the city time to send out a reverse 911 call to residents that are impacted by this project. And it not only impacts residents along the roadway, but it's going to impact traffic for every resident in our community. And I think we have to start talking about mitigation, which I haven't heard anything in regards to that as of yet. And what's going to be done regarding the traffic and how it's going to impact the Craddock Bridge project, because we all know it's coming down South Street, and that's just a stone's throw from the Craddock Bridge. at the very tip, and I would ask that this be supported by the council and sent to the mayor for action, Madam President.
[Michael Marks]: Roll call vote, Madam President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the phase one, the move of the Verizon conduits, other than the conduits and the electrical conduits, what other wiring is currently underneath that bridge? Can you speak into the mic? Oh, I'm sorry.
[Michael Marks]: The reason why I ask is when we were first presented the conceptual design and project back some time ago, it was stated to us that many members of this council asked why it would take so long to build a bridge, first of all, because of the impact to the business owners and also to the residents. And we were told that due to the extensive cabling that runs underneath the bridge, that alone was roughly about a year's worth of work. And some of us questioned why it would take a year to move wiring or temporarily relocate wires. And when I look through the different phases, it doesn't appear to be that extensive. Is that portion of the project changed?
[Michael Marks]: So you're saying then their work would take preference over your work? Is that, is that?
[Michael Marks]: So for instance, when you look at phase one is to move Verizon conduits. Then it jumps to phase two, which is to install a temporary bridge. And phase three is the demo and reconstruction of the west side of the bridge. Right. There are no other water or other fiber optics under the west side?
[Michael Marks]: So just if I can interrupt, so the east side piping that we're looking at, telephone gas, is going to be moved to the west side temporarily?
[Michael Marks]: OK. So if you look at phase three, November of 2015 to August 2017, that demo that says demo and reconstruction of the west side also includes the moving of any underground utilities.
[Michael Marks]: And I just have a few questions regarding when the bridge is demolished. What plans are there for pest control in the area? Is there any plans laid out by your company?
[Michael Marks]: Have the surrounding buildings been checked internally for any type of existing cracks or damage to foundations or so forth?
[Michael Marks]: and the owners of the property and also tenants will be notified?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and what plans do you have for access to the businesses that'll be open during the construction period? I know you're gonna be removing sidewalks and a lot of construction in the area as well, construction equipment. Is there any plans laid out to make sure people have access to the businesses? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: And that leads to my next point about construction debris and also dust and dirt during the construction phase. Will there be power washing of buildings and windows? How frequent would that be?
[Michael Marks]: You don't intend to get them dirty?
[Michael Marks]: But in the event, for instance, a restaurant, if their window becomes so dirty that patrons don't want to go inside, Are you going to provide that type of pressure washing and daily maintenance of... Oh, I can't commit to that, no. You can't commit to that, but you said you're not going to have any dust.
[Michael Marks]: Right, but in the event that doesn't happen, you're saying that you're not willing to do it?
[Michael Marks]: Well, as part of the construction, there's also a process of cleanup. There's also a process of heavy equipment.
[Michael Marks]: We don't let debris collect. OK, so can you provide a number that someone can call if there's a concern?
[Michael Marks]: OK.
[Michael Marks]: Do you have that now?
[Michael Marks]: If you can provide that, that'd be great.
[Michael Marks]: And just my last point, when will the typical hours be of construction?
[Michael Marks]: And is there any penalty if you don't meet your required deadlines?
[Michael Marks]: That's already been established?
[Michael Marks]: Can you also pass that along to the council?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Cause I know what the fast 14 project there was well aware of that.
[Michael Marks]: And is it seven days a week?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, just if we can get a copy of the contact number for local businesses and also residents that may have a concern. Will that be manned around the clock, that particular line?
[Michael Marks]: His direct cell phone?
[Michael Marks]: OK.
[Michael Marks]: You can pass that along to the city clerk.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I think the one thing we can do as a community is what you've seen over the last several weeks and what happened roughly a year ago and some other locations is these businesses want to stay under the radar. They don't want anyone to know what they're doing in these businesses. And that's why you see many of them with windows that you can't see through and, you know, shady activity going on. And it's very helpful when the community unites, like we're seeing now. The question I had, Chief, and I know there's ongoing investigations and so forth, but when you go onto a particular website of an establishment or on Facebook, and there's reviews about a particular business, and the reviews mention things that are against the law and so forth, what type of information do you need in order to really move this to the next level? And why does it seem that And it's not a reflection on our police department. It's probably happening everywhere. Why does it seem to take so long to investigate and move these businesses out of particular areas?
[Michael Marks]: Uh, is it within your powers to pay visits? even though there may not be anything substantial at the beginning?
[Michael Marks]: Well, thanks to your department and thanks to the vigilance of our residents, who are unbelievable. The output that I'm seeing just through emails and phone calls now is remarkable. And I think that adds a lot. I stated it a couple of weeks ago, and I still believe it strongly, Chief, that, you know, when you have a downtown business district, not just Medford Square, many of our business districts right now that have a lot of vacancies, it doesn't look like there's much activity after 7 o'clock, and they become a welcoming zone for establishments like this. And I think the best thing we can do as a community It's not just to be vigilant and let the police department know when we see this happening. It's also to promote our business districts, also to look at the revitalization of our business districts. And, you know, when you start seeing places like Best Sellers and Forest Street Art Studio go under, and you see pawn shops and massage parlors open up, it's a concern. And it should be a concern of every resident, as well as this administration. And, you know, it's unfortunate, but I think as long as we stay ahead of the curve, we'll be all right. But the revitalization of our business districts is key to keeping these type of establishments away and attracting businesses that are going to attract the type of clientele that we want to attract that's going to come around and spend money in our community and treat our business districts with the type of dignity and respect that it deserves.
[Michael Marks]: There are two different places?
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of council approval to table 15570, all those in favor? Those opposed?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, as one member of the council, I'm glad we waited the one week to get responses. We did get a lot of responses in the last week to questions that we've asked during the countless hours we had with the budget director and also the department heads. And I think it was only appropriate that we took the time to make sure that every single question was answered, so I'm grateful for that, and I'm grateful to all the responses. You know, I see it a little different. You know, when you hear words like, we're gonna provide the same level of service we did last year, I don't know how that's supposed to give you a warm, fuzzy feeling. We're gonna do what we did for you last year. We're not gonna improve, we're not gonna advance, we're gonna do what we did for you last year. We're going to charge you more taxes but provide you the same services we did you last year. And then when you look at the service, we talked about the Office of Community Development. We've talked about that office for 10 years now under this administration. Ten years. They have one and a half person in that office. We talked to the director of community development. It was one of the first times she actually opened up to us. And we asked her, what are your needs? I believe it was Councilor Penta that asked, what are your needs? And she said, you know what, in order to revitalize the square and do what we need, our office needs to do to move the city forward, it'd be nice to have a transportation planner. It'd be nice to have a community planner. It would be nice to have a grant writer. Those are the few things that are a staple in an office of community development. in order to look at revitalization and attract new business and new growth and new spending in our community. That's what's needed. This budget does not accomplish any of that. So to sit here and say we're moving forward, where are we moving forward? Same level of service we're hearing, same departments. Yeah, have they sprinkled a few things here and there by osmosis? Yes, something's bound to happen. But other than that, really, You know, we talked about a 311 system, a way residents can electronically report concerns for city services. We have yet, Somerville has it, Malden has it, Boston has it, Cambridge has it. We as a city have yet to implement any logical way residents can submit a service request in our community. And it also helps the administration during budget time when you're able to take all these requests and say, you know what? We had 3,000 requests for forestry and only 50 requests for parks. Let's take the budget and let's increase our budget for forestry based on the requests we're receiving. There's no tracking mechanism in this community. Honestly, I don't know how it operates. And we're going to find out come January how this city operates, because it's been a lot of smoke and mirrors for many years in this community. The 311 system works. It works in every other community, but except Method can't find the time. I don't know if we don't have the brainpower to implement it, or we don't have the will to do it. I don't know what it is. But every resident suffers because we don't have 311 in this community. You know, we talked about the engineering department. The engineering director came up, and she mentioned that they don't have data collection software. They have files and files of of data that's not electronic. They can't find what's in these cabinets. I believe she said it was about $30,000 to implement a system where they can have a tracking mechanism for all the electronic documents they have. That's a small fee in a $150 million budget. As was mentioned earlier, there's one phone for four employees. And forget about voicemail. The mayor's against voicemail. That's how progressive we are in this community. He's against voicemail. They're still using drafting tables as desk. How would you like to write on a drafting table all day? It doesn't make any sense. But these are the small requests that for some reason we can't get a handle on in this community. You know, during the budget, um, we had the council on aging in and I offered a motion to the budget because of the involvement I see at the senior center across the street, we were told that there were 24,796 sign-ins by seniors for programming activities at the senior center. It ranged from bingo, to dinner movie, to Zumba, to chair yoga, and the list goes on and on and on. They only receive state funding for their programs. We asked that we set up, similar to what we did for the art community, $5,000 to provide for additional programming. The director told us she could use it. Then we were told, well, they also wanted the Council on Aging gave back money, transferred back money to the city. I don't know, when I'm talking to a department head face to face, and they tell me $5,000 can go a long way for senior programming in the city, I tend to trust the department head. I tend to trust the department could use that money. And I think it's a shame that we got a response back that the mayor will take that under advisement in a program that's so utilized by thousands of seniors in this community. You know, we heard from the chief of police. This budget does not contain any money for new police vehicles. Although we have vehicles that have 250,000 miles. These vehicles operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Try running your vehicle seven days a week, 24 hours a day with multiple drivers and see what happens to your vehicle. They don't last long. The chief asked for six marked vehicles and six unmarked vehicles. That is not going to be part of this year's budget. So I don't know how excited I'd be about this budget. It doesn't include the very fabric of a community, which is public safety. Vehicles. You can have as many officers as you want. If you don't have the vehicle to take them to a scene or answer a call, then what good is it? Talk to the men and women in the police department. They'll tell you about the vehicles. Take a ride in the cars. I challenge you to take a ride in the cars. They're smelling exhaust fumes from some of these vehicles. Then we heard from the chief of the fire department. He asked for $2 million in station repairs. We still can't get a repair list of what's needed from the last repairs that were done with that bonding money that Councilor Wongo just mentioned. You know, it seems to me when you're talking about level services and complimenting the fact that level services are good news, then it seems to me the status quo is what's prevailing in the city. And that's what's taking place in this community. It seems to me the status quo is fine. Hey, look, we're doing what we did last year. That's unacceptable in my opinion. And, you know, there are a lot of positive things. We heard from the superintendent of schools, and a lot of positive things are going in there. As a former graduate of the vocational school, I'm happy with the direction Heidi Riccio's taking the vocational school. They're adding a lot of program offerings to the vocational school, state-of-the-art offerings, which will attract kids back from Lexington Minuteman, which is costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars to send these outside placements. We're adding textbooks in the social studies department. Our guidance department added an additional Councilor. We're looking at additional desk and chairs throughout the elementary schools. As Councilor Camuso mentioned, The city is providing a prevention outreach program coordinator. We recently put on a code enforcement officer that Councilor Caraviello has been talking about. So there are positive things happening. I just don't think it's enough to outweigh the current status quo in the way this city is operating, to be quite honest with you. I am appreciative of everything that was sent from the administration. I think this budget process overall went rather smooth. We got our budget packages. well ahead of time, so it gave us ample opportunity to view them, which has always been a bone of contention with me and I know members of this council. I will support the budget here tonight, but I'm hoping going forward that the status quo and the fact that we're going to provide level services is no longer bragging right in this city. And it should be something we frown upon. And I think it's a sad commentary when we have to say, we're providing the same services we did last year, knowing that in my opinion, a lot of those services are not accurate enough as is. And I really think it's a sad commentary, but I will support this budget here tonight. And I look forward to next year's budget and the discussion and dialogue over how we can improve our community have a vision of community development, look at some of the needs, infrastructure needs that we have, discussion on a new police department, discussion on revamping our old fire departments, and looking at the roads and the sidewalks and everything else. The list goes on and on. The public library. These are the things that really I think we have to look at as a community. And I look forward to those discussions next year.
[Michael Marks]: I just... No, Mike, we're talking about the substance.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I think it's a shame that we're not talking about having a local access in a centrally located area where residents of our community can attend. I just think it's a real injustice to even discuss this issue. Point of information, Councilor Musil, you may continue.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, enough with these personal attacks. They're personal attacks. Enough with the personal attacks. We're here to do the people's business, not with the personal attacks. personal tax. We don't need that. You're a lame duck councillor.
[Michael Marks]: Why don't we have the meeting and then a follow-up meeting, if necessary?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I agree that it's difficult to find parking, but at this late stage, to cancel a meeting that's been scheduled for several weeks, I think would pose a larger hardship on people that have already made it part of their calendar. I would ask that we meet tomorrow night and also set up a meeting for the next few weeks after that to have a follow-up meeting also, Mr. President. Just if I could add my opinion, and I've been very consistent on this mayor's proposed parking plan from day one. And it was actually myself and Councilor Penta, when the mayor presented his plan to us, asked for a plan of doing this in-house versus outsourcing. And the mayor came back with a shoddy plan, in my opinion, that showed that it was far more expensive to take this parking program in-house than to outsource it. And from the start, Mr. President, I, as one member of the council, thought that we could do this in-house. We have the ability to do it. We have crossing guards that already have uniforms and familiar with working on the streets. We have retired police officers that have expressed interests to me and other members of this council. Our original view of this parking proposal was just to enforce existing signage, nothing more. Pay for parking was never a subject that was brought up to institute in this community until the mayor got hold of that particular idea and felt that the revenue, which we all want additional revenue, was the way to go. in this aspect and I believe firmly revenue is secondary when it comes to parking enforcement and the primary objective is to move cars along in the business districts and also to enforce resident permit parking in our neighborhoods. So, you know, from the get-go I have not been in favor of this particular program. On the flip side, and I stated this a couple of weeks ago, there are aspects of the program that currently exist, not to pay for parking aspects, but other aspects that are underway. A lot of time and effort went into them, and I think we can keep portions of the parking program without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So I have been supportive from day one, taking this in-house. You lose all local control, as we found out, And I said this seven months ago, actually even longer, eight months ago, even before the mayor signed a contract. Once you hire an outside contractor, you lose all local control, Mr. President. And we're seeing that now. We're hearing from the public saying, well, how can they give out a ticket on a holiday? And how come they're giving out tickets when I have a permit sticker and they're still giving me a ticket on my own street? How come they're enforcing after hours? How come they're taking my money when the kiosks aren't supposed to accept money? So we're here on all these issues, and partly based on because we're dealing with an outside entity. This council also asked for financial reporting. And I don't know if anyone else has received any reporting, but we have yet to receive one iota of financial reporting on this particular program. And that's a major concern, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So we have not received it. So, so at this point, uh, Mr. President, um, I, I support, uh, the, uh, resolution brought forward, uh, not only cause it's the right thing to do, but the fact that councilor Camuso and council Penter are both, uh, on the resolution as offering it, to me, is a milestone in this community. And that is another reason why I will support this tonight, Mr. President. And it makes sense on behalf of this community, on the residents that I've spoken to, the hundreds of residents that have sent us emails, stopped me at Stop and Shop in the street, saying that they don't agree with this particular program. The business owners that are struggling now, hearing that customers are not going to come back because of this program. What does that say to a small business? What does that say to a small business that, you know what, we don't care if people don't come back to your business. We have a parking plan in place, and according to the mayor, it's working. Well, I would suggest to you, Mr. President, that it's not working. People in this community are struggling now with the program, and let's go back to the basics and move forward. And the basics would be, Mr. President, enforce the existing signage, look at the permit parking, and move forward after that, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: The Press Thank you, Mr. President. As far as I'm concerned, a vote tonight to terminate the contract for breach of contract acts as a shot across the bow to this administration. And I agree with the comments. We're not going to solve all the issues tonight. However, Mr. President, when the mayor was rolling out this plan, He didn't look for any advice, input, suggestions from any member of this council. So what would lead anyone to believe that when we sit down with the administration tomorrow and say, you know what, we're not happy with this plan, Mr. Mayor, we'd like to take it in-house, that we're going to get any different of feedback than we already received four or five months back saying, we don't need your involvement. And that's what it was, Mr. President. It was the mayor stating to us that our input didn't matter. And I think what we're seeing now is that our input would have mattered because our input was talking about in-house. Our input was talking about potentially no pay for parking at all or meters. Our input was talking about having kiosks in parking lots, not on the streets. That was our input, Mr. President. And it all fell on deaf ears at the time. So I think this vote is critical tonight. And honestly, I was prepared to take this vote eight weeks ago, along with my colleague, Councilor Penta, because at the time, Mr. President, you know, one incident doesn't sway me one way or another. I realize tickets were issued on a holiday, but this is compounded over weeks after weeks after weeks of running a program that, in my opinion, was not well thought out. So it wasn't one particular isolated incident that triggered me off. It was a systematic neglect of running an appropriate program that led us to where we are. And it's a shame, really, that the city of Medford has had to put so much time and effort. And eventually, if we do get out of the contract, you know, and if it's not breach of contract, there's going to be a sizable amount of money that this community is going to have to pay Republic. And that's going to be a whole other issue, Mr. President. But I'm willing, at this point, based on what I've seen out of this particular group, Republic, and based on the current plans that the administration set forth for this parking program, I'm willing to sit down and listen to what the alternatives are and listen to potentially what it may cost this community. Because, hey, no one wants to talk about it, but there may be a financial cost to get out of this contract. But I'm willing to listen to it. I'm willing also to keep aspects of the program. So I think there could be some give and take on this. There are certain things I won't give, but there are other things I will give. So I think if we all get together, we can work on something that's amenable to the business community, residents alike, this council, the administration, and devise a program that will be suitable for our community. Not Somerville, not Cambridge, not Malden, but for the city of Medford, and how we want to see our community operated, and that is not aggressive enforcement, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Matt, can you tell us what type of data you want entered into the city website?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, if I'm not mistaken, prior to, uh, Channel 3 going off air, they would also have on their website the last several months of the council meetings. And they started that towards the end of when Channel 3 went under. But it was very helpful. Residents can go on and view any meeting and so forth. I think the issue, Mr. President, naturally we're not going to give anyone, Matt or anyone else, access to the city website. I don't even have access to the city website. That's by the web master and whoever has that dedication. Um, and that's the way it should be. Uh, but what I think Matt is saying, he wants to volunteer. He wants to get active in the community. He wants to do something in the community. And, uh, he's finding a hundred obstacles in order to do something. And you know, the, the, the one thing that I have to say about this administration is The mayor has failed over the years to tap the number one resource we have, which is our residents. And that's a big failure because we have a lot of people out there with a lot of different job experiences that could help in this community. For instance, one thing that comes to mind, just even the restroom here at City Hall. You know how many plumbers live in this community? that if you approached him and said, hey, would you like to do something for the community? Would you like to donate your labor? We'll buy the pots. You'd be surprised how many people would come out of the woodwork to say, you know what? We'd like to give back to the community. But you'd never hear of a volunteer program. And what Matt is trying to say is he'd like to do something. Whether he's the one that puts those on directly or so forth, that's all semantics. He wants to give you the time and effort. And as a community, we should be welcoming that. And our administrators should be reaching out to them and saying, Matt, this is what we'd like you to do. But instead, every door is a closed door, which is unfortunate. But I honestly think that this needs to move forward. And I think any avenue of transparency, and one is providing another avenue for our council meetings, is a great avenue. And I don't think we can go wrong in doing that. So I think we should take a vote here tonight, asking the administration to look into the volunteer services that Mr. Lieberman wants to offer, and have them devise a program that safeguards the city website. No one wants to jeopardize the city website. No one's looking to put videos that make someone else look bad on there. And I don't want to see that. I'm sure no one else behind this railing. But there's a way to do it that I think makes sense and also involves people that want to get active in the community. And once we start here, this is just the first step in the process. And then we can open it up to volunteerism throughout the city, which currently we lack right now, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Labor. You know, the council is one open meeting. There are other meetings that are held at city hall here. Uh, that would be great. Um, information for residents of this community, Office of Community Development. You can have the Board of Appeals meetings. You can have the Board of Health meetings, the Park Board meetings. There's a lot that goes on in this city.
[Michael Marks]: The Park League Commission. There's a lot that goes on in this city that I think would be a tremendous asset. I know Councilor Camuso has offered this before, that these meetings be televised. So I wouldn't just limit it, and I don't think that's what we're trying to do, but I would say that this would be open to any board, commission, that would like to have meetings taped, that they can have access to this as well, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, maybe under the next administration, there will be an office of volunteerism, and we'll be able to tap our residents and our resources that currently exist and really bring some community pride back to this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe everyone behind this reel and many residents of this community knew Bob Delfino. He was a family man, someone that dedicated his life to his profession and also to improving the quality of life in this community. He will be sorely missed, Mr. President. And at this point, I'd like to dedicate this meeting also in memory of Bob Delfino.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President. I was just wondering Debbie or Deb, would you like to give out some contact information if anyone is interested in either? donating to the relay For life or wants to put together a team Thank you, we actually have some of these For the viewing audience, maybe if you can give some information on where someone may be able to look you up on an email or website.
[Michael Marks]: And you also have that 800 number if someone wanted a call to get some more information from?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could just say, this has been a great event in the city for a number of years. It's due to the many volunteers that get active and involved. I can't think of one person. that hasn't been impacted in one way or another by this awful disease, Mr. President. And it truly has no boundary. It doesn't discriminate. And it's something that we have to snuff out. And it's people like Debbie and the many volunteers that have put in countless hours trying to keep this in the forefront with all the different things that are out there and different people pulled in different directions. I think this is such a worthy cause, Mr. President, that we have to do our best to make sure we can eradicate this awful disease. So, again, I thank you both, and I hope it's going to be a big success, which I'm sure it will.
[Michael Marks]: Suspension of the rules, so gentlemen would like to speak.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague for bringing this up. However, I'm not quite sure what the actual resolution would do to solve any concerns that we may have. with not getting a response from the administration, uh, which is, uh, a response that is set forth under section 55 of the charter, which requires the mayor to respond back to the council within 10 days. Um, if the mayor fails to respond back to the council, I'm not quite sure that having the paper then come back to the council and be sent to one of our subcommittees solves any concern of anything at all, other than we just take the issue and take it off the mayor's plate. My personal opinion is if originally it was sent to the mayor, it was sent because we were looking for a response from the administration or a department head or something that needed intervention from the mayor's office. And to send it back to us to work on it again to me makes no sense. I think we should try to address the reasoning behind why we're not getting responses according to the city charter within a timely manner. And that would be the issue. And furthermore, you know, the councilor is correct. And it may be things that we're sending to the mayor that are rhetorical in nature that we're really not even looking for a response. And those things can be vetted out by this council. But for the many resolutions that are sent to the mayor that go unresponded to, I'm not quite sure why we would want to welcome them back, put them in a subcommittee, for what purpose? I'm still not sure what that solves. If we want to really address the issue, We should be sitting down with the mayor saying, Mr. Mayor, we expect under the city charter, and that's the rules that regulate how the city operates. If the mayor chooses not to operate under those rules, there's a larger issue. But to try to circumvent the city charter and now take a paper that was originally sent to the mayor and say, well, we'll take it back because he never responded. I'd like to hear, I'm open for discussion and dialogue, but I'd like to hear how that helps the legislative process and how that helps move issues forward on behalf of this community. I don't see that.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could, you know, it's this council that takes a vote on whether we send a paper. It has to be a majority vote. to the mayor, or whether we set up a committee of the whole meeting, or whether we send it to subcommittee, it's always this council that takes the vote. So whatever has made its way to the mayor in the year 2014, which the councilor is talking about, was a majority vote of this council, saying we feel that this paper needs to go to the mayor for action. Now, if the council decided, you know what, we don't feel that's the best avenue to send it to the mayor first. We rather send it to subcommittee. Then it's under the purview of this council, which we do on many occasions, send it to subcommittee or committee the whole. So I'm not, I'm still not quite sure taking a paper back that the mayor has not responded to. And, and I might add a response. And I had a discussion just recently with the city solicitor. A response of, I will take this under advisement, is a response. You may not like the response, but it's a response. If the mayor comes back and say, this is something I'm going to be working on, that's also a response. And we could go back and say, Mr. Mayor, we'd like to know what a time frame is. You know, the 10 days no longer applies. How long you think you'll be working on this for? So there is that dialogue that could take place. I would just hate to see that this open up an avenue that the mayor, or not this mayor, or the next mayor, whoever it might be, say, you know what? The city chart is requiring me to respond within 10 days. However, if I don't, the council's just going to take the paper back, they're going to send it to a subcommittee, and good luck to them. See what happens with that paper. The slippery slope also is, and I'm not saying this will happen, If I had an issue that was near and dear to me, and it gets sent to the subcommittee that Councilor Caraviello sits on, along with two other members of the council, and they're not quite that hip on that issue that I'm hip on, that could sit in a burial for months and years in that subcommittee. And I would have really no input on getting it out. And I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it would lend itself to that type of activity. I think the process that's in place, which was created by our forefathers of the city charter, definitely needs to be reviewed. And I've been one of the most active members of this council calling for a review of the city charter. And I've publicly stated what I think needs to be changed in the charter that hasn't been looked at. in 28 years. I mean, what other document would you say that you established 28 years ago is still valid? I mean, no business plan would run on a business plan from 28 years ago. No private corporation or entity would work on such a plan, but the city of Medford has, in my opinion, has failed to look at the city charter in the past 28 years to bring it up to a day and age that we all know technology and many other advances have taken place. So, you know, I appreciate what Councilman Light brings up. I think it's part of the frustration that's been behind this reel on getting answers and so forth. I just don't like that particular avenue of getting to that approach. I think, honestly, whether it's this mayor or a future mayor, we have to follow the city charter. And as it reads right now, within 10 days, we should get a response. And I'm not going to go against the city charter. If that's the rule, then whoever the mayor is should adhere to that rule. And if they're not, maybe this council should stand up and take a vote of no confidence and say, you know what? You're not adhering to the city charter. We're not happy with the Mr. Mayor. This is a vote of no confidence to let you know things better change. But to say, you know what, we'll just take the paper back and scurried into a subcommittee, uh, and let them work on it. You know, it was sent to the mayor for a reason. I'm not quite sure that I can support that tonight. I would ask that we don't take a vote on this tonight and possibly this may be an issue that we want to discuss before one of the rules committee or one of the subcommittees that we have already established before we come up with such a major, it may seem like a minor piece of legislation, but it has a major profound impact on how this council runs and how we get questions and answers from the administration, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President,
[Michael Marks]: There's a thing called accountability too. And I think we have to keep that in mind that, um, you know, uh, under the charter, the mayors accountable to respond back to this council and to remove that accountability, uh, and say that, uh, you know what, it's not important that the mayor respond back to us because we'll just take back any response we already sent to them and send it to a subcommittee. I think sends the wrong message, not only to the members of this council, but to the entire community itself that the process is broken right now. And I can tell you as one member, the mayor came back to us several months back saying that if the council was interested in a dog park, they said, the mayor said, go out and find funding. I took the ball, Mr. President. I ran with the ball. I organized my own committee. We went out. We found funding for a dog park. So I know how to get things done in the community, and I know how to pick up a phone. I've been doing this for a long time. I talked to the department heads, but we all know under the city charter, there's one chief executive officer in this community, and he controls a lot of the strings and what goes on in this community, and we need his input, and we need his support, and to, I think, create an environment that the council will work in its own vacuum, and the mayor will do whatever he wants to do, and that's not the way city government should operate. And I don't think, I think it's well-intended, this resolution, but I don't think it suits any purpose other than, honestly, just lip service, and it's not gonna, in my opinion, do anything to improve the process. If anything, it's going to hamper the communications between the administration. So at this point, Mr. President, I would, after the gentleman speaks, I would respectfully ask that this issue be tabled. I'll remove it until the gentleman speaks then, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Motion to table, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: on rules. Want to amend the paper and the paper?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week we had Mark Crowley from Boynton Road appear before the Medford City Council along with some neighbors regarding 59 Boynton Road, a home that's been in terrible condition and been marked by the city as a home that should not be entered in disrepair. We as a council asked for opinions from the city solicitor on a number of issues from the Board of Health, Karen Rose. and also Paul Mokey, the building commissioner, regarding what the next steps are on the property. And I just want people to know that we did receive a lengthy and thorough explanation regarding many of our questions in our packet this week from Paul Mokey, the building commissioner, Karen Rose, and the city solicitor, Mark Rumley. And according to my discussions recently with Mark, he thinks that the court process is probably going to be another six to eight weeks. And hopefully after that, Mr. President, when all the court issues are ironed out, that we'll be able to move forward with the seal of that property and eventually the either knocking the property down or the refurbishing of the home, if possible, to help out with the neighborhood and the residents that have to live alongside that eyesore and public safety concern in their neighborhood. So I just wanted to give an update on that property, Mr. President, and hopefully we can move forward.
[Michael Marks]: Additionally, Mr. President, this council has been on record on several occasions requesting that Republic be able to turn off the machines when they're not supposed to be in operation. And I know just recently we voted unanimously to have that done. The hours of operation now are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. And these machines are accepting money prior to 8 a.m. and after 6 p.m. We met tonight for a community block grant public service proposals. And one of the human service agencies, the Consumer Advisory Commission, came before us for additional funding. And I mentioned to the director of the program that this issue with the kiosk has been a long, ongoing issue and something that they should review. And I ask that this council go on record and send a letter to the Consumer Advisory Commission asking if they can intervene on behalf of every Medford resident to make sure these machines are not capable of accepting money before or after the hours of operation, and also that it's publicly posted throughout the community what the exact hours of operation are. It's very misrepresenting for residents that are trying to do business in the square to try to figure out whether or not they have to pay the kiosk, Mr. President. And I would ask that in the form of a motion tonight, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'll be brief, Mr. President, but I think the last piece of the puzzle would be this acoustical engineering study. It'll take a snapshot of what's happening in the house. If we can pinpoint, it might be something internal. Who knows? Maybe it's something within your own home. We don't know. But we'll find out from this study. I think it'll be worth its weight in gold, President, to have it done and move forward on this issue. I know you have a lot on your plate. And although you want to address these issues, I'm sure you want to get this behind you. I look forward to seeing this done within the next several weeks. Thank you. Councilor, Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Michael Marks]: The chair, Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I'm amendable to this compromise and I just wanna make sure that the six month review is still in place.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to make sure that it's still part of the paper.
[Michael Marks]: Would you mind coming up and Judy? I'm sorry, Judy, Judith Beatrice. Hi Judy.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Mr. President, Councilor Marks, we approving which one to just up to this bit. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could, I know, uh, Mr. Tarami would like to appear before the council. So I would ask that this be tabled until Mr. Tarami could make it up to our meeting. Uh, we, we did, uh, at some point have a rule of this council that, uh, the vetting process include, uh, that, uh, members of these boards appear before the Medford city council. We didn't make any stipulation, whether it was a reappointment or not, that they appear before the council. And I would ask that we stick to the rules that were adopted several years ago for the vetting process. And even if it's just allowing someone to come up and say a few words, as was just done, Mr. President, I think that suits not only this council, but members of this community as well.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, council max, just if I could, you know, I find it troubling, Mr. President, that, uh, you know, certain members of this council speak of, uh, any appointments that this council has to have a vetting process in place. Uh, and then when we, uh, go to move towards a vetting process, uh, Councilors want to waive that process. Um, you know, so I, I just find it troubling and it, no one's against Mr. Trami. I know him very well, uh, Mr. President, and I've known him for a lot of years and I know he's a very capable person, but once we establish a process, We should stick by it. And the reason why we established that process years ago is because there were people just being reappointed without the council actually even ever knowing who these people are. And secondly, knowing if the job is being done on behalf of the residents of this community. And I think that's why it was established at this time. We had one of our own, Councilor Penta, when his reappointment came to the Brooks Estates, it was questioned by a member of this council whether or not someone we serve with should be put back on the board and where the vetting process is. And now we want to just allow people to come through without the process in place. So I'm a little taken back by that. And I would hope that when we speak as a council, We mean what we say, Mr. President, and not just do lip service.
[Michael Marks]: I don't think anyone behind this reel wants to see anyone lose jobs. So, I don't think there's one person behind this reel. The question I do have, Mr. President, is I agree with the comments that were made that, at the very least, we're hearing one side of the story. It would be helpful to make an educated and informed decision to also hear from the administration. of Tufts University to hear what their reorganizational chart and plan calls for. I, as one member, think that would be helpful. I would also ask what exactly is the resolution we're voting on? The language itself, is it exactly how it reads? So we're voting on that exact language, okay? And Mr. President, I would also state that, you know, we're talking about staffing levels Tufts University has every right to take a look at their staffing levels and make determinations whether they believe they have too much staff, not enough staff, whatever needs to be done. And I would say the same applies to the city of Medford. If you look at our staffing level in our police department, we're at an all-time low. If you look at the fire department, we're at an all-time low. The DPW, we're at an all-time low right now in staffing right now. So I think when we talk about staffing levels, and want to put... the onus on a particular private entity and say, we think you should leave your staffing levels at this, then I think we also have to look in-house and say, why are our staffing levels so very low? Why are we outsourcing work that could be done by our DPW? Why are we outsourcing parking enforcement that could be done by our police department? Why are we outsourcing? And I would like to have that discussion sometime, too, Mr. President, because it's nice to look outside of what's happening in your own community. But if you take a look in your community and see what's going on with low staffing levels, outsourcing, I think, you know, that, in my opinion, deserves a much better look than currently is being discussed at this particular point. And I am supportive, I will vote to support the workers. However, I think we do need, Mr. President, Barbara Rubell or someone from Tufts University. Barbara comes up here quite often and is very familiar with this council, to at least give us something, whether she wants to appear before us or in writing, what their organizational plan is. I, as one member, would find that very helpful, Mr. President. And I would look forward to future meetings with the same vigor on our own staffing levels and maybe to hold the mayor accountable, maybe members of this council that support the mayor step by step by step to also hold the mayor accountable for our low levels of manning and police, fire, and DPW. And not look at an institution and say, why are you doing this? Look at the mayor and say, Mr. Mayor, why are you doing this to our community, Mr. Mayor, leaving us at dangerously low levels of fire and police protection in our community. So, I would like to see a little emphasis on that also, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: We could just add a B paper that we get a response back from either Barbara Bell or the Tufts administration on, uh, their organizational plan and also get some feedback from Tufts university itself. I have nothing in front of me. other than the great comment that was made by Councilor Knight. But I have nothing in front of me from Tufts University explaining what their reorganizational plan is. And does it stop with the janitorials? Or does it add to police, fire, and anything else that's on the campus? I don't know what the impact is. This may be just one portion of an overall larger organizational picture that I'm not privy to.
[Michael Marks]: I think where Barbara is the community relations person, I think she should be CC. We'll copy. She's been the only face of Tufts university with this council. She is for many years on that motion.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Camuso for bringing up this very important public safety pedestrian issue. I would also ask that we amend this to include other parts of the city as well. This is an issue throughout the community, the lack of signage. And the issue that Councilor Caraviello was just mentioning is thermoplastic. And anyone that's been on the council for a number of years will remember that it was about six years ago that we painted about 30 crosswalks with thermoplastic. And Councilor Caraviello is 100% right. It's slip resistant. It's highly reflective. It lasts up to five years, so we don't have to worry about repainting them every year. And I thought it was a success. and that that pilot program of 30 crosswalks was gonna continue, and shortly after that, the city administration discontinued using thermoplastic crosswalks, or thermoplastic, I should say. The state uses it on all state highways, so that must tell you that it's long-lasting and it's highly reflective. But in this city, we opt to put forth 50 resolutions a year to ask that our crosswalks be painted. And it's no reflection on DPW, which is understaffed, as I mentioned earlier. However, you know, we have far too many crosswalks in this community. And I think you're right. Maybe it is time that we look at bringing in a private company to assist in the painting of crosswalks And thermoplastic would be a preference. However, I'm not sure if this administration really, to be quite frank, cares about the condition of crosswalks or pedestrian safety, for that fact, in our community. There's been no traffic calming. approaches done by this city. The last thing we did was the raised crosswalk on Winthrop Street. We were promised two additional crosswalks, one on Central Ave and one on Harvard, that are yet to be done. But those are really the only traffic calming approaches that I can think of. And we don't have to recreate the wheel. All you need to do is look at Cambridge, and they have under their pedestrian DPW section of their website a whole traffic calming section about widening sidewalks, about raised crosswalks, about a host of issues on how to create pedestrian safety in a community. But for some reason, we just keep on doing the same thing over and over again, and the administration appears to be content with that, Madam President. So I agree with Councilor Camuso's recommendation. I would just add, if we can add, if Councilor Camuso doesn't mind, crosswalk signs in all parts of the community, because they are needed, and that thermoplastic be looked at on any painting done in this community from here on, Madam President. It may be a little more expensive, but in the long run, it's cost-effective.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to thank my council colleague, Councilor Penta, as was mentioned, he's been persistent on this issue for a number of years and I'm not sure why nothing has happened to date. But you know, just, I think it was a month ago, a month and a half ago, this council requested that we take down the holiday candles that are still in the square. And now I'm actually seeing why the mayor's leaving him up. Because I think his overall master plan is, if the lights go out, he's going to turn the candles on. And maybe that's his way of lighting up the city. So he may have a bigger project on his hands here, Madam President. And we asked for the lenses to be replaced. They replaced the lenses. The lighting in the square, in my opinion, is still dark. I know there's a number of lights out. It's still dark in the square area. You know, it's not inviting after dark to go into the square because, you know, let's face it, people want to go and feel safe in a well-lit area. And Medford Square is not well-lit. You just get a feeling like it's deserted. You really do. And it's a shame that you have businesses down there that have to put up with this. You know, not only did the mayor implement the parking kiosk to get your money, he's making it so you go down there and you need a flashlight to walk around with. I mean, it's really getting to a point, and Councilor Penta's right, you know, maybe the mayor should come out of his office or his house and walk around the city and traverse and see the potholes and see the sidewalks that are crumbling and see the lights that are out and go into the restroom across from his office and see the yellow caution tape around the urinal, and come here at City Hall and see the holes in the ceiling, and then go to the Medford Public Library, which is in Dianita work, and then go to the fire department and the police department that needs work, and maybe he'll see what's going on in this community and get his head out of the sand and move forward on some of these issues, Madam President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, Madam President, I received several emails just recently and over the last several weeks regarding resident permit parking. There's still an issue with residents that have a permit parking sticker receiving tickets. And it was brought up over in West Medford on Bauer in that area. And I received another email, actually two emails just recently about residents that are receiving tickets with permit parking stickers. I'm not sure what's going on. Several weeks ago, we asked them to look into the system. We were told that there was a glitch with Republic. And for some reason, they were unable for a period of time to identify who had permit stickers and who didn't have them. And that was supposedly resolved. And now I'm getting more emails today with residents that are still getting tickets. And they're being told that they have to go up to the Republic office, which is a giant inconvenience. with something that, by no fault of their own. So, you know, I can't wait for this meeting, too. I can't wait to get the finances on this program. I can't wait to find out some of the questions that we've asked regarding this program. And, you know, it may come to some point, and I'm starting to agree with Councilor Penter on this, that we may be looking, I think, to maybe take in-house some aspects of this program. And in my opinion, the enforcement would be number one. Take that in, get our own in-house people to start the enforcement. We can use their equipment and, you know, we can keep a lot of the program in place. But I think many of the issues that I'm hearing comes with enforcement, the aggressive enforcement in nature. We were sold a bill of goods that, oh, they're not going to be aggressive. They're not going to be like Somerville hiding behind bushes and so forth. You know, there's going to be a grace period. And now we heard Councilor Caraviello last week saying the guy was standing behind his car when he had three or four minutes left on the meter. He came out of the store and the guy had his handheld device there waiting to give him a ticket with his plate already written in. So we went from, oh no, they're not going to be aggressive to standing behind someone's car waiting for the minutes to tick off. So the residents can be the judge of this program. And no matter what the mayor sold as a bill of goods, ultimately what happens is they're driven by money. This outside private company is driven by money. And naturally, they're going to be aggressive to try to bring in money. And that's going to be at the detriment of the business owners and also the residents of this community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I have no problem supporting this paper here tonight. I did receive several calls from concerned residents of Bradbury Street. There appears to be an electrical wire that's hanging from 64 Bradbury, about 12 feet from the sidewalk, and extends down Bradbury to the corner of 3rd Street. And I know neighbors have made several calls to The electrical company and have not received any feedback at all, Mr. President. So if we can make that as part of the committee report, it's 64 Bradbury. It goes down Bradbury to the corner of Bradbury and 3rd St. And it appears to be hanging from one of your glass insulators at the top.
[Michael Marks]: If you could take a look at that immediately, because residents are concerned. I would motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I like the concept. The one concern I have is the fact that that Wendy's closes at 11 o'clock. So you can't go in and order after 11. You can use the drive-thru, correct? And after that time... Now till 3 o'clock. Well, after that time, even though that particular section, as the gentleman just alluded to, won't be lit, it will be lit from Middlesex Ave, with the lighting that's currently on Middlesex Ave. And my concern is that at 1, 2, 3 in the morning, if people want to get out on a nice summer night, That could turn into an area that people sit down and eat and so forth, which would pose a real concern for the area and also area residents. So I have a little concern, Mr. President, unless they're going to take the furniture in after dark every night. Is that gated off?
[Michael Marks]: I just don't want it to turn into a hangout.
[Michael Marks]: After hours, especially where it's not going to be lit. And I can see that particular area at 12, 1, 2 in the morning becoming a hangout. And I have real concerns, Mr. President, with that. So unless the furniture is going to be removed every night at dusk, I couldn't support that, Mr. President, in its current form.
[Michael Marks]: I may be amendable to that. The gate, the fence itself only looks maybe three feet high. It doesn't look like much of a fence. But, you know, noise travels, especially on a warm summer night. And there are residents, you may not think so, there are residents in that close proximity that I would hate to have concerns down the line. of people calling up saying they can hear, you know, people out at 2 in the morning, 3 in the morning. I just have a real concern with this. And I'm not sure if that's the direction we should be going in that particular area. We allowed the 3 o'clock extension. Maybe if we put a 6-month review on this, I would be amenable maybe to a 6-month review. But somehow that furniture has to be removed, Mr. President. Because I'm not sure what a gate would do, to be quite honest with you. And I'm not sure if their employees are going to want to go out and start kicking people off the property.
[Michael Marks]: Well, our police have better things to do than kick people out of your property with all due respect.
[Michael Marks]: The furniture is not my concern. My concern is the fact that there'll be people loitering out there after hours and that that's my concern. You know, maybe if Wendy's wanted to open their restaurant and allow people that maybe one o'clock in the morning we're going to sit down inside your establishment and have something to eat. Maybe that may be what could be done.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I don't mind the six-month review, but I don't see what the hardship is to take in, you said there's seating for 12, take in 12 chairs and three tables. You know, outdoor.
[Michael Marks]: They may have to rearrange what they were going to order, Mr. President, based on our approval. I realize that's what they're calling for, but, um, you know, we have a program that allows businesses to put tables and chairs out in the sidewalk, Mr. President, and we don't allow them to leave the tables and chairs at the end of the night. Those tables and chairs have to be taken in and so forth. And I don't see any difference. I, you know, I don't mind the six month review, but, um, I don't see why Wendy's can't take in this furniture every night. If this is something you want to offer seasonal for three months, This is something that you're going to have to take in the furniture, or you're not going to get my vote. I don't know where anyone else stands, but I just, you know, speaking on behalf of the residents in that area, and there are many, I couldn't possibly support something that may attract people at three in the morning to sit out there and not only have a burger, but maybe a couple of beers, too. Don't forget, so.
[Michael Marks]: After it gets dark, according to... At dusk.
[Michael Marks]: You know, why would we want to invite residents at 10 o'clock to an area that's not going to be lit? And forget about Wendy's, because they're not looking out for residents of this community.
[Michael Marks]: Why would we want, if the gentleman said it's not going to be lit, and we're going to allow people, our residents, to go and use this area that's not lit, to me would pose a great danger. I'm not sure why we would allow that. It doesn't make any sense to me, Mr. President. It may work for the store to have it open until 11, but if it's not lit, then why are we, you know,
[Michael Marks]: It doesn't light up your area, you said. It doesn't light up the area.
[Michael Marks]: It's gonna be close enough to give enough light. So originally then you were allowing lights out there without any restrictions at all. You just wanted to have a little potty area out there. I'm sorry. You made it sound originally like once it turns dark, there's no one's gonna go by there because Once the sun goes down, you're not going to go out there. Now you're saying, well, there's enough lighting there. You could stay until 10, 11 o'clock, if need be.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, but that's not how it was presented to us originally. I apologize. You made it sound like there was no lighting out there. And now all of a sudden there's lighting because you want it to be open until 11. Mr. President, I can't support 11 o'clock. I can't support 11 o'clock. That's not the purpose of those lights out there to light up that particular area. And to me, you know, when you're trying to put a baby to bed at 8 o'clock is late to hear noise of someone that may be out there 8, 9, 10, 11 o'clock at night. You know, so I can't support that if we want to do it. Dusk hours. Or even 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, but not 11. I think that's far too late, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: What hour, 11 o'clock?
[Michael Marks]: I would ask that that be amended to 8 o'clock, Mr. President. I withdraw the 11 and amendable to 8. It's a six-month review, so we can revisit this in a six-month period.
[Michael Marks]: Roll call vote, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Roll call vote, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: The parking that currently exists, will that still exist in front of the building? Yes. So we're not replacing any handicapped spots or anything else that's in front of the building? Correct. No changes are proposed or required to the parking. So the width of this patio that you're talking, It appears to be at least, what, 11, 12 feet?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, and are you going to focus people that don't want to use the outside area to a particular entrance?
[Michael Marks]: But currently you have two accesses now to get into your main entrance, right? Right, that's true. So are we doing away with one of the accesses and you're only going to have So you are going to have multiple accesses then?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I share many of the comments by my colleagues that were mentioned behind the reel tonight. And, you know, from day one, when the mayor made his proposal, members of this council spoke up and said, Mr. Mayor, when you outsource the enforcement, you're taking all local control out of the hands of the city. And we're seeing that now. How can you tell a company that has a 10-year contract that their revenue is based on whatever ticketing they go out and do, to say, hey, you know what, be a little lax, be a little understanding. It's never gonna happen. That is their revenue stream. You're not gonna get that company to say, you know what, we will be sensitive, we will, you know, if someone's in church, or someone just got out of mass, or someone ran into the store for a second, or someone's in a loading zone, and they're just delivering something into their store. You're not going to get that type of sensitive nature from this enforcement company. That's what they are, they're an enforcement company. And my suggestion, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater at this point, because a lot of time and effort went into this, My suggestion would be, any parking enforcement program consists of three major components. It's maintenance, collections, and enforcement. I believe, as I believed from the start, that we can do the enforcement in-house. We can control how aggressive we want in-house. We can hire the employees in-house. And if we were to take that component out, leave the other components, the collection, the maintenance to Republic right now, take that one component of just enforcement away from the picture, Will that still cost the city $900,000 to opt out a portion of the contract? I doubt it very much. And maybe that's what we should be exploring. Because as I stated from the start, I as one member of the council, and I think many members feel the same behind this reeling, is that once you lose the local control of enforcement, all bets are off. And that's what we're seeing right now. We're seeing very aggressive enforcement. Så my suggestion would be that we asked if Councilor Penta would be amendable to this. We asked the mayor to find out what it would take for us to take on the enforcement of this particular project. What is the dollar amount so we can opt out of the enforcement and we'll leave everything else in place right now. So the city would be responsible for hearings and enforcement. If you want to outsource the hearings, that's something you can look at. But those would be the two items that the city is responsible for. And as Councilor Knight mentioned, other than the Traffic Commission, they're the ones that really set the policy around this. So I think if we take that back in-house, the enforcement, I think we'll go a long way to make sure that we're the city that we wanted to be in the start. We don't want to be an aggressive ticketing city. That's not what the city of methods all about. We want to make sure cars are moved along. And that's been the, uh, the emphasis on this from day one. So, um, I, I would offer, uh, ask my colleague respectfully, and I think Councilor Penta brings up a lot of valid concerns. But I think that may be a good option to put forward, something that I believe will strike at a lot of the concerns that I'm hearing from residents about the aggressive enforcement. If I knew there was a way around it, there's no way you're gonna tell a for-profit company, you know what, go a little lax on the ticketing. That's their revenue. What business is going to say, you know what, Meffin, you're right, we'll go a little lax. You know, we won't hit those, we won't hit the residents or the out-of-towners as much. We'll go easy on the ticketing. It's just never going to happen. So I would ask my council colleague, Councilor Penter, if he would be amenable to sending that to the mayor to see if we could take that in-house at this point. I also noticed in the correspondence we received back from regarding paper 15-081 and 15-022 dated March 19th. We mentioned to the mayor and the parking traffic commission that without permit parking stickers, residents are no longer able to call and say there's someone parked on our street that doesn't belong here. And we got a response to the paper from the mayor saying we are investigating a permit sticker to be placed on all residential permit parking vehicles. Wow, that sounds familiar. That's what we've done for the last 10 years in the city. You know, it was this new parking program that said, you know what, we're going to do away with the stickers without any input from anyone. And they're finding out, you know what, that doesn't work. That doesn't work because a lot of what's the resident permit issues are called on by residents that call calling up and you're tying the residents hand by not having stickers on vehicles. So, you know, I think, you know, we're at a point where we are at right now, from no enforcement at all, nothing happened in the community, to at least a program, it has a lot of faults, but I think we could stick with a portion of the program and not can the whole program. And in my opinion, the enforcement is the big issue right now. Let's take that in-house, let's hire our own traffic crossing guards, our own retired police, let's put them on the payroll for 20 hours a week, Let's get some enforcement out there that we can control and say, you know what, we don't want it to happen like this. That would be my recommendation. I want to ask my council colleague, Councilor Penta, if he'd be willing to go that direction before we throw the whole program out.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief because of the late hour. As we all read in the local paper and received a correspondence from the mayor, the city of Medford is in line to receive $143,000 of state aid to help with the filling of potholes and repair of streets throughout our community. I would only ask that the raised crosswalk on Winthrop Street, which if you come up or down Winthrop Street, you'll realize that other than the yellow neon signs on both sides of the street. The raised crosswalk itself blends into the road and is very difficult to see when you're coming up on it, especially if you're at some speed. And I would ask that the white markings, which were originally on the raised crosswalk, be replaced back in the interest of public safety with just a portion of the $143,000 towards the repair of streets and potholes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Knight, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and I would like to thank Councilor Camuso for his continued efforts on this issue. I think it would be helpful, as Councilor Knight just mentioned, about knowing the revenue stream, and maybe we should do our own homework to find out what exactly, and I don't know if you've already found out, but what a position of this would cost. I think that'd be helpful in making a decision, at least going forward and asking the mayor to look into it. And also, I know there are a number of initiatives currently taking place within our community that's on a tri-city level, that deals with sting operations when people are serving underage, you know, people in the community in different establishments, kids buying cigarettes that are underage. And that operation has been a tri-city with Method, Everett, and Malden. And maybe we can look at combining efforts when it comes to this substance abuse coordinator. and see what other surrounding communities are doing, and it might be worthwhile to take a program and create something that currently exists on a different level, but maybe expand it to the other communities as well. So I would just offer that as a suggestion, but this is definitely a worthwhile initiative and something that's, at least from my initial discussions in the community, is warranted at this point.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Just as everyone was talking, you know, it's great that I think we want the mayor to implement something, and that's great. But we as a council could implement our own program. And I think it would be a great idea to have youngsters of this community take part in local government by inviting them up to the meetings. You can mentor your own student, invite them behind the reeling, let them listen to debate, let them add dialogue. And this could be a great way of involving kids throughout the community. And it's something that we have direct control over. And it doesn't have to be limited to youngsters. We can invite business owners behind the railing to sit down. Every councilor can invite someone. And I think it's a great way of opening up government, Mr. President. And you're right, the school committee, back some years ago, we used to invite people behind the railing. And you would be a sponsor for someone. and that person would be able to ask questions of the chair, other members, and it was a real informative way of involving the community, getting input, and as we always hear, even from Jean who speaks at the podium and other people that come before the podium, that you look out in the audience and you might see at any given time four or five people in a city of 58,000 people. What better way? So I would ask that as a council, And in particular, you, Mr. President, that we allow maybe one meeting a month to be a sponsor, invite people behind the railing, one person per council. You don't have to invite someone if you don't like and open the meeting up to allow someone else. And I realize they're not elected and their vote is not going to carry weight as a vote on the council. But I think it would be a great experience for many youngsters in our community. And open that up, like I said, to business owners, to seniors, whoever we want to invite, Mr. President. And I think it's a win-win situation. So, I would look to your leadership, Mr. President, in putting something to that forward. And it's something we can do and not rely on the mayor to act upon, because the mayor may never get around. Although I think this is a worthy program, Councilor Camuso, he may never get around to offering a mentoring program in the community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And this dialogue is extremely helpful. So what I would say is with the last contract that the mayor signed with Comcast, that contract called for yearly increases to every ratepayer of this community with no relief in sight. I haven't spoken to one person in this community that said that their cable rates are going down. So there's been steady increases in cable rates over the last ten years. Why would you want to give out another 10-year contract? Wouldn't it be more prudent to have both Verizon and Comcast on a short leash, having them worry about whether or not the city's going to renew the contract? And that way, in my opinion, they'll be more competitive with the rates, and they'll be more willing not to raise rates because they know the contract's going to be up in two or three years. This 10-year contract does nothing for the ratepayers of this community. It may be easy for the mayor to sign a 10-year contract and take that off his plate so he doesn't have to revisit that for another 10 years, but it does nothing for you or I as a ratepayer, Mr. President. It does nothing to lower rates. It does nothing to improve programming, as we've seen with local access for the last three and a half years in this community, and in my opinion, It would suit every ratepayer in this community if they were part of the negotiations. And I realize the mayor is the sole negotiating authority, but why not put together, as Councilor Knight mentioned, member of the council, maybe a member of the business community, you know, a senior member of the community, someone, you know, a family member, someone that has a family in the community, a host of different people in the community to sit on this committee and negotiate it, Mr. President. You know, it just, to me, you know, it's the quick fix to getting a contract out of the way. And as I mentioned, rates have not gone down. So my past experience in this community, is that rates go up every year, unchecked. And the thought is, well, if you don't want to go with us, go with Verizon. And you go to Verizon, their rates are no better than Comcast, to be quite honest with you. They're in cahoots with each other. So the service may differ a little bit. But when it truly comes to the leverage we have as a community, it's bargaining the contract and standing up for the residents of this community and stating right within the contract, for the first four years, we do not want a rate crease, no rate crease at all. That would be part of a contract that I was signed, Mr. President, if I was in charge. That would be on behalf of the beleaguered taxpayer and ratepayer in this community. And to leave it open-ended and give a 10-year contract, you just might as well give them a blank check, because that's what's going to happen. The minute that's signed, the rates are going to continue to go up. All of a sudden, the programming they were offering, that's how they squeeze you. They give you a certain tier you're in, and all of a sudden, the four major channels that you used to watch in that tier are no longer part of that tier. You've got to move up to the next tier, which is another $39.50 a month. And they squeeze you and continually squeeze you in that manner. And, you know, I would hope that the mayor doesn't consider doing this alone, the contract negotiations. And I would hope that he looks for a much shorter contract so we can keep this company on a short leash and hold them accountable, Mr. President, for raising rates and doing away with programming and not offering local cable access. because they should be the ones, Mr. President. They're the ones collecting our franchise fee. The local cable access should be going to the mayor and saying, Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, we're collecting money from every rate payer in the community saying that we're going to provide access, and we haven't done that for four years, Mr. President. As a business owner, I feel incumbent to raise this to you, Mr. Mayor, and say maybe we should not be collecting these franchise fees. until you get your house in order and provide local cable access. So there are a lot of issues with this, and I look forward to, in particular, Councilor Knight's resolution to see if we could have a seat on this as part of this negotiation, and also to include other residents of this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Penter and my colleagues for speaking on this important issue. You know, this is very similar to the crosswalks that we ask to be painted every year, basic city services that are not being done in the community. The request that Councilor Longo, myself, and other members have offered with the 311 system is just a reporting mechanism that allows people by electronic device. Imagine that, Mr. President. Nowadays, you can use an electronic device to report something. You don't have to pick up the phone and reach out and listen to the mayor's 10-minute message board on what department to contact. Ironically, the mayor is about three quarters of the way into the recorded message. So you have to listen to 20 other departments before you get to quote the mayor's office to issue a concern or request, Mr. President. I find that quite amazing in this community. You know, the state is already out filling potholes. I've seen it on the Fells Way in the Wellington area, and we should be no different. I realize that this is not the ideal time to fill potholes, but it's imperative that we get out there right now and fill these holes, have a tracking mechanism. I agree with Councilor Penta, whether it's sending an email or using your iPhone, there has to be a tracking mechanism that the city can log these requests in, and get back to residents in a timely fashion on whether or not their problem has any type of resolution. The other thing, Mr. President, is the city of Boston, as well as Somerville and Cambridge, they know how to involve the community. What better than having 58,000 sets of eyes out in the community saying, hey, you know what? There's a pothole on this street. There's one at the corner. There's one next to the sewer on High Street. There's one next to the catch basin on Main Street. What better than to have 58,000 reporters out there letting you know where the problem is? I would welcome that. I think that's, you know, I know it's a daunting task, but I would welcome that type of information. And in our community, it's frowned upon. You know, they make it so difficult. to report in this community that people say, you know what, forget about it. And I think what you're seeing on our streets and our roads is the years of the forget-about-its. People aren't calling in anymore. They say it's not worth it. You know, we get no response. And, you know, I think this is long overdue, Mr. President. The 3-1-1 system, you know, I believe, as was mentioned, some of us has had this in their community, I think, for 12 or 15 years. maybe even longer. There was initial startup costs like any good program, but now it's worth its weight in gold. The number of complaints they receive and the number of calls that are adjudicated within a timely fashion speaks volumes to how city government should operate. And it shouldn't be the constant phone calls, because even during the storm, and I brought this up, Mr. President, residents would call me and say, I don't want to call you in particular, I just want to know how do I get a hold of someone? It may be 5 o'clock on a Saturday evening or Sunday morning, but I still need to get someone. And that was the tough task of trying to put them in touch with someone that can assist. And I think these are the things that the mayor needs to move forward. We've asked the mayor about having on the phone some type of mechanism where you can leave a phone call, a message. There is none of that at City Hall. So if someone's not in their office, and many of these offices, as we know, are understaffed, And there may not be someone there. The mayor rather the phone ring 7,000 times and no one pick it up than someone be able to leave a phone message to the appropriate department. That's how this city works for some reason. I'm not quite sure, Mr. President, but I wholeheartedly support this resolution, the motion that was offered by Councilor Longo a few weeks ago. And I would say, Mr. President, as I've done in the last couple of weeks, These are the issues that we should take to budget, and when the mayor says, hey, I need all your vote, I need all your vote for the budget, we sit down and say, yes, Mr. Mayor, you'll get that in due time. And that time is when you start working on some of the issues that's going to help this community move forward. And one of them is the 311 system, Mr. President. I feel strongly about that. We also received through a request I had on the equipment that DPW has. I know we all know there's going to be a new yacht, and I was flabbergasted to see the equipment that we have currently right now with no plans to update, with a brand-new state-of-the-art facility coming in, and equipment that's 25, 30, 35 years old, Mr. President, in this community. You know, it's nice to get value out of your property, but at some point, it becomes an old piece of rust, and it's no longer valuable, and it ends up sitting behind the DPW yard, or in back of the police department, or a lot of other locations in this community. So, there needs to be a capital improvement plan. There needs to be something done in this community, and I hope the mayor takes this not only under advisement, but acts upon it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. While we're under suspension, Um, over the last several days, I received a number of phone calls and emails from, uh, particularly residents in salt method, uh, that are concerned about, uh, the resident permit parking, uh, or I should say lack of resident permit parking that's happening in the community. Uh, I mentioned to many of the residents that called me that, uh, the chief of police is looking into, uh, permit parking, resident permit parking citywide. Um, and, uh, he said within the next year or two, They will probably come out with some type of plan. However, Mr. President, we need immediate attention to this issue. And we not only need immediate attention, we need to look at sector parking. Right now, as we all know, when area residents on their street want permit parking, they have to get together a petition. If 51 percent of the residents sign it, it goes before the Traffic Commission, and then the Traffic Commission will vote it up or down. whether that street will have permit parking. And it's only good for that street. So if I happen to live on Yield Street and want to park on the next street over that are both permit parking streets, I can only park on my street. And as we all know, the issue, particularly in these snow times, is that there may be 20 spots with 50 residents that have permit parking that are looking to get spots. To me, sector parking makes sense if you wanted to break it down by precinct or by ward. Um, I've also had people mentioned, well, the reason why we started permit parking was that if I live close to, uh, just say the West Medford train center, uh, the commuter rail and people from other parts of the city or even outside the city want to use the commuter rail, uh, they can park on my street and take the commuter rail and stay there for eight hours. And if you have one permit citywide, the same will be the case. You can have someone from North Method that comes down into West Method, parks there all day under his permit sticker, and takes the training. So I think it does make sense to have sector parking out there. I think that would eliminate a lot of the issues with people maybe from other areas parking for a particular reason in other neighborhoods. But something needs to be done immediately to resolve this issue. It's not getting any better. The parking program that the mayor put in place has a lot of faults. And one of them, Mr. President, is the fact that after hours, on weekends, the only way you get permit parking enforced is by calling the police department. And that's the system we went away from when supposing this new parking program was coming into effect. It shouldn't be on an add need basis. So residents shouldn't need to call to get basic enforcement of resident permit parking streets. That's why you petitioned the traffic commission. That's why the enforcement should be there. So, um, you know, something needs to be done. I would ask that we take a vote on this council asking that, uh, the chief of police make this a priority. I know he's busy with a lot of issues, but, uh, you know, with this parking program, there should have been more involvement. and more input from the community regarding resident permit parking and how it's going to work throughout this community. Because clearly right now, it's dysfunctional. And at best, it functions on occasion and by phone call into the police department or into park method, which, in my opinion, is unacceptable. Residents shouldn't be required to make phone calls. So I would put that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that the chief of police report back to this council when he will start his process for revamping permit parking in this community and also to take into consideration sector permit parking.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, one of the issue that I failed to mention was that, uh, prior to this new parking program, uh, residents that got resident permit parking, uh, permits would put a sticker on their windshield. So if you lived on a street, you'd be able to see on the street who had a resident permit parking and who was parked illegal. Now they did away with the stickers, so if you need to call in and say, you know, this person's illegal on the street, there's no indication now. And that's a huge concern. So on the weekends and at nights, if your street's packed with cars, you're not gonna be able to look for a sticker anymore. You'd have to know because the cars go by that do the vehicle identification reading by the plates, and they can tell if you have a sticker or not. So it really wipes away any of that activity from residents that can call in and say, Hey, these particular cars are parked illegal. And that's an issue that wasn't well thought out. Uh, I know the intention was all, uh, uh, well-purposed, uh, doing away with stickers. But now, you know, if, if the enforcement's not out there and residents want to call, what do they call on? There's no indication anymore. And that's another thing that, When the chief gets together, and I have every faith and confidence in the chief, and I know the chief will involve the community, he'll involve the business districts, he'll involve everyone and come to a consensus, unlike some other people in this community that came to the consensus dealing with their three or four department heads and had no involvement at all. I know whatever the Chief does, it'll be well thought out. I would just ask that this take place quicker than later, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, while the gentleman was up there before he leaves, you referred to every block. That's also a tool where residents can communicate with
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, maybe we should get a representative from Comcast to come and inform this council on what EveryBlock does and how it would impact the lives of residents of this community.
[Michael Marks]: I actually read the records, find them to be in order and move approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll be brief. I just want to thank the friends of Chevalier. I actually am a recent board member of Chevalier. And I can tell you firsthand the amount of time and effort that all these volunteers give to that organization, and to Chevalier, and to the fact that they've been working on this for the past four or five months to bring the Barry McNeils into the City of Method to have a great Celtic performance in this community, and also have it a night which people can go down and enjoy the fine dining in the square, enjoy the entertainment, and really bring some vibrance back into the square, You know, it's largely in part of the friends of Chevalier who keep the funding in to support that magnificent building. And I just want to personally thank them, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, if that's all, Councilor Matz? Yes, John, is the red, is that accessible by public safety vehicles?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And the, uh, the original charter, uh, where, where was the original location for this club?
[Michael Marks]: Okay, the reason why I ask, and I'm not sure if Councilor Penta was referring to that, is next to the old water and sewer building, the Italian American Club was there, as you probably are aware. for many years until it burned down. And, um, many of the organization members were trying to relocate back in the city here because their original charter was a method charter. And, um, I'm not sure if this organization, uh, if you have any affiliations with anyone from the Italian American club, but, um, I know there was a great interest to come back into the community. So I don't know if maybe at some point, There could be some discussions.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, you know, those, those statements were very powerful that were, uh, mentioned here tonight. And as I'm aware and many people are aware, the first step to recovery is to admit that there's a problem. That's the first step. And I don't think that this community, and when I say the community, the residents, the elected officials, the public safety officials, have taken the first step yet to admitting there's a problem in our community. And I, as a member of the council, would like to see us as a council tonight send out a message as a council stating that we believe that there's a major concern with drugs in our community, and there's many addictions. We heard some stories here tonight, and I thank my colleagues for sharing them. I shared a story that I had. My father was addicted to gambling and tore our family apart when I was a youngster with four kids in the home. And, you know, it's a different addiction, but Many people experience many different types of addictions, whether it's drug, whether it's womanizing, whether it's gambling. There's a lot of different addictions out there. And I would like tonight for us to take a vote, Mr. President. I know we voted to set up roundtable discussions, but I think we should, as a community, because as the gentleman mentioned tonight, and he really put it forward that, you know, When he looked at members of the council, he saw blank stares. And I'll be the first to say, I wasn't aware of how many people have died over the last few years from overdoses. I've heard about it. I've known people, absolutely. But I wasn't aware of the epidemic that was going on in this community. And I think tonight was a real eye-opening. Tonight was a real eye-opening. when you hear firsthand accounts of what's taking place in our community. And we can no longer turn a blind eye anymore in this community and pretend that nothing's happening because we're the city of Medford and, you know, we're a great community and things like that don't happen in Method. As we heard tonight, it happens in every socioeconomic, on all different levels. No one's immune to this. It's evident, even when you turn on the TV and see famous movie stars that are going through the same addictions and have passed away. And this is not to any particular class, not to particular to any ethnicity. This impacts everyone, Mr. President. And I really would like to take a vote tonight of this council going on record, saying that we believe there's an epidemic in this community. that needs to be addressed. We may need to call in state officials in this also, state delegation, you know, and to this, Mr. President, whatever it takes. But I think it's about time that we put the same emphasis, as was mentioned tonight, on fixing potholes in our roads, on making sure that we have public safety and making sure that the community is operating well. And in one aspect, we have a part of the community that many people aren't aware of. It's almost like an underground thing that's going on that many people aren't aware of. And I think we have to raise it up and maybe make it a front-page story. I know the transcript's here tonight. Make it a front-page story. Let people know what's going on. And maybe we can bring this community together and fight this very deadly disease, Mr. President. And I would move that we take a vote. by this council to say that there's an epidemic in this community and that emergency attention is needed to fight this war on drugs and narcotics in this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks, please. Mr. President, as part of the paperwork, it asked the petitioner to answer a question whether or not they have any outstanding violations. And that is incumbent upon the petitioner to state whether they have any violations or not. The Corey check checks for criminal offender record information and doesn't look, I don't believe, and maybe Councilor Camuso would know this better, I don't believe it looks at outstanding tickets, does it? the, the, the Corey, um, maybe it might be a good idea to have along the process somehow, uh, the petitioners of all taxi licenses to submit to the council. In addition to the paperwork, um, uh, a record showing that, uh, they are free from any type of liability when it comes to tickets.
[Michael Marks]: So the chief signing off.
[Michael Marks]: I would just say if that's correct, what the chief is telling us, and we go based on the chief, then those two questions within the application itself are meaningless then because the chief is telling us he finds no fault.
[Michael Marks]: Opposed. Opposition.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We received a letter in our packet, a legal opinion from City Solicitor Rumley, and last week's packet dated February 17th. It was in regard to paper 15-043, and the resolution that I offered, which many members behind this reeling have offered in the past, was to allow for 15 slash 30 minute free parking in our business districts. Um, at the time, uh, when it was mentioned by many members of this council and supported by this council unanimously on several occasions, uh, that, uh, we, uh, weren't aware whether the traffic commission, because there is contractual language that exists right now between the city of method and Republic, which does our, uh, parking program, um, whether or not we needed to amend the contract or whether the traffic commission, which is a city commission, had the authority under its jurisdiction to vote for 15 or 30 minute free parking in the business districts. City solicitor responded back in the letter and quite clearly stated it's under the jurisdiction of the traffic commission to change the 15 to 30 minute free parking and also the times of enforcement. And as we all know, several weeks back, the Traffic Commission voted to change the enforcement times from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
[Michael Marks]: I honestly don't know. I assume once the vote was taken, it becomes effective and they did take the vote on it several weeks back. I mean, we'd have to get a clarification from the traffic commission. Um, but so that the hours of operation has changed and I'm requesting, um, that, uh, we provide, uh, free parking at least 15 to 30 minute free parking in our business districts. Many business members that I've spoken to, I've heard them loud and clear that this would alleviate a bulk, not all concerns, but a bulk of the concerns for people running in and doing the quick errand, people running in and getting a sandwich in a sub shop, people running in and doing business in their insurance company, people running into the corner store and maybe playing a number. A lot of different reasons, getting a newspaper. This would alleviate a lot of the people that are just running into the stores for a quick time, and there's no need to feed the meter. For those that want to stay for an extended period of time, 30 minutes or over, then there would be a need after that to feed the meter. I think this will help businesses. I think it will help residents that I've been hearing from also that would love to be able to go down into any of our squares, park briefly, do their business, and move on with their daily lives, not having to worry to go up to the kiosk and feed the kiosk, Mr. President. So I would ask that we take a vote in this simple request, requesting that the Traffic Commission at their next meeting take up the issue of 15- to 30-minute free parking. The reason why it was worded 15 to 30 minutes, I know the resolutions before this council, I know Councilor Lungo has offered it, I believe Councilor Camuso, Councilor Penta, and, you know, we've all mentioned different times, 15, 30 minutes, but ultimately they're going to make the decision. So if they decide, you know, they might want to do 45 minutes, but I think at least if we put a time in there, 15 to 30 minutes, it gives them a starting block, Mr. President. So I would request that this be sent to the Traffic Commission for their immediate review and hopefully approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just a quick point of information. The convenience fee, is that contractual or is that something that's not? We got word on that already?
[Michael Marks]: So I don't, I have no problem asking. I think it's a good suggestion, but as long as it's not part of the contract. Thank you. Councilors.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I received two calls from residents of the Riverside Tower. They were concerned that the hallways seemed to be very cold. The residents called the management company and the management company told them that it's their protocol to keep the hallways between 62 and 68 degrees. The woman at the Riverside Tower asked me to go down. I went by on my own. I went into the building. I stood near, as we all know, the front door, which is accessed a lot, the Riverside Tower. And it was absolutely freezing after the second set of doors in that particular lobby area. Do they manage this chamber as well? I don't know if they manage this chamber, but it's about the same degree. And I did go on to a couple of the floors, Mr. President, and it seemed to be, I had a coat on too, and it seemed to be somewhat cold in the building. I contacted, I looked online and contacted the management company, federal management company, and I have to say, I got an email back immediately from Joseph Moscarello. He is the senior property manager for the building. And he also responded via email and phone call back to me. And he mentioned to me that he sent his maintenance person out to each of the floors. And they did notice that some of the floors were actually below 62. And they're going to try to rectify some of the concerns they're having with the heating system in there. He also mentioned to me, which I found interesting, was the front door. stays ajar when it opens automatically for 40 seconds. You can imagine every time someone comes and goes, and that door stays open for 40 seconds. Needless to say, they're going to look at the duration of the cycle on that particular front door and see if they can get it closed quicker without also providing some concerns with residents trying to access the building. But I do want to report, Mr. President, that Mr. Moscarello seems to be on top of the issue. He said that there would be improvements in the temperature in the hallways, throughout the floors, and assured me that if there were any concerns that the management company, like I said, Federal Management Company, would be more than happy to seek some type of a remedy for residents of that building, Mr. President, so.
[Michael Marks]: My motion is actually to place this, why don't we just receive and place on file.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, this particular area where the injury occurred is a high-traveled area. It's the corner of High Street and Governor's Ave. So I would ask that DPW be on notification if they're not already about this particular sinkhole and that something immediately be done at that site.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the meeting that this council wants to hold with the Attorney General's office and also a representative from Lawrence Memorial Hospital or Hallmark Health, I would ask Alan McDonald, who I believe is second in command at Hallmark Health has appeared before this council a number of times, and I would ask that we invite him in particular. And also, we invite the mayor or someone from the administration to be present at this meeting, because the mayor has the same vested interest of the health of Moss Memorial Hospital. And I read some of the opinion, and from what I gather, One of the chief complaints was the fact that they believed if partners were to take over Hallmark Health, that partners would be able to control the rates. And we all know that right away, insurance companies, who is really the thousand-pound elephant in the room, it's not the hospitals, it's the insurance companies, they're the ones that are driving the conversation. And their fear is that if partners gain more of a control over the health industry in Massachusetts, that partners would be able to have more say at the table and increase rates and so forth. And I just think that, as I mentioned before, I actually work for Mass General. And in my opinion, implementing and bringing world-renowned physicians into a local hospital was a win-win for every resident in this community when you're talking about bringing top cardiac doctors into Lawrence Memorial Hospital, top primary care doctors, doctors across all specialties that would be coming and merging into Lawrence Memorial Hospital, as well as Melrose-Wakefield, was a win-win for Lawrence Memorial Hospital. And I'm very fearful of its future with this particular opinion and the ruling that was, as Councilor Camuso mentioned. And I think we should have a meeting sooner than later, Mr. President. Hallmark Health, where this is so recent, is probably not going to go on the record stating what their next step is, because I think it was asked by — I think it might have been Councilor Knight when Hallmark Health was up here and said, you know, this is plan A. Do you have a plan B? And Mr. — President Sack from Hallmark Health said, no, we just have a plan A. This is our plan. And where this is so recent, I'm not sure if they're going to share any information, I think it's incumbent upon us as a council and also the administration to push back and find out what's going on with the hospital because, in my opinion, from hearing from President Sack, I'm not sure how much Lawrence Memorial or Hallmark as an organization can sustain their operations and the capacity they're doing currently. And that worries me for urgent care in our community and things that many residents and seniors have become accustomed to may no longer be in their back doorstep. And that concerns me, Mr. President. So I would ask that, uh, this, uh, meeting, if not an emergency meeting, but something take place, uh, immediately, uh, regarding this.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I actually brought up the Foodmaster, actually the old Foodmaster, now the Stop and Shop parking lot on Salem Street, and also mentioned this particular establishment that caught on fire well over two years ago. I believe it was called the Lucky Dragon, But needless to say, Mr. President, you know, I think it's probably appropriate time now to have a roundtable discussion on our downtown business districts, and that would include all five business districts. You know, we've been discussing and the mayor has been discussing the revitalization of our major business district, Medford Square, for the past 28 years. And if anything, there are more vacant storefronts now than existed when he took office. And, in my opinion, Mr. President, I don't see any activity being done in any of our business districts to make them more of a welcoming area to try to attract newer businesses into the community. Surrounding communities are offering tax incentives to local businesses and small businesses to attract them. They're trying to attract a variety of business So you just don't have, you know, all of one particular business or two different type of businesses. That makes it more attractive for people that want to come in and traverse the downtown business districts. A few months ago, I offered a resolution to look at the transportation shelter across from the CVS on Riverside Ave. We got a response back from the administration saying they'll take it under advisement. which is, in my opinion, unacceptable, Mr. President. That particular shelter definitely could be reused for another purpose in our community, whether it be for arts or whether it be for retail or whether it be an inviting place to attract people. When they did the square of the revitalization plan in the square many years back, One of the omissions that was mentioned in the report was the fact that there are no gathering areas in our downtown business district. And there's not a place where you can sit down and have a cup of coffee and relax in an outdoor setting. And that was one of the big downsides on our square. And there was discussion about widening our sidewalks, adding more benches, and doing a number of things in our business districts. And I saw that particular reuse of that transportation shelter, which is crumbling right now. The roof is in need of a roof. The gutters are missing. The paint's peeling off the side. It's really not being used at all right now. And the repurposing of that for another use could have an area where we could have people that would come and sit down and turn it into a vibrant area rather than something that's currently neglected. But it's long overdue in this community, Mr. President. We need to sit down with this administration. The mayor controls the Office of Community Development. And in my opinion, you know, I don't want to be critical of anyone in particular, but in my opinion, that department is sorely understaffed and is not serving the purpose of a community development office like I see happening in other communities. And it's about time, if we're interested in Revitalizing, Councilor Caraviello is interested in Salem Street. He brings up the Haines Square area. But we have to look at the hillside. We have to look at South Medford, West Medford, Medford Square. We have to look at every particular area, Mr. President, in the square. And we have to have a game plan. There is no, when we were talking about capital improvements a few years back, the one thing that was lacking was there was no vision. There was never a capital improvement plan established in this community. And we're seeing the same with our business districts. There is no plan to revitalize our squares. And, you know, we can refer back to the mayor's three proposals for revitalizing Method Square, but none of them have made it out of infancy. They're all still in the baby carriage, and they never make it any further than that. And every so often, people get upset and say, what's going on in our squares? I see all these vacancies. After 7 o'clock, the square's dead. And all you need to do is look around other communities and see what Wakefield's doing, see what Redding's doing, see what Stoneham's doing, see what downtown Woburn's doing in areas that before, you know, really weren't, you know, bustling. Now we're bustling. And here we are five minutes from Boston off of Major 93, and our square is dead, Mr. President. It really is a shame. And I know there's a group of residents that have organized around this issue. I'm hoping they step forward and bring this to light. But I don't think we can afford to sit around any longer and discuss a possible Peace Garden or a water taxi as the solve-all for Method Square. You know, once we bring in a water taxi, all of a sudden the square is going to be bustling. Or once the Peace Garden comes in, it's going to attract people into the square. I don't think that's going to be the case. This is not the field of dreams. If you build it, they'll come. In my opinion, the city's going to have to step forward, do some legwork in the issue. It's not going to just happen. We have three large parcels of land in our downtown business district. Any other community would die to have that, Mr. President. We own the property. We don't have to go in by eminent domain. We don't have to do anything. That's our property. We can revitalize that on our own. And these parcels have been sitting there vacant for years and years and years. I just don't know what it's going to take, Mr. President. And, you know, I'm sorry for being long-winded. But this business districts in the community is the lifeline. You know, we talk about different things that are the lifeline of a community. The downtown business districts are a lifeline. Your property value is directly related to how well the schools do, and also the business community. And right now, our business community is not doing well, Mr. President. It's not doing well, and we need to step up. And I'm hoping we can have, and I'd like to put it to a vote tonight, Mr. President, a roundtable discussion regarding the revitalization of all five business districts in our community with the administration, with the Office of Community Development, and with whoever else wants to sit down at the table, and with this council, Mr. President, and discuss the future of our business districts. So I put that in the form of a motion, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not looking for a plan that's going to encompass all the business districts. What I want to do is start the dialogue with this roundtable discussion. And I don't think we can paint a picture of business. You're right. Every square is individual and has its own needs and wants. And I think we just need to start the discussion. And I agree with the President that an economic development plan is a great start, but it has to be started somewhere. and I don't see it being done on the administration side.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I remember when they had the dedication down at Placed at Park some many years ago. That was the first time I met Bill Mumbo-Katt. And out of all the accolades, as Councilor Penter alluded to, no hitter and all-star league named and so forth, the one thing that stands out to me was his commitment to local youth. And he never looked for any fanfare, never looked for any recognition, but he'd always be at certain events, Mr. President. And, you know, And I think it meant a lot, even though the younger kids, you know, you hear the name and you could tell them who he was, you know, really could never appreciate that this man was, in his time, was someone that was really looked up to and someone that was at the top of his game, at the top of his sport, never had anything negative mentioned about him. In today's day and age, when you hear about sports players, there's always something mentioned after the name. And with Bill Mumbo, you never got that. As Councilor Penta mentioned and the other councilors, he was a stand-up gentleman, a family man, and again, gave so much back to a community that he loved so much. And I'll always remember him for being part of the local youth in this community.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President, the last meeting that was held at the BB Junior High, the concerns I got from local residents was that The room was filled with 95% Malden residents and the few Method residents that took the time to go up, a lot of their issues were dismissed. And that is a concern of mine. And when I brought up the issue back, I believe it was two months ago, I asked that the city administration take a lead role in this on notification, which residents weren't notified of the first meeting, They found out through just some local talk. And secondly, Mr. President, this council voted unanimously to put some type of barrier or arm on the Medford side of Lund Road, where the entrance is. And I don't think we got a response back. I don't remember receiving a response back. I know the chief was in support of making sure that that wasn't open to access traffic. Emergency vehicle, yes. but not as a cut-through for access traffic. So, you know, I'd like to get a response back from the administration on that, Mr. President. And I also just read recently that the homes that were anticipated that were going to be on the Medford side are all gone now. There is no plans for homes on the Medford side at all. So, I think that's a little different than what Councilor Penta just mentioned. I know we had a conversation as that gentleman reached out to all of us, but I just recently read that Methodists not going to have any building at all on our side. And they were going to honor the buffer, the wooded buffer along the property lines. So I just want to make sure that the city administration, I know they're having a meeting tomorrow night, but I want to make sure that the city administration is well represented there because they're supposed to be representing the residents of this community. And 530 meeting might be tough for people to make it to. And we should know that there's someone fighting on our behalf, whether it's the community development director, the mayor himself, the building department, someone from the administration or several people should be there, Mr. President also. So I would have that as a, as part of this motion that, um, you know, I appreciate we were invited, but also the administration should be well represented.
[Michael Marks]: And the barrier that we already voted on.
[Michael Marks]: There's a barrier on their property. There's a barrier on their property. Is it a cement barrier, Chief, or is it, I think it's a cement barrier that's over there, but we were talking about, they can easily remove that cement barrier and we didn't want the road to be used. They're not even building it. No, the barrier itself. That could be removed. They don't need approval from the City of Medford to remove their own barrier. And once that's removed, that remains an open access road. And we wanted to prohibit that from being an open access road by building our own barrier on our side.
[Michael Marks]: I thought when we discussed this originally, these were tickets issued for parking in front of a fire hydrant, parking in a handicapped spot, And I thought this council voted to say, we're not going to eliminate any tickets, uh, for that, for that period. I understand what the council is saying about the vehicle going around and the registration and the whole, a lot of other issues that were mentioned, but, but I thought we voted against saying to waive tickets on the 15th and 16th. So I'm not quite sure why this was even on there. I thought we removed this.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a question, chief. This council has asked on several occasions that we increase the free parking and we've offered suggestions the first 15 minutes free citywide up to 30 minutes free citywide. And the response back we got from the administration was, as a result of meetings with the business community, they provided two free 30-minute spots and also four single-head meters in each of the business districts. So the free spots would amount to 10 free spots citywide. So each of the five business districts would have two free spots. I agree with the, uh, limited hours of operation, changing it from seven to seven, uh, from seven to seven to eight to six. And that falls under your purview as a traffic commission. I would also say, uh, 30 minute free parking would also fall under the traffic commissions purview. Uh, would you agree with that chief?
[Michael Marks]: Right. But if under, from what I hear, uh, as a rule of thumb, if we don't change the number of meted spots, we fall within the guidelines of the contract. This is from what I understand by, uh, adding a 30 minute free parking for the first 30 minutes. We're not changing the number of meted spots. And in my opinion, I'm not a legal counsel, but I would say that that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commission. And from what I hear from business owners, we had Jimmy from West Medford come up. We've heard from a number of business owners, a number of residents that want to run into the store for two minutes and pick up a newspaper or something. This would solve a lot of issues, Chief, a lot, a lot of issues. And if it falls under your purview, I think it goes hand in hand with the limiting of the hours of operation also. And I think this is a necessity, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I don't know at what point are we in violation of the contract if we make changes. I really don't understand. I don't think anyone behind this reeling totally understands.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But as you know, the whole reason that we implemented this was to move cars along. And providing a 15 or 30-minute grace period accomplishes such that. It still moves cars along. So I don't see that we'd be going back from what our mission was to move cars along in the business district. And if you're able to take two hours a day off of their enforcement, that's revenue that they could be generating, yet minusing two hours I don't see why 30 minutes would be any different.
[Michael Marks]: We don't have any statistics. We have no data yet.
[Michael Marks]: I think that's a sad commentary when you can say from seven to eight, there's no cars there anyways.
[Michael Marks]: I mean, it's limited because it's unfortunate. It's limited because there's no magnets. Mr. President, I would ask then if we have to do this piecemeal, um, that, uh, we asked the city solicitor by a vote of this council, whether or not, uh, we could implement, either 15 or 30-minute free parking citywide, and if that's under the purview of the Traffic Commission. And once we get that response back, because the response we received back from the administration, it says no additional changes will be made at this time. That would lead me to believe that changes could be made. That would lead me to believe that changes could be made. And so I think maybe it's appropriate that we get a legal opinion from the city solicitor.
[Michael Marks]: or 30 minute free parking citywide that is, whether that falls under the purview of the traffic commission or if it's a contractual agreement that needs to be done.
[Michael Marks]: I just got one last thing. A gentleman called me, a gentleman called me up chief on this brochure that was passed out. And he mentioned that when he tried to feed the machine, He said he believes the steps are backwards, Step 4 and 5. So he said he went, he put in his license plate number, and then Step 4 says, press the blue button to buy time. He's saying that you're supposed to press the green button, then put the money in, and then press the blue button. He said these steps aren't right.
[Michael Marks]: Can you take a look at that, Chief?
[Michael Marks]: Complete transaction. Can you take a peek at that, Chief?
[Michael Marks]: Go ahead, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I've known Aggie Tudin for a number of years, and you couldn't meet a kinder, gentler person. She takes her job very, very seriously. She is the biggest advocate in this city to maintain and save our shade trees throughout the community, and has done yeoman's work to improve the quality of life in this community. And I would personally like to thank her. Uh, I, uh, have had a number of dealings, uh, as council is both mentioned, uh, Aggie gets right back to you. She gets you an answer. She gets right out to the site. Um, and she has done exemplary work on behalf of the residents of this community. And I personally want to thank you, Aggie and keep up the good work. Thank you. Councilor Marksley.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions. Um, how, uh, is your clientele referred?
[Michael Marks]: How many clients can you accommodate on a daily average?
[Michael Marks]: 100. And what is your staff to client ratio?
[Michael Marks]: 1 to 6 is state regulations?
[Michael Marks]: Do you have any nurses on site? Do you have any nurse practitioners?
[Michael Marks]: So you dispense medication on site?
[Michael Marks]: Is medication kept on site?
[Michael Marks]: So is medication kept overnight?
[Michael Marks]: So if it's kept overnight, is there... It's a medical cart.
[Michael Marks]: This is locked and...
[Michael Marks]: Are there any regulations that govern the security of medications?
[Michael Marks]: And you'll be adhering to all those regulations? Yes. Locally, does the Board of Health oversee your area?
[Michael Marks]: And have you had a walkthrough yet at the site?
[Michael Marks]: So that hasn't taken place yet? No.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I'd like to see how process is the last step. all the papers ahead of time.
[Michael Marks]: You also mentioned that you provide three meals. Yes. What other activities are done with the... people that are staying there for the day.
[Michael Marks]: Other than eating, what else do they do?
[Michael Marks]: So is the actual setup inclusive? Is everyone together or are they in separate rooms or separate areas? It depends.
[Michael Marks]: And just my last question, do you do any outreach at all?
[Michael Marks]: Well, once you get started, if someone is a client.
[Michael Marks]: Mystic Valley?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, you know, I, I don't think anyone behind this real disputes. The fact that this council has been pushing for years and I is one member for parking enforcement in this community. I don't think anyone disputes that how we arrived at that and where we are today is due to a plan that the mayor signed. And I don't dispute that either. This is the mayor's plan. He's the one that signed it. Yes, the council did take several votes, but not on the language. And we've heard members of the council already state, like Councilor Knight mentioned today, he's not happy with the $0.35 surcharge. Now, at the time, was that an issue that was brought up, that we discussed, that we talked about, that we voted on? Absolutely not. Councilor Camuso said last week that he's against kiosks and prefers parking meters. Now, was that an issue that we took a vote on? Absolutely not. So it was the length... It's in the records.
[Michael Marks]: We did not take a vote. And Mr. President, if you could indulge me for a moment.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Because it's important that we get this information out and that the people at home and the people in the audience are aware, Mr. President. And I'm not going to speak for anyone else. I, as one member of the council, never voted to outsource this particular program. If anything, It was myself, Councilor Wong-Tam and Councilor Penta that pushed at the beginning to take this program in house. We thought we could accomplish this in house by our own staff. A unanimous vote by this Council, Councilor. Kiosk versus meter. I never took a vote on kiosk versus meter. When I sat on the committee back some five years ago, our mission was to look at other communities. And our recommendation back to the mayor was, Mr. Mayor, we looked at other communities. Boston uses a combination of kiosk and meters and other surrounding communities. and their parking lots use kiosks and meters on the streets. We didn't make our declarative recommendation on which way to go. That was the mayor's choice. Then we heard recently about raising business and commuter permit fees for permit parking from 100 to 400. Did anyone behind this reeling vote to raise business or commuter fees commuter permit parking from $100 to $400? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on the paid-for parking. Who voted behind the reeling to have it for 12 hours? I don't know. I didn't vote for it. Did anyone else vote to have it for 12 hours? And now we're hearing the concerns that people would like to see it less to help business out. The $3 surcharge on resident permit parking. Did we vote for that? And then it was just the company just took it back now, knowing that on a $10 permit parking, resident permit parking, $3 is excessive, and they took it back on their own. We didn't vote for that. The $0.35 surcharge to use the Park Mobile for your pay phone, we didn't vote for that. The enforcement versus pay to park, we didn't vote for that, Mr. President. able to support 30-minute free parking. Did we get a vote on that? We all support that. We've heard it mentioned, whether it's 15 or 30 minutes. Every council said, I'd like to see that. Well, if every council likes to see that, and we're saying that we supported the mayor's proposal, why is it in there? I want to know why it's in there. Because we didn't vote on the language. We did not vote on the language. And I can't say it enough, Mr. President. The validation program, that was recently created a couple of weeks ago, and the mayor nixed it shortly after that. The kiosk, where the kiosk are located. Who voted on that behind this reeling? We sat down and said, where the kiosk could be located? That was under the mayor's plan, not under our vote, Mr. President. Also, keeping the appeal process. The one thing that we didn't outsource was the appeal process. And everyone told us, and I know Gwen Blackburn's in the audience, and every city that we went to said, keep the appeal process out of City Hall, keep it away from City Hall. The one thing that may have kept in City Hall was the appeal process. Did members of the council vote for that to keep it here? Absolutely not, Mr. President. Also, to post signs on trees. Was that a vote of this council? I personally know that it's against the city policy to do so. That wasn't a vote of the Medford City Council. So, Mr. President, I think what we have to be careful here is, you know, the mayor's a big boy. This is the mayor's plan, and he should be able to come forward and say, this is what I thought was best for this community. But to run and hide at a time when the residents of this community need direction, Mr. President, is incomprehensible. It really is, Mr. President, whether he's on vacation or not. Thank you, Councilor. Well, just let me finish, Mr. President. Whether he's on vacation or not, Mr. President, he's had ample opportunity to appear before the residents of this community. Whether it's a reverse 911 call, whether it's on local access stations, whether it's not having a press conference, which he knows how to do very readily in his office, he has failed to appear before this council and the community and explain his pay-for-parking program. Now, if he's in favor of it, he should get out there and push for it, Mr. President. But I'm not going to be tagged, Mr. President, because every inch of the way, I had questions on this. And questions are still coming up, Mr. President. And for my vote from five years ago, back in 2009, along with the committee the mayor appointed, was to provide consistent parking enforcement in this community. and not to go to a pay-for-parking program right away. And that was my vote from day one, Mr. President. And this has taken on, as a speaker said earlier, we went from a plan of small nature, just trying to improve enforcement and moving cars along, to a plan now where we're aggressively seeking out people and we're aggressively hurting local business in this community, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So I just want that to be, yes, the council did take several votes, Mr. President, but we had no meaningful dialogue or input to any of the language that was always under the mayor's purview. And as we can see, the program being tweaked now is because of the lack of involvement in this community. and we're paying the repercussions now on trying to figure out a program while we already signed a contract, and that's unfortunate.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, because Dr. Strella brings up a lot of great points. And I would just like to ask the doctor a question. Yes, that's a proper use of a point of information. Because he's a very astute person and very active with his body, but. I agree with that. And I'm glad you do.
[Michael Marks]: As you know, by state law, the mayor cannot enter into a contract over a term of three years. That's correct. As I understand it. Right. So when the three requests for proposals came back, they were all for a term greater than three years. So what you're saying to me as a member of the council at that point, we turned to the mayor and say, you know what, Mr. Mayor, if you can't negotiate a contract within three years, go back, go back to the drawing table. That's what you're saying. That's right. That's true. Knowing that there's a startup cost cause he outsourced everything. And in this case, it was close to a million dollar startup cost. There were no companies, John, that would come into the city, the way the mayor wanted to do it, would come into the city for three years. So under your thought was just to go back to the mayor and say, you know what, we're not moving forward. We're not moving forward with this. My thought was at the time, allow the mayor to negotiate, and then we can have say in what the language will be, John. That was my thought.
[Michael Marks]: But as part of that right, as part of that, that, that vote we took, we also put a stipulation that the mayor will bring the proposal back to us for a final vote. That was council appendix resolution and it was voted on unanimously by the council. The fact that the mayor never came back to us to allow us to make changes and to to view the language is not, maybe it's a legal issue. Maybe it's a legal issue. But that is an amendment that we put on the resolution that allowed him to enter into a multi-year agreement. That is the amendment, John. And I don't know any way of slicing it up. You're right.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, I hear what Councilor Pente is stating, but from what we heard, the infractions dealt with parking in handicapped spot, parking in front of a hydrant. And I, as one member of the council, I don't care how they got the information. I want them to issue tickets. That's what they're there for, to issue tickets, and especially for infractions of parking in front of a hydrant, which is a danger, uh, in case of a fire or parking in a handicapped spot, Mr. President. So I hear what Councilor Prentice is stating, but I don't think we should be waiving any tickets for people that are in violation of parking in those particular spots, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Martz.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, Madam President. And I appreciate Jean, and I appreciate your vision. And I think, you know, when it comes to the Office of Community Development, we as a community need to expect more from the Office of Community Development. That's the reason why we have an Office of Community Development. And, you know, they do yeoman's work when it comes to finding grants and rehabbing parks. or allocating community block grant money every year. They do a tremendous job. But all you need to do is look at the five business districts in this community and wonder why we haven't revitalized one of our business districts in the last 25 years. That's all you need to wonder. And, you know, it's clear to me that the Office of Community Development has fallen far short of the mark when it comes to redevelopment. This administration has been in charge for 28 years, And I would submit to anyone in this community, Medford Square is no better off now than it was 28 years ago. And I would submit to you that the square was better off 28 years ago than what we have down there currently now. The council voted several months back on Riverside Ave, the transportation little shuttle that we have across from the CVS on Riverside behind the burial ground. We voted to have it looked at for a possible repurpose. Right now, it's falling apart. The roof is leaking. It's in deplorable condition, and it's being utilized for next to nothing. And the response back we got from the administration was they'll take it under advisement. These are the type of things that, when issues are brought up, that there's no one at City Hall carrying the water. There's no one at City Hall looking into it. And that's the problem that we face. And, you know, until there's a new administration in this city, we're going to see our business districts the way they are, in deplorable condition, in need of updating, in need of new traffic studies, new pedestrian crossings, traffic calming approaches, new facades. The whole issue — and it's — we spoke about Haines Square, I think it was last week, about the fire that took place at the Lucky Dragon Chinese restaurant. That was over two years ago. And it's still boarded up with action signs in the window. That was two years ago. How does a community allow an establishment in a business district to stay boarded up like that? I just don't understand. And is there any involvement from the Community Development Office or the Building Commissioner's Office to do something about it? You're talking about the liquor store as a blighted look and area, what about a boarded up establishment that's been caught on fire two years ago. And this is, I think, what we're seeing across the community, not just Haynes Square, West Medford, the hillside, and our main anchor, which is Medford Square. And the mayor has commissioned three separate reports to revitalize Medford Square, has spent several hundred thousand dollars to come out with a plan to revitalize Medford Square and has done nothing. And that's over a 25 year process. So I guess when we talk about parking enforcement taking five years and the mayor's vision, that's pretty quick because the revitalization of Medford Square is still ongoing after 25 years in the police department after 50 something years chief, which we won't call you up to the podium in the library, 50 something years. So, I guess it's par for the course how we're working and, you know, I agree. I don't think it should be done by a citizen advisory board. It should be done by the people that we're paying their salary, hefty salaries. And, you know, that's what should take place in this community. And the mayor needs to put an emphasis on the Office of Community Development. And some of all their staff is probably seven times larger than our staff. We have one full-time person who's the director. one part-time person, and there may be someone else answering the phones in the office. That's our Office of Community Development. I don't know what you're gonna get out of it, other than what we're already getting, which is just the minimal day-to-day, keep the office going, but no improvements to our infrastructure or any thought of revitalization. But I appreciate your thoughts, Jeanne.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Maybe if we can ask the mayor more of a poignant question, of what are his plans to revitalize our five business districts, because you can only be told so many times about a plan that was drafted 20 years ago. Right. You can only be told so many times about that outdated plan until people realize and unmask the masquerade that's going on that nothing is happening in this city.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. It was brought to my attention recently by a method resident that The Gaming Act, which we're all aware of, which was the creating legislation to create casinos in this community. As part of that, there was a community mitigation fund that was established, and this was to offset costs related to gaming for communities and surrounding communities. There is a one-time, and this is why I wanted to bring it up tonight, there's a one-time 2015 reserve that's allocated to surrounding communities, of which we are named right within the one-time policy that was put out as being one of the surrounding communities. And it states, if I could read it, Mr. President, because there's a time frame that's associated with this. It says, in recognition that communities may not be able to demonstrate many significant impacts by February 2, 2015, and in recognition of the commission's emphasis on proper local planning, the commission has established a one-time local reserve for the 2015 Community Mitigation Fund Program. The commission has reserved $100,000 for each designated surrounding community, each community which entered into the nearby community agreement with a license and any community that petitioned to be a surrounding community to a gaming license, which we are one of them, Mr. President. This reserve can be used to cover impacts that may arise in 2015 or thereafter. It may also be used for planning, either to determine how to achieve further benefits from a facility or to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts. We've all spoken, Mr. President, about the need for infrastructure improvements in Wellington Circle. The deadline to apply for this is February 2nd. I want to send a response from this council to the administration to, first of all, to see if the administration has applied for this, where the deadline is approaching. If not, that they apply immediately, and that also this council go on record, you know, I believe the number one concern is the traffic impact from what I've heard from residents and also from living in the Wellington area and what can be done to improve some of the potential congestion in the Wellington area which we all know will be one of the main major thoroughfares to the Wynn Casino when it eventually comes.
[Michael Marks]: That's a great suggestion. But I think we should go on record at least asking the administration if they've applied before the February 2nd deadline and also What are the thoughts of the use of the $100,000? And I would say transportation, flooding issues in the general area, I think, is a worthy suggestion. Also, recently, our own Councilor Rick Caraviello was named to the Community Mitigation Committee by the mayor, and he will sit on this committee as one person from this community and be fighting for mitigation money to improve infrastructure and other economic engines in our community to help with the potential loss that a casino may bring into the local economy. And, you know, Councilor Caraviello, with his background in the chamber and his background in the community, I think was the perfect fit for this particular position. But I would like to put that in the form of a resolution on the actual 2015 reserve money, $100,000 that is earmarked to surrounding communities in which we were named. Each.
[Michael Marks]: My suggestion, as I stated, is to look at infrastructure improvements, i.e. transportation improvements in the Wellington area, because I think that's going to be the biggest impact. And that's what I've heard from residents and business owners and so forth. And there will be some other impact to the local economy and businesses in that area. but I think this should be one of the first priorities.
[Michael Marks]: Just one brief thing, Mr. President. I had the opportunity to attend the Martin Luther King third annual event, which was held yesterday at the West Medford Community Center. There had to be close to a hundred people that attended. Part of the program dealt with Medford High students along with their teacher, whose name escapes me right now, students that shared very touching stories of intolerance. And there was roughly 13 students. And it was a real eye-opener, Mr. President, which really played in part of what took part in the whole civil rights process with Martin Luther King and so forth. And it was a great event. I know Councilor Caraviello was there, and John Falco from the school committee. And I look forward to next year's event. And I want to personally thank each and every student that came up there to share such a personal story, some of which you may want to keep secret. But these students were willing to get up there and show that uh, what their experience has been and, uh, how they, uh, improving and also how, uh, the city of method in many circumstances has united around, uh, these particular students, uh, to include them. And, uh, it was very touching. Um, and, um, again, I look forward to attending the event next year.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I think we've all voted in the past to create capital improvement funds. Uh, this is also a great idea. I agree with Councilor Knight that we do have an existing fund, which is called free cash. It's nothing more than the taxpayer's money. And that has existed for many years now. And every time this council or members of this council have tried to use the free cash to either lower taxes or do some infrastructure improvement, we heard over and over again that they didn't want to tap into the free cash. because it might hurt the bond rating. So I'd be very hesitant on saying if we set up an account in the budget that we're going to be able to get the mayor, who's been very hesitant on using that free cash for other issues, to put money from free cash into this particular line item. So eventually this line item will have to be funded by an increase in taxes. There's no way around it. So when we vote for the budget and the mayor just say wants to put $400,000 in this stabilization fund, that's going to come from the taxpayers. Meanwhile, we already have $6 million in free cash sitting out there. So I don't want to see, to be quite honest with you, I think it's a great idea to have rainy day funds and everything else, but I believe we already have the means to do what we want for capital improvement. Not on a major scale of building a police department, but on a smaller scale, we do have cash available to do infrastructure improvements. So I'd be very hesitant on setting up an account that is going to be additional, something that's going to be over and above what we already have out there. As Councilor Camuso mentioned, We have linkage money that business owners give to the community by city ordinance when they come in and build or renovate to a certain size in this community, they have to pay linkage money. We have the free cash. We have the water and sewer enterprise account that has multi millions of dollars in surplus in those accounts. And I realized those accounts can't be used for a lot of different issues only for water and sewer issues. But, um, I think it's appropriate that we sit down, Committee of the Whole, whatever subcommittee, discuss this first before we make a step forward about putting this in the budget. I think it's a great idea, but I think it merits some discussion first. And I, as one, think we should proceed with caution when we want to create a new account, because the only one that is going to fund this account is the taxpayers. There's no way around it. And I want to make sure that Uh, we, we know what's going to happen before we move forward. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Our vote doesn't establish an account. It's a recommendation. It's a recommendation to the mayor. I don't. So, so before we make a recommendation to the mayor, I rather dot our I's and cross our T's and make a recommendation based on maybe something with council and I mentioned about a certain percentage. Uh, I don't see why we shouldn't send this to a committee, the whole first, and then take a vote on it after to send it to the mayor with our recommendations. I think that makes more sense than just asking to put, uh, the mayor put an account out there. And once, if you say he does establish the account, Our process is meaningless after that. I mean, we can go to them and say, Mr. Mayor, we do this and this, but it's meaningless. I'd rather hand them the full paper.
[Michael Marks]: with the city clerk is stating, we should check into, we should be prudent and check into if there is a stabilization account already established. I would prefer to use a stabilization fund outside of the budget. And I would caution the members of the council that once the mayor gets a report from us stating that he'd like to see a stabilization account within the budget, he'll go off and create one in the budget, He may put $4 or $5 million in that account. You're not going to have any say in that. All you can do is vote up or down in the budget or reduce the budget. So you'll have, just say, $4 or $5 million in an account this year. Taxes are going to go up because it's not part of the free cash. And then he's going to say the council requested that this take place. And then to use that line item in the budget, It's not a vote of this council. So the mayor could take that money out and do another project similar to the peace garden in the square or whatever else he wants to do. So I don't, I wouldn't be so quick tonight to just create a line item in the budget. I don't know what that gets us. I rather sit back, have a committee, the whole meeting discuss this first. Maybe we can bring in in Baker, the finance director, the treasurer collector, the mayor himself, Anyone else, and discuss this first, because I'm not quite sure a line item in the budget will be the appropriate way of keeping a stabilization fund. I think it's a great idea, but I think if we could do it outside the budget through these revolving accounts, makes more sense, and also the council would have input eventually when the mayor wants to go into these particular accounts. He would need support of the council, and there we can make sure, yes, we approve that project, Mr. Mayor, because it's on the council's priority list as the police department or the library or wherever it might be. It could be road improvements, uh, crosswalk improvements. It could be anything. So I, I, you know, I can't vote tonight on, uh, just, uh, getting a line item in the budget and then discussing it after the fact, because I've been around here a number of years and, uh, you know, I, I rather do it, uh, all together. I rather have a thoughtful plan that's outlined, before we just do a knee-jerk reaction about putting something in the budget that makes us feel good. I mean, we all want a capital improvement plan. We've all voted on it three dozen times. But, you know, it's ultimately up to the mayor. And I'm not sure, you know, the feel-good reaction we're going to get tonight saying that, you know, we created a stabilization or a capital improvement fund as a line item in the budget is going to accomplish anything more than just that. Creating a line item in the budget, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I know that's what the resolution reads, but I'm almost positive Councilor Camuso recommended, as part of this resolution, to put a line item in the budget. So that's different than what you just read. Right. And I'm going to get to that. Yours is more of a general statement, where he was specific, saying he wants us to vote on putting a line item in the budget.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of clarification.
[Michael Marks]: Just a point of clarification. So we're voting on the language that currently exists under Councilor Camuso's resolution.
[Michael Marks]: But we're not approving a line item in the budget.
[Michael Marks]: You know, I just don't understand how, even if a garage was built in Method Square, how that's going to help the business owners in West Method. Help the business owners. Oh, if I could, Mr. President, help the business owners in Haines Square, help the business owners in South Method or up the hillside. So a parking garage, that's just a big red herring. And I agree. That's just a big red herring. Uh, you know, this is the mayor's pay for parking program.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Chief, you're not kidding when you say there's been some modifications. There's been a lot of modifications, and I know this is a work in progress. And I'm waiting the day that you come in here and say that we're not going to do pay-for-pocket. I think that'll be the modification that everyone is looking for, to be quite honest with you. I think all we need is consistent — all we need is consistent enforcement, Chief. And that was the recommendation made by the committee five years ago. But if I could just state, Chief, when this proposal was brought up by the mayor, he mentioned on several occasions with backing from this council that when this program officially starts, that there'd be at least a two-week grace period where tickets would not be real tickets. So for two weeks, Republic would be out there. They'd be doing, when this starts, this particular parking enforcement, and they'd give out a ticket that says, In two weeks from now, this will be a real ticket. Make sure you feed your meat, or make sure you don't park in front of a hydrant, or make sure and give out fake tickets. And I think we all agreed upon that, and I'm hearing nothing about that at all. Nothing at all. And that was a major bone of contention with this council, because of the fact that this city has had lax enforcement for many, many years, and we're going into a program that, in my opinion, is very aggressive. So I'm very disappointed to hear that that's not going to take place.
[Michael Marks]: I know that there's been a lot of... We just got a phone call saying the enforcement is going to begin on the 15th. I know that. They didn't say fake enforcement.
[Michael Marks]: When I say fake, it's not costing you anything.
[Michael Marks]: But Chief, the reverse has been happening. We're not doing any enforcement now, and we're letting residents put money in the kiosk. How does that happen? No enforcement. The company's not doing their job, but we're asking residents to put money in a kiosk without enforcement. I just don't understand, Chief. And I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming you. But, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: Chief, you have a kiosk out in the street. You have new signage.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Mark still has the floor. Just, just if I could chief. So, so that's where something inconsistencies lie. I know the gentleman's here and I hope he can answer the question regarding the enforcement that's going to take place on the 15th. Uh, my, my second point chief is when this, uh, plan, uh, that the mayor offered, uh, his plan from the get go was to do, uh, enforcement throughout every business district because it was mentioned that start off maybe in phased approaches. Let's do Medford Square first, that's our largest business district, and maybe phase it around. And the mayor was adamant about saying, no, we're doing every business district. And I agreed with the mayor at the time. But now we're seeing spot enforcement. We're seeing areas on Salem Street that are commercial areas that have kiosks and other areas that have nothing. And I would agree with the gentleman from Dab's walk that came up over the last couple of weeks. How can you have a sub-shop in West Medford that the customers have to pay 50 cents to go in and get a sandwich, but on Salem Street, they don't have to pay anything. I, as a customer, might say, you know what, I'll drive three minutes up the street and save the 50 cents. You have to treat every business the same. There's no way that we can phase in this type of approach, Chief. So whether the consultant plan from years ago said put kiosks in certain areas and not others, the city had to take a long, hard look and say, we have to treat everyone fairly. And that's not happening right now, Chief. And I would hope that happens sooner than later.
[Michael Marks]: But Chief, I guess I'm saying we need consistency throughout the community. That's all I'm saying. I get that.
[Michael Marks]: Turnover is created by consistent enforcement, not by kiosks, not by meters. That's not what turns spots over, it's consistent enforcement. So I don't want people to believe that just because a kiosk is out there, cars are gonna move on. That's not the case. It's enforcement that moves cars along. My other point, Chief, was I received a call from a woman that stated that she has a tough time finding out clearly where pay-for-parking starts and ends in a particular business district. So when you pull up, and I would agree, sometimes it's very confusing when you pull into Medford Square and you don't know where the pay-for-parking really ends. The signage might point this or that way, but it's very difficult and there's gotta be a better way of marking where pay-for-parking is. I think that's important and something that should be looked at, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I think it's in, she mentioned the Medford Square, but I think it's in all the business districts that it's difficult on the fringes I'm talking, not in the heart, but in the fringes of the business districts to see where it stops.
[Michael Marks]: And just my last point, and I mentioned it last week, chief, but it's a major issue. It was an issue that was brought up five years ago when our committee that we sat on, about having citywide resident permit parking. And with this enforcement, like you mentioned, you're going to see people start to go into the neighborhoods. And those streets that don't have permit parking, that abut business districts, are going to take a brunt of this. And there's not going to be any enforcement on those streets, Chief. And to have a permit, when I go and get a permit, and my permit as a resident of Method, a taxpayer, that's only good for my street, is ridiculous. I should be able to park on any street in the city. We should have one resident permit parking that covers all residents. It should be issued free every year to residents. The $10 charge is, to me, a charge that we could forego. And every resident should get a resident permit parking sticker. And then we can keep out, because I think the issue is that we're seeing people from other communities. I live near the Orange Line, so my street's filled up. I don't live on a resident permit parking street, every morning it fills up with commuters. I can see them coming in, I see them with their briefcase, I wave to them, and they're off for 8 to 10 hours. Now, Chief, that should be consistent throughout our whole community, and that would cut it all out. It would cut all those people that are coming into our community, parking on our side roads. It'll cut out all those people that are going to the business district and saying, I don't want to pay 50 cents. let me go up two streets and I can park there for several hours. It really needs to be looked at now. And I know you said we're going to look at it down the line, but that should have been looked at five years ago.
[Michael Marks]: Because the system allowed that for years. I might live next to a street that has resident permit parking. I can't park on this street, but they can park on my street. So it became territorial. If you do it citywide, chief, everyone parks where they can. And I realize there's going to be problem spots. You know, there's going to be certain streets that maybe residents want to park on so they can jump on the T. And those are the things we're going to have to look at. But this needs to be done citywide.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just want to say, and Councilor Penta said it correctly, that I appreciate the Chief coming up here so far every week. Um, he, he's been forthcoming with his answers. If he doesn't have an answer, he, he researches it. Uh, he's been the face of parking enforcement, whether you like it or not, chief. And, uh, you know, and I appreciate that chief. And this was a large endeavor. Uh, the city for years stuck its head, its head in the sand and didn't want to do anything. And, uh, it would have been nice to have the mayor present his proposal. This is his baby. He should have presented it, but you're up here presenting it. And I appreciate that fact. But it would also be nice to hear from the mayor. I mean, his sign says, leadership that works. But it only works when the heat's not on, I guess. Because when the heat's on, he's nowhere to be found.
[Michael Marks]: I disagree. I think we need to discuss this every week. And point of fact is that — Mr. President, a week ago, there was a surcharge of $3 for resident permit parking. The gentleman went back to his higher-ups. He met with the administration, and now there's no $3 surcharge. That was a week ago. We had residents that came up here that had concerns about parking in front of their building and so forth, and the chief has been addressing them one at a time. We've had concerns about kiosks in front of residential homes. Those have been addressed one at a time. So, you know, in my opinion, you can send the mayor an email, good luck getting a response. You can call his office three dozen times like residents have told me with no response. I would prefer, this is the only open public forum in this city, and this is where we're currently getting action. We're seeing results. Why should we say let's meet in two months from now? We're seeing results, and this is such a fluid process that we've all spoke about. Why should we wait? Week after week, if no one comes out next week, then we don't discuss it. But it should be an option where residents can come up every week. It's the only forum to allow them to speak, Mr. President. So I wholeheartedly support having this here in a weekly fashion. If it's three weeks, four weeks, five months, five years, as long as we keep this forum open for the people, we're doing our job, Mr. President. And I'm going to stick by that. So I would say that I would like to see a continuation of this next week, Mr. President, and have it on the agenda as an open item. when people can come up and discuss this at any time, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: To that end that Councilor Mike was just talking about, I agree that residents should speak first, but I would also say that when residents are at the podium, members of the council should pay attention They shouldn't be working the audience, walking around glad handing, which happens a lot. I'm not going to point at anyone in particular, but some members sit behind here and we listen diligently and other members are working the crowd trying to get votes. So in one aspect we're saying we want to be kind to the residents and listen to what they have to say, but when they get up to the podium, some members of this council could give a damn what the residents have to say. And I think that's wrong. And I've noticed that more and more now and I take exception to it. And I would hope there's a change by this council that when people are at the podium, we give them the respect they deserve and we sit and listen and not traverse the whole building. Because to me, that's unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. Parker.
[Michael Marks]: So noted. Councilor Mark's point of information. So why do we need this in the form of a resolution? The city clerk couldn't get you that information from June of last year?
[Michael Marks]: I mean, you could have reached out and found out cause you're asking and hit the city clerk provide the consulate a listing of appointments on the council purview. I mean, he could probably provide that in 10 minutes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I had a call from a resident of the Salem Street area. And she wrote a letter to the owners of that particular business area where the stop and shop is on Salem Street and was told, her concern was regarding the condition of the lot out there. It's in deplorable condition. It's a blighted area, that particular lot. And she was told by the business owner that they are going to be repaving that whole particular lot. And she mentioned to the owner, is it possible to plant some shrubs and bushes and something to spruce up the area? And at that point, they said they had no plans to do so. So at this point, Mr. President, I would ask that this council send a letter to the property owner of the stop and shop and that parcel of stores there. asking that when the lot get repaved, that pavers go around the perimeter of the lot, that shrubs be planted, some small fruit trees, anything to spruce up that particular area. There's an 18-wheeler that parks in there. There's a giant tow truck that parks at the corner over there. And it's the gateway from Malden and that area to come into Method, and it's really an eyesore. Across the street, you have a Chinese food restaurant that had a fire, I think it was about a year ago, and it's still boarded up with big action signs all over it. It really looks like an area that's downtrodden and hasn't had any attention in a long time, Mr. President. And residents of that particular area are very upset with the lack of attention. And I'm hoping that a letter from this council will at least help spruce up the stop and shopping area. And maybe we can get the office of community development rather than build a peace garden. That's unnecessary. In my opinion, at a million three to go into our neighborhoods. and look at the awnings, and look at the businesses that have been out of business for a year because of a fire, and see what's going on. See what's happening on Forest Street, the business on Forest Street that's been vacant for years, Mr. President. The Office of Community Development should be providing incentives for businesses to come into this community. The ones that are already here should be providing incentives to stay here and do business, Mr. President. And in my opinion, an office that's manned with one and a half persons It's inadequate in a city this size, and it's evident in every business district in this community with the lack of attention and the lack of development in this community, Mr. President. And it comes from the corner office on down to the department head, Mr. President. And it's a shame when you have a department that does absolutely nothing, Mr. President. And I'll say it when Lauren DiLorenzo pop is up here too, Mr. President. That office does absolutely nothing to move this community forward. They've been working on the revitalization of Medford Square three master plans later, 25 years later, and this administration is still talking about the master plan in Medford Square, the pearl necklace around the river. He's still talking about a water taxi. That makes no sense, Mr. President. But when he goes into the business districts, he doesn't see the vacant storefronts. He doesn't see the trash strewn throughout the squares. He doesn't see any of that, Mr. President. It's amazing the blinders that this administration has on. And it's time for a change.
[Michael Marks]: The city's doing nothing. I'm sure we're not.
[Michael Marks]: Good point. What about the clean it or lean it ordinance that was enacted some years ago by then representative Paul Donato? How can you have an establishment there two years with action signs? What does that do for the surrounding businesses? Would you like to own a restaurant, like the Italian restaurant that's a few doors down next to this particular place? God knows what's inside that place after two years of being vacant.
[Michael Marks]: Does the mayor ever drive by these areas? Really, does he ever drive by and see what's going on in this city? I don't understand, Mr. President. Residents have to make calls, personal calls and e-mails to business owners to ask them to do stuff. And the business owners say, you know what? The city has never reached out to us once since we've been here.
[Michael Marks]: I find another Mr. President, uh, paper 15-zero zero two. It is the nomination of the vice president. And midway through it says six in the affirmative for Frederick N. Dello Russo Jr., the president of 2015. On the vice president. So I'm both president and vice president. And vice, according to the minutes. Congratulations. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Camuso?
[Michael Marks]: Just before we get started, Mr. President, it would have been, in my opinion, helpful to have a public hearing prior to any negotiations, prior to any contact with the potential outside firm that's taking over parking management. It would have been helpful to have businesses, residents at the table before change could happen. And now we're at a point where the program's starting and we want to hear from residents and we want to hear from business owners. And I just think this process has been backwards, to be quite honest with you, Mr. President. And I'm hoping that Chief Sackler's here tonight, and there's two gentlemen from Republic. But I'm hoping some of what takes place tonight, the comments that we hear, doesn't fall on deaf ears. Because as we've seen just over the last couple of weeks, that the administration has made several major changes to his pay for parking proposal. based on input, which should have been had months and months ago. So, you know, I, it's great that residents are coming up, but I hope that whatever stated that the mayor really takes into consideration and, uh, uh, if need be sit back down with Republican, the chief, uh, and I and out some of these major concerns we still exist was the president. And I thank you for giving me that opportunity.
[Michael Marks]: I think the issue is that when we had the public hearing back in 2009 it was to get input on eventually trying to create a parking management program in the city. What people are asking now is there's been no and the mayor's pay for parking plan. So there's been no public hearing chief. I mean, you could talk about a second meeting. That meeting wasn't regarding the mayor's plan that was being laid out chief at the time, if you recall.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to make sure that Councilor Camuso just outlined the process since 2009. But maybe just unintentionally, Between 2009 and today, the mayor appointed another committee. Oh, yeah, City Hall employees. Well, that hasn't been mentioned at all. Well, because it's his ball, I say. Well, I'm just saying, the mayor appointed another committee. That committee consisted of all his department heads. We know that. So not one person, I didn't sit on the committee, Gwen didn't sit on the committee, Ron DeFranco didn't sit on the committee, Anthony Santoro didn't sit on the committee. These were department heads. And the mayor devised a plan. So I don't think it's accurate to sit back and say, based on recommendations that were made five years ago, that this is how the mayor went forward. Because that's not what took place. The mayor went forward working in a vacuum in his office with his department heads. with no input from anyone. And that's what we're seeing here tonight. I think I stated that. Well, you might have stated that, but you've been supporting this from day one. Now, all of a sudden, you're giving it a change of heart. No, no, no. Councilor, it's not a recommendation to bring leaders in. You've got a crowd up here. You've got to change your heart now.
[Michael Marks]: Clarification is our issue. Just if I could point. The two major issues with this is that when we as a committee met, and Gwen can speak for herself, When we discussed about who was gonna do the enforcement, every discussion was in-house personnel. It was our crossing guards, it was retired police. The mayor took the proposal and outsourced 95% of this. So that's a major part that the mayor changed. Major part. Just my other point. The other point, as the Chief mentioned, and Ron DeFranco, who's on the committee, also mentioned, and Gwen mentioned. Ron DeFranco was not on the committee. Yes, he was on the committee. He was an ex-officio member. He was on the committee. You didn't attend any of the meetings, so don't talk like you did. You're the one that brought the meetings to the city. Don't talk like you've been there. If we could make this point. If I could, Mr. President. And the second big issue, one was the outsourcing, and the second was that we as a committee wanted steady enforcement, parking enforcement, with the existing signage. The mayor took that around, wrapped it around, and made it a pay for parking enforcement. So the two major components were thought up in the mayor's committee with his department heads and had nothing to do with our committee. And we have a committee member that was here tonight that can attest to that. And Ron DeFranco mentioned that. So I don't like the fact that the mayor is looking now for a scapegoat to blame anyone on this parking when he should look in the mirror and he can see himself, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: We didn't have- I didn't support this language.
[Michael Marks]: I think if you were to put an hour, you would be defeated. Oh, for two hours? Up to the two hours, but that's my understanding.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Thank you. Mr. President, just if I could.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could ask one question, because it's online that was just mentioned by Mr. Skelton. And I realize these people have been waiting, but while Mr. Skelton is here, it's an important question. And I would agree the people should speak. You just mentioned about a validation program. That's a brand new aspect to this program I've never heard of before. And the way it was explained to me is what was just mentioned by the Council President. You're going to allow business owners to reach out to Republic and say, these five plate numbers on Tuesday are going to be here for an extended period of time. Don't tag them. They're going to have to pay. Someone's going to pay. The business is going to pay, whatever it is, for that period of time. But don't tag them. So if you have any business that reaches out to you under this current program, I own a convenience store. And I tell you, there are going to be these three plates parked extended period of time near my business. You're going to allow them to stay three, four, five, six, seven hours in that spot without getting a ticket. They're going to pay, but as long as they get the validation, is that, is that how this program works?
[Michael Marks]: So that hasn't been worked out yet.
[Michael Marks]: So we're moving forward in a couple of weeks and it seems like a lot of details haven't been worked out yet. My concern with that is that if, you know, it might be good for one or two people in the course of a day, but if you have 45 people reserving spots on our streets, As you just mentioned, the refeeding of a meter defeats the purpose of the whole program of moving cars along. And I can sympathize if someone needs to be in a business for over two hours. However, I'm not sure how you're going to manage that. And to have this program, the validation program, just brought up at the last minute, I don't think is a good program, especially where there's no consistency. There's no policy from what you're telling me. I doubt the city has a policy on that. And I'm not sure if that's something that should be implemented right away. And I know the mayor is trying to appease anyone that makes a phone call to him, but I'm not quite sure that's in the best interest of our city as a whole. And it may not be a question to you, but I'm very concerned about that program because potentially anyone can give you seven plates. Any business owner can call and give you seven plate numbers and say, please don't touch these Tuesday. I mean, I don't see what would prevent that. And before you know it, there's going to be no on-street parking. Everything's going to be saved. Really, when you boil down to it. And it would be worthwhile to pay $0.25 for every 15 minutes. It'd be a bargain. Actually, you may even get people that park there all day, and take the bus into town for $4 or $5, whatever it costs. I mean, really. And I might be stating it very simply, but there's a huge concern with that. And I think that was a knee-jerk reaction by this administration to try to help out a few people, all in good faith. But I don't know how that's going to work. And I would recommend that that doesn't move forward.
[Michael Marks]: And so was raising the fee to $400 discussed and that was raised. I mean, there's a lot of discussion going on and no one knows what's happening. And that's the problem. It really is. And I'm not blaming you too, but there's a lot going on. And these are the reasons why we should have had 10 public hearings prior to this. And from what we see, you're right. There's always going to be work in progress, but this is only about 40% in completion, in my opinion, chief, at this point. And I don't know how we have a go-live date, which doesn't make any sense.
[Michael Marks]: Where is that policy? Where is that written, Chief? Where is that written? It must be a policy, a guideline. Where is that written, the validation policy?
[Michael Marks]: That's what I mean. Where is this stuff?
[Michael Marks]: No, but Chief, God forbid something happens to you tomorrow, who's going to have this information in their head?
[Michael Marks]: If it says two hour limit, I know, but business owners are walking around now telling people that they can get validation. And it wasn't an hour that I heard from business owners. So they thought they can get more than an hour, just so you know.
[Michael Marks]: There's a lot of reasons, Chief. There's a lot of reasons. And we should be in the business of saving spots.
[Michael Marks]: What's the margin of error?
[Michael Marks]: And they're going to determine if you're in that same spot, even though our spots currently aren't clearly marked, you're going to be able to tell if they're in that same exact spot.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Chief, just if I could, we referred back to the parking committee in 2009, one of the recommendations was to have citywide permit parking, or at least to be reviewed. And that's part of the report. Has there been any movement on reviewing citywide permit parking? Because the approach of having it done piecemeal right now is not adequate enough. Residents are sending us emails stating the permit only is issued for your particular street. So if you want to go visit your sister or your aunt or your cousin, still in Method, you can't take your resident permit parking sticker and go to another section of Method, which to me is ridiculous.
[Michael Marks]: And chief, and I think Gwen Blackburn, who's still here, can attest to the fact when we visited Malden, Everett, Somerville, Boston, the committee itself, everyone came back to us and said, you know what? Keep whatever parking enforcement you do free from city hall. Don't locate it at city hall. Keep it away from city hall. And we heard that over and over again. And what we did was create an enforcement office on main street, which is great. That's free from city hall. But the mayor outsourced everything other than the hearings, the appeals. The one thing you'd say, We don't want to be involved with the appeal process. The mayor kept that in-house. He not only kept it in-house, he kept it here at City Hall. So it flies in the face of everything that we heard in the past. And then the mayor took it one step further and said that he didn't believe with this new enforcement program that there was going to be an increase that would merit or warrant someone, because we only have a part-time person that does the hearings now. and he didn't believe, with all this new ticketing, that we would need someone to do hearings, which makes no sense at all to me. Absolutely no sense. So the two points is, leaving it out of city hall, he kept it here. The other point is, you have a part-time person, Diane McLeod, who works full-time at a real job, and does this on a part-time, and now she's gonna be asked to do a program that, there was no enforcement in the city, very little, to now full-blown enforcement. I just don't see it happening. We asked that money be put in the budget to pay for another hearing officer, and the mayor denied it. So I still don't know how that's going to work, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: But Chief, think about all the different policies that haven't been outlined yet, all the different appeals that people are going to come up with and say, you know what, you told me this or that. That person is going to be inundated with hearings.
[Michael Marks]: The President And if we see compliance, Republicans are going to be in a lot of trouble because they're not going to get their revenue. Their revenue is not based on feeding the meter. It's based on ticketing. In life, there's risk, right? Two-thirds of their revenue is based on ticketing, not meters. So if compliance is there, and I hope that's correct, they're going to be out of business very shortly.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, but they hide behind bushes, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. So are you saying the may is in violation of the contract? That's what you just stated.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. During the site plan review, probably two months back, there was a recommendation, one of several recommendations, to alter the drive-through. Can you just point out on the plan what exactly was altered for the drive-through?
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Um, also, um, the, uh, filtration system, uh, as a Panera or yourself agreed to, uh, we mentioned at the last, Smashburger that was a charcoal filtration system, but I'm being told there are other type of filtration systems that may best suit this. So I just want to go on record that yourself open era will provide the filtration system.
[Michael Marks]: So we'll have a charcoal filter. Yes. And the other point I had was from neighbors in the area regarding no parking in front of the establishment on Riverside Ave. I realize that's under the city jurisdiction, but I just want you, as the owner of the property, representing the owner of the property, that I, as a member of the council, I'm sure other members agree, that we're gonna push so that there is no parking along the curb on Riverside Ave.
[Michael Marks]: Correct. It would only be on the retail side in front of the establishment. And also, uh, during site plan review, one of the recommendations was the exit out of your lot, uh, that there would be signage, which I believe, uh, uh, I see in the plan here, but I only see one sign unless that's just pointing to two separate areas where it says you have to exit, take a right onto commercial street rather than go back to the congested way of getting out onto Riverside Ave.
[Michael Marks]: Can you point to where those signs are located?
[Michael Marks]: And did you have to have any discussion with Ocean State Job Lot relative to using that's their access driveway, correct? We did.
[Michael Marks]: So if need be, at some point, Can we have it so that cars have to exit coming out of your lot out to the commercial street area through means of barriers or some type of? I'm not asking you to make a definitive now, but if the traffic, as we all anticipate, is going to increase, which we hope it does with these three businesses, that at some point maybe to help alleviate some of the concerns we have with the queuing up, exiting onto Riverside Ave, that may be an alternative.
[Michael Marks]: And just one last point. You mentioned at a recent meeting that you were going to also do sidewalks on the opposite side of Riverside Ave to improve pedestrian safety.
[Michael Marks]: Did you say linkage money?
[Michael Marks]: So do you know what the actual linkage fees are?
[Michael Marks]: Oh, by far, but not many communities have linkage, and it's an extra additive when companies come in and do work up to a certain size. So it's a benefit to this community. Mr. President, You know, the neighbors had many concerns. The petitioner was good enough to sit down at a meeting with the neighbors a couple of weeks ago when we had that monsoon rainstorm. Also, during the site plan review, there was a number of questions answered. I know this is not going to be a perfect situation relative to the traffic impact. We've had discussions. Hopefully, someday we'll be able to sit down with the state. In my opinion, The Fells Plaza, you should be able to exit the Fells Plaza on the Fellsway and also be able to cross over the Fellsway and go east, like you go into Haines Square up the Fellsway. That would alleviate all of Riverside Ave or a lot of the traffic on Riverside Ave. Unfortunately, right now, when you come out of the Fellsway, you have to take a right onto the Fellsway and go into Wellington Circle. And for many people in that particular area, that doesn't suit their need when they're coming out of stop and shop or, or, you know, a business establishment. So, uh, I will support this here tonight, Mr. President. I think it's an addition, uh, to, uh, the neighborhood and something that we have to monitor for overall, uh, traffic impact and pedestrian safety in the area, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Correct.
[Michael Marks]: Before the roll is called, Councilor Marks. If the petitioner wouldn't mind, at a meeting a few weeks ago, I had brought up the issue about these metal drop-off containers that are located in many businesses throughout the community. I know the Fells Plaza has several, and I'm not sure if your property extends all the way to Aldi's, but directly across from Aldi's, there's a couple of metal containers I believe are for books or something, but at any given day, if you go out there, there's old computers, broken TVs. It's really becoming an eyesore, and there's neighbors directly across the street.
[Michael Marks]: The President And you said CHEMCO?
[Michael Marks]: Ms.
[Michael Marks]: The President Well, I would ask, Mr. President, as a B paper, The council will send a letter to the property owners, Kimco, to respond to the metal containers that are on their property and what their plans are to maintain these particular containers, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the chief being up here tonight. I served on the committee with the chief and, uh, I can tell you, uh, as one member on the committee back, uh, that was appointed by the mayor back in 2000 and, eight is that our mission was to take a look at how other communities operate, uh, their parking enforcement and to, uh, secondly, see if parking enforcement was necessary in the community. And overwhelmingly, if anyone read the report that was issued back in September, 2009, The issue was the fact that we were doing very little parking enforcement, and our major number one issue was to provide consistent in-house parking enforcement citywide. That was our number one objective. And it was to not outsource, but to have, as was mentioned earlier, maybe crossing guards, retired police officers, civilians go out there and do the ticketing. I think what we're experiencing now, Chief, and this is really no reflection on you, is that we're looking at surrounding communities. For instance, we hear Somerville mentioned. Somerville has had a parking program in effect for almost 30 years. And as you mentioned, they've improved upon their parking program. And they're very aggressive in some of them. And by no means do I think method should be that way. But I do believe we should have started off with baby steps. We should have done some consistent enforcement. Look at that. A year later, say maybe we can introduce pay for parking. Maybe at some point we'll look at city-wide permits. Maybe at some point we'll look about taking it in-house and outsourcing certain aspects of the program. I think we could have looked at this rather than all of a sudden go for a Cadillac approach from day one. You know, when the program was first mentioned, there was a lot of talk by this council saying, you know what, whatever happens, there has to be a good four or five-week grace period where they give out fake tickets and residents are aware of what's going on and so forth. And now I read from the administration, the ambassador program in the districts one week prior to implementation to guide consumers. So one week prior to the middle of January, when this is supposed to start, there are going to be some ambassadors with red coats and badges, I guess, walking around our business districts, introducing people in their busy life to the kiosk and how to operate them. but I don't find anywhere in the mayor's proposal where it says there'll be a grace period. And I think I speak for all my council members that that was a key issue in this community. Uh, you know, if we're going to move forward on this program, uh, I think that's vital. And, um, you know, it was mentioned that, um, you know, this is new territory and it is new territory. And I agree with some of the speakers. because we haven't had the public input like we should have had in this community. And I'm not just talking about business owners, I'm talking about residents. We've been hearing from business owners the last several months. Wait till the residents find out. Wait till the residents who are going to the corner store to get a newspaper find out they have to feed a kiosk and put their plate in there. And if they put the wrong plate number, It doesn't spit it out, right, Chief? If I plug in a wrong digit on my plate number... It's not going to know what your plate number is. Right. It's up to you to put the right number in. I'm going to get a ticket thinking I did the right thing, and then I'm going to have to appeal the ticket. And just my last point, because I've talked ad nauseum on this subject. You know, the one part of this program that you'd say, you know what? We don't want any politics involved in this because every city we went to, they said, you know what? Keep this free from city hall. Make it a standalone. Don't have any involvement with city hall. We outsourced every part of this program except for the hearings. The mayor's administrator will take care of the hearings. The one aspect you'd say, you know what? We don't want any involvement in this. That's the one aspect the mayor kept. And during budget time, we said, Mr. Mayor, you're going to go from 20 tickets a year to 2,000. Do you still think that administrator who has several other roles in the city is going to be able to keep up with all the demand and increase for public hearings? We asked that an additional part-time person be on to take care of the hearings, and the mayor denied that. The mayor said he didn't believe that there'd be an additional increase in the need for hearings. I think that's false. I think there's going to be a big need. I think people are going to be outraged. Honestly, chief, even though we're going to have a picture of their plate when the car drives by, takes a picture of the plate. But you could be pulled over for a number of different reasons on the roadside. And I think it's going to increase the hearings tenfold in this community. And honestly, I don't think the city's quite ready for a full-fledged enforcement program that involves kiosks on the roads, that involves an outside company that's going to be very aggressive. I heard at the meetings that the chamber had, and I appreciate they had that, but the gentleman there was saying, We're going to work with the businesses. We're going to make sure this is going to be so laid back and so easy. And then his henchmen, who was three feet from him, that didn't open his mouth, was counting the dollars. Because they're going to be very aggressive. You better bet your bottom dollar, their revenue is based on what they take in.
[Michael Marks]: Money talks, Chief. Money talks. When they have their operation, they hire the employees, they put up that money that was fronted for the kiosk is on Republic, the employees, their health insurance. And once the cost gets established and once residents and business owners know that there's going to be ticketing out there, in my opinion, people are going to stay away from the areas. And then revenue is going to go down, Chief, and it's going to be a self-fulfilling process. And they're going to be out there hiding behind barrels, looking to get money any way they can to comply with the contract. So I disagree with you on that. If it was in-house, we can control it. We could say, you know what? let's not do this, let's not do that. Once you outsource, especially in a 10 year contract, you're at their mercy, chief, you're at their mercy.
[Michael Marks]: I haven't seen that in the mayor's proposal, but if you say it's in there.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And just to get back, if you look at the contract that was signed, two thirds of the revenue is derived from tickets. The actually paying on the meters is just a secondary thing. It really is. It's a secondary thing. The lion's share of their revenue is going to be by ticketing. And the only way they're going to get that lion's share of the revenue is to be aggressive. They don't care if you go up and pay a quarter, run the store, and come back out. That has no bearing on them at all. They're in the business of issuing tickets, Chief. They're in the business of issuing tickets. And when I hear someone from the company say, oh, we're not going to work with everyone, don't worry about it. That's a red flag to me. And you know, I don't want to say it's going to happen, but you know, because I hope it doesn't chief, but let me tell you this, this is not what we bargained for.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, too, if we could just find out the money from the resident permit parking, business permit parking, and commuter resident permit parking, does that go into the general fund? Or does Republic get a cut on the money that's derived from that? I guess there's the regular business permit parking, then there's resident commuter. permit parking, and then there's regular permit parking. But that money, does Republic get a cut on whatever they bring in? And just my last point, I had a gentleman that sent me an email just this morning, and he was trying to get a resident permit parking sticker. He went to the police station. He was told to go to City Hall. He had his $10 check in his hand. At City Hall, they handed him a sheet of paper with a logo that said PAC method, and it said learn more about pay by phone, and he had to go back home to pay by phone. And there has to be better outreach, Chief. We use reverse 911 to notify residents when it's going to rain in this community. That's how often we use it, Chief. And then we get bashed if we don't use it. So I don't know what to tell you. But the big issues, Chief, the big issues like this, no mention at all. No mention at all, reverse 9-1-1. It is coming.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Just if I could, because the gentleman has a great point. And since 2009, when the Parking Advisory Committee made their recommendations, to today, the mayor has created his own committee to work on parking enforcement. And that was members of him, his administration. So that's who devised this plan. This was no one but the mayor and his department heads that put together this plan. If you look at the parking enforcement advisory committee, this plan is apples and the mayor's plan is oranges. Two completely different plans. completely different plans, of which much of what you mentioned about local in-house enforcement and so forth was addressed in our plan. Just bare bones enforcement of existing signs. That was in our current plan. Over the past four years, the mayor has, and he's the chief executive officer, so if you're looking for someone to make change to the plan, You're speaking to the wrong people. We're a legislative body. We open, uh, we have a public meeting, right? Well, just say we're a public meeting. People can come up and speak, but if you want to affect change, it's the mayor. And we've tried, believe me, countless times to get the mayor to one of our meetings, uh, so he can speak before the people. But the mayor under the city charter is not required to do so. So I've been on the council 14 years. He has never come before the podium in 14 years. But that's his prerogative. But my suggestion is that if people are upset, they should contact the mayor's office. When I voted for allowing the mayor, because state law said he can only enter into a contract up to three years, the three bids that came back were all for 10 years, or seven, or 10, I forget what it was. They were all past the three years. My vote was to allow him to enter into a contract. The language in the contract is the mayor's. I would not have support much of the language that was in there. Did anyone behind this reel vote to raise the business permit packet from $100 to $400? Did anyone vote to bring Republic or a private outside company to come in and do the work? We did not vote on any portion of this proposal. So when people say to the council, we did not vote on any part of this proposal. This is the mayor's proposal. And I hope it works well for him. But from what I'm hearing from the residents, they wish there was more input. They wish there was a time that we had that we could sit down and iron over some of the issues.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, Yes, indeed, the maintenance issue was one concern. Moving forward on a project without a maintenance plan made no sense, and I'm glad we were able to table the paper to get a report back from the administration. However, as I stated, I believe it was last week, that I would support a modest plan to memorialize the Marathon bombing victims. I see this Peace Garden as a great option on remembering, as a remembrance area. However, in this day and age, especially in this economy, with all the many needs that we have in our community, uh, from street sidewalk repairs to a new police station, to an updated public library, uh, to, uh, the boys and girls club that has to close their art room because there's mold. So a hundred kids on a daily basis can't use the art room. Uh, we also spoke a couple of weeks ago about repurposing, which is 150 yards, uh, from this, uh, proposed site. the transportation shelter, um, uh, which, uh, would, uh, go hand in hand with, uh, in the proximity of, uh, this particular peace garden. And, um, I, at this point, um, I understand the fact that there was mentioned of no taxpayer dollars going into this. Um, however, uh, the Cummings grant, the, uh, wind resorts, 250,000, uh, even the park grant that we're voting on tonight, could have been used for other purposes in our community. We could have sought this funding for many other purposes in our community that are needed. And that's not to understate the need to memorialize the victims of that tragic incident that took place and many thousands of people that were impacted both mentally and physically by that occurrence. I, in all good faith, could not vote for the Peace Garden in this particular $299,000 park grant because it's my job to look in the community, see what the needs are, and try to address the needs. And in my opinion, $1,298,000 on apostle land which I've stated both at committee whole meetings and publicly, I don't believe that the intersection of Riverside and Shipway is the appropriate place to have, if we're going to put a Peace Garden, an area to reflect, a solemn area. That's a very high traveled area. Just last week, I was coming up to the city council meeting And someone drove up on the median strip right here on Riverside Ave. We take the turn to go to City Hall, take the right. They drove right up onto the road over there. This is a high-traveled area. And in my opinion, I believe as a community, which was already mentioned, actually, there was behind the Columbus School, the softball field named after Krista Campbell, And I think, in my opinion, we could have done a tasteful memorial plaque somewhere in the community to recognize the victims of the Marathon bombing. And if the administration would like to call back the 250,000 from Wynn Resorts and use it towards possibly the mold issue at the Boys and Girls Club. Use it towards improvements on our roads, the potholes that we're seeing throughout our city. Use it towards the repurposing of the transportation shelter, Mr. President. I have been inundated from that one article in the local paper about the transportation shelter with repurposes, repurpose uses from residents of this community. The gentleman from the paper actually told me that he put it on his website and also has received a number of people responding back. And I would like to see that also take some attention, Mr. President, which is in the heart of our downtown business district, before we move on $1,298,000. So, if the administration is willing to take the $250,000 from Wynn Resorts and apply it to other needs, I mentioned and other members of the council have, I could support this here tonight. If not, Mr. President, I will not support this park grant because I believe it should be spent on local existing parks currently in our community need updating. I know there's been some improvement throughout the city and parks, but as we know, we have, I believe it's 24 parks in this community. They always need updating on the taut lots, uh, in the basketball courts and, uh, throughout the parks. for themselves, the ball fields, and so forth. So that would be my motion tonight, Mr. President, to take the $250,000 out of this particular proposal. I'll approve the $299,000 for the park grant. And I'm sure wind management, this is part of a million dollars they want to give the city. Wind resorts, I mean. This is part of a million dollars they want to give the city. I'm sure they wouldn't mind where we spent the million dollars. Any community needs. My motion is to take the $250,000, have the administration take that money back out of the proposal. That would mean lowering the proposal by $250,000. You know, we heard last week, I think it was Lungo-Koehn, that questioned the upkeep of the fountains. I've questioned the upkeep of the fountains. I believe Mrs. Pop mentioned that it was $250,000, roughly, the cost for the water fountain, the fountains that are going to take place. So I think if the administration wanted to move forward, we can remove the water fountain, we can remove the estimated roughly $3,000 in yearly outside costs to maintain the fountains, and move forward with a memorial that is what the mayor deems worthy, but on a smaller scale, and also be able to accomplish some of the many other needs we have in our community, Mr. President. So that's what I would offer, Mr. President, $250,000, if the administration agrees upon it, be removed, the project be lowered by $250,000 with the removal of the fountains, and that money be repurposed back into the needs of the community, Mr. President. Ms. Dillon.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor. You know, last week, I think it was Councilor Caraviello that asked the question, and we got a different answer last week, so that's fine.
[Michael Marks]: You can ask him to come up.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, then, uh, whether it's a million or a million, 250,000, the fact of the matter is that money could be used for any purpose in the community.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just a point of information, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: No one said this money wasn't allocated for a particular purpose. I know you applied for a grant for this particular purpose. What I'm saying is, you could have applied for the PAC grant to improve renovations to other existing PACs. We did apply. We have received. I know you did. I know you did.
[Michael Marks]: And what I'm saying is, with the $250,000, the mayor could have went and said, I want to spend it on X, Y, and Z. He opted to spend it on the Peace Guard. That's his prerogative. So I don't want people to believe that When resorts came to the mayor and said, we're only giving you $250 for the Peace Gardener, you get nothing. That is not the case. That is not the case.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Mr. President, the picture that was taken back on October 27th of this year was with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and this was submitted to the paper as a press release from the mayor's office. The paper didn't write an article about it. The mayor submitted a press release stating Mayor McGlynn was pleased to accept $299,000 in grant funding.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, so the mayor wanted to come out in front of the issue and accept a check that wasn't approved by the grant by the grant states approved by the city council. It's not the city council saying we want to approve this. The grant is saying you can't accept funding until the city council approves it. Now we're almost near Christmas, and we're being asked to vote on the grant that the mayor accepted, offered a press release. And, you know, Mr. President, just if I could, Mr. President, You know, the mayor started working on this in April of 2013. He worked 11 months with him and whoever else in his office, didn't make any mention to anyone that he was moving forward on a project this size, didn't make any mention that he was trying to memorialize the victims of the bombing. And in April of 2014, came out right around there, came out with his plan. to have a memorial across the street and the funding and so forth. At the time he mentioned he didn't let this out because he didn't have the funding yet. So he was looking, scurrying around to find money. He went to Wynn Resort, old faithful. He knows that the city has an agreement with them. And he asked them for money for this memorial. He started looking for grant funding. And he was successful in finding it. I give him credit for that. But that doesn't mean that I'm on board because the mayor did all this work behind the scenes. That doesn't mean he's just going to get my buy-in. Are we going to have a memorial for the woman that was struck a couple of weeks ago on Winthrop Street?
[Michael Marks]: Well, no, no. It was mentioned about tragedies and how we want to recognize one of our own. There are countless residents in this community that are struck and killed on our roads. Do I hear an outcry of creating memorials throughout the community for residents that are killed on our streets? I don't, Mr. President, and no one's trying to belittle this or make this less of anything. And how dare people accuse other people of not being of higher authority or great morals because they don't support what the mayor put forward. That's a smokescreen. And if those people want to come out with their money, let them put their money where their mouth is. These business owners in the community, let them put their money where their mouth is and make large donations. If they're that concerned, Mr. President. Talk is cheap, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Isn't it ironic that An hour ago, we were talking about parking enforcement in the community and the lack of communication from the administration and why we're experiencing the, um, concern from business owners and residents at this particular stage for parking enforcement. And here we are with a project that the mayor kept secret for 11 months. No communication with the council at all. Now he needs a vote, and everyone's questioning why we're asking questions. Last week, I made the mention about a maintenance plan. I was told, no, no, we need a vote tonight. We'll get you the maintenance plan next week we're meeting. We'll get you a vote next, we'll get the maintenance plan next week. It's amazing that all this surrounds the lack of communication. And, you know, if members of the council over here feel, hey, They're going to get presented items, and they're just going to vote whatever the mayor presents. That's your prerogative. But I, if I ask questions or have concerns, I don't think anyone should take exception to other members asking questions. I really don't, Mr. President. And if it gets voted up, down, then so be it. I go on to the next issue, Mr. President. But I feel strongly, as I said last week, that a modest memorial is the way to go in our community. a modest memorial. And with the needs that we have and the needs that are out there in the community, as I mentioned, when you have people calling you up about
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my Councilor colleague Councilor Lungo-Koehn for bringing this up tonight. You know, we hear the terminology, especially in this particular tax season, that we hear the words free cash all the time. And I've had so many people stop me and say, where does the city get free cash? How does that work? And, you know, when I explain to them that it's nothing more than the taxpayer's money, You know, all of a sudden, a light bulb goes off in their head, and they say, well, why isn't this coming back to me? If you have free cash laying around, why doesn't this filter back to the taxpayers? And the same can be said with free cash, as we're talking about tonight. The surplus in the water and sewer enterprise account, we all realize you need a rainy day fund to pay for projects. For instance, the big rainstorm, many residents were impacted with the flooding. But to have excessive amounts of $6, $7, $8 million, in my opinion, and I think you're hearing it from some of the councilors, is about time that we finally go back to the taxpayer and say, you know what? It's time for an early Christmas gift this year. And it may seem like a small thing to save $45 for a single family or whatever it may be. But I think it speaks volumes to how this administration and how the city feels about the taxpayers. And at some point, we're going to be looking at having reserves that you're not going to be able to explain why they're so large. And I know you're going to disagree with that. But we've seen an escalation since the new water meters of reserves that build up from deficits to now multi-million dollars in surpluses in the water and sewer account, which is great. But at what point do we stop building those reserves? And the way I see it is, you know, the city shouldn't have their hand in the taxpayer's pocket constantly. And yes, we should provide ample services to the residents. And yes, we want to have a city that's moving forward, but to what extent? And I think that's the question that I have. And we never hear any talk about new growth. We never hear any talk about the revitalization of Method Square, which I may add has been under works by this administration for the past 25 years. The plan needs to be dusted off. We have three parcels of land in the downtown business district that's owned by the city of Medford. I don't know many other communities that can brag about that, but we have that in our community. And we're not taking advantage of these particular pieces of property that are being underutilized and can bring additional taxes in, and not from the beleaguered rate payer that's currently paying the bill right now. You know, we talked about surplus water and sewer. We talked about free cash, cable franchise fees. We haven't had a community cable access station in almost two years, but we're all paying a franchise fee right now. The mayor has hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in an account with the earmark to provide local community access, and it's not currently being used. Does every franchise payer out there that's paying their franchise fee on their cable bill, whether you have Verizon or Comcast, do they deserve a break from this fee that's not being used for its purpose? I believe so. So I would support this tonight. I think the million dollars will leave the surplus well primed to pay for anything that comes up, any emergencies or anything that needs to be done. And I think it sends a message to the taxpayers of this community that, yes, if there are surpluses, you too will benefit in the surplus. And after all, it's your money. I will support this tonight, and I thank my colleague for bringing it up. Thank you, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: So from what Mr. O'Neill just mentioned, what would it take to create a new classification with the Department of Revenue?
[Michael Marks]: Do you know if other states have that classification?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. With the consolidation of both these commissions, will there be the same number of seats?
[Michael Marks]: So, so the number is going to stay the same. Okay. Are there any openings currently?
[Michael Marks]: I want to personally thank the members of the commission. Uh, this is a very important task in our community and under your leadership, uh, in my opinion, uh, this community is moving forward on many fronts and, uh, of which housing and human rights are at the top of at least my list as a member of the council. So I want to thank you and the committee and thank the members for coming out tonight and listening to government at its best. At certain points it may not seem that way, but, But we do get to the root of what we need to do to do the people's business.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. At tonight's Committee of the Whole meeting, the issue of maintenance of this particular Peace Garden was mentioned. And from what we were told, Uh, the maintenance has not been outlined as of yet, but currently I guess is in the process of putting together a full fledged maintenance plan. And, um, I was hoping that we would have this prior to any vote of this council as we, uh, know from, uh, past experience in this community that, um, any project that moves forward, uh, the mayor and the administration is always looking for a maintenance infrastructure plan on how we're going to maintain, which is going to be city property, how we're going to maintain that property. And I would see this park as no difference. I realize the administration is touting this Peace Garden and that's under the mayor's purview to do that. However, while we have so many infrastructure demands, on both the municipal and educational fronts that require immediate attention in our community, I would support a balanced approach, Mr. President, of the $1,298,725, which would provide a modest memorial honoring the Boston Marathon victims while recognizing the local needs that we currently are addressing within our community, i.e., road and sidewalk repairs, educational programming, municipal building maintenance and repair, enhanced public safety measures. You know, we heard tonight that the different earmarks that are going to pay for this Peace Garden and Wynn Resorts has a total of two payments of a combined $250,000. I as one person that live in the Wellington area, and I think we all recognize this issue when the casino was first mentioned going to Everett, was the number one concern that residents had was the traffic impact in our community. And then the number two was public safety. And number three was the impact it would have to the local business economy in the area. And I am very disappointed that The mayor opted to put $250,000 from Wynn Resorts into a Peace Garden when, in my opinion, the number one issues that were mentioned over the past year should have been on the table and addressed, whether it's public safety, whether it's traffic mitigation. Any one of those issues, the $250,000 could have gone to improve conditions within our community, Mr. President. I am not opposed to memorializing the devastating impact that that marathon bombing had, in particular on one of our own in the community and four additional others, and many countless people that were injured during that day that still suffer the emotional scars from that particular time. However, I believe that we could do this in a way that we could accomplish that goal and also accomplish the many needs that we hear over and over again. As you can see within the chamber itself today, we have construction being done on the ceiling and parts of the ceiling that are caving in. We all know the conditions of our municipal buildings throughout the city. We heard earlier tonight about 1,200,000 of improvements needed in our public school system. And the list goes on and on. And I'm not saying that this demand list or this list that's out there of needs should replace any other thing that may take place in the community. We always need to move forward. However, I think there could be a balance of the spending on this particular memorial. And I would support moving forward on a modest memorial, one that can accomplish that goal and also accomplish the goals that are before us in our community regarding public safety, regarding road repairs, regarding infrastructure, Mr. President. So those are the comments I wanted to make. And I also wanted to clarify that the construction cost may be $1,128,725, but you also have to factor in the design and the initial survey cost. That's $170,000. And that brings it up to the figure I mentioned, a million — almost $1,300,000. It's $1,298,725. And I don't know how my colleagues feel on that. I believe the current lack of a maintenance plan, although it's in the works, and I'm not doubting it's not in the works, this project, according to the mayor, according to the article I have from the Boston Globe, and this was dated April 11, 2014, it said the design plans have been in the works for 11 months. So that would date that back to May of 2013, Mr. President, that this proposal was out there in the administration and his staff was working on it. And we, as a council, had very little input because my input at the time would have been, let's go, let's get something done, but not to that level. We have too many needs in this community. So those are my comments, Mr. President. Um, and I look eager to hear what my colleagues have to say on the motion of approval by Councilor Dello Russo clerk.
[Michael Marks]: All right. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I would just caution my council colleagues that moving forward on a plan that doesn't include maintenance is not being fiscally responsible. And I would also state, Mr. President, that we're looking at contractual services. Now, it's been discussed that we're not sure what the DPW is going to handle. But at some point, we're going to outsource services. And we don't know what the actual cost is going to be. And I believe, as a member of this council, before we move forward on any project, especially with the track record this city has on maintaining our infrastructure. If this city had an impeccable record of maintaining its current infrastructure, such as City Hall, the Police Department, the Public Library, the, the dilapidated DPW yard, the fire stations, the list goes on and on our roads. Um, then I would say if our record was impeccable, yes, you know, I have every faith and trust that the city is going to come out and devise a plan that makes sense on behalf of, uh, the rate pays in this community. However, that is not the case. And I think asking the question beforehand just makes common sense. That's the only thing I'm saying. It makes common sense. You know, we heard tonight that none of this is going to be taxpayer money. And we all know, as was mentioned, grants and so forth come from taxpayers' money, which Lauren is correct on that. My issue is not the fact that there's taxpayer money being used. The money that's going into this project could be allocated for a different use. The 250 from wind management could go for anything we want in this community. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This happened to be the mayor at his pecking order list, and he chose to use it for this. Now, that's every prerogative the mayor has, and good for him. But that 250,000 could have been used for any need in the community. The Cummings Foundation, if you read their grant application, it includes a list of causes, and this is not limited to them, human services, education, healthcare, social justice. And if you look at, it's the 100K for 100 programs, it's $10 million a year the Cummings Foundation gives out to local cities and towns. The town of Burlington got their 100,000 and they're using it for a mobile command unit facilitating greater effectiveness and management of critical police incidences and the lives and safety of the people in their community. That's what they're using it for. Now, Reading's using it for understanding disabilities to meet increased needs of students and families by renewing its disability awareness curriculum. Watertown's using it to support early stage empowerment programs, reaching people with early stage Alzheimer's disease to improve quality of lives. That's what some of the communities are using it. The mayor sought to use the $100,000 to apply for the application to do a peace guide. That's his prerogative. I just want my colleagues to know that there's other potential uses. The park rent, it says in the park rent itself under section C eligible projects are those for the purchase of parkland development of a new park or renovation of an existing park by any municipality with an improved open space and recreation plan, which we have. So that could be used for one of 24 different parks, and I realize the mayor just came before us to renovate a few more parks in the community, but I is one that attended the parks as growing up in this city, and also my kids know the need in each individual park, inherit from residents. So I believe that the park grant money, if the mayor opted to, the $299,000 could have been spent to revitalize some of the parks in the community, and we could have put together a committee and so forth to find out what the actual needs are rather than someone dictate what the needs are, and move forward on improving many of our parks. So there are a host of issues that could have been looked at with this money, and the mayor opted to use it this way. I happen to have a fundamental disagreement with the mayor, On this, I think we could accomplish both goals. However, I was never involved in the process. According to the article in the Globe, April 11th, says that the design plans have been in the works for 11 months, but McGlynn said the proposal was kept private because the city did not have the money to build the Goddard. So they were working on this with his inner circle for a number of months, and we found out about it. I speak for myself. I found out about it by turning on the local news. That's how I found out about it as a member of the council. So, you know, I think, honestly, Mr. President, I don't think anyone wants to be pitted one way or another I think it's a worthy proposal. Do I think we could make handicap improvements and disability improvements to the senior center without building a peace garden? Absolutely. I mean, we don't need a peace garden to provide. And I would say, why weren't we doing this in the last 10 years? You know, provide what's necessary for the senior center in that particular area. One last thing, Mr. President. You know, it was back in October 27, 2014, that there was an article posted in the Medford transcript. And from what I understand, it was a press release from the mayor's office. And the first paragraph is, and this is October 27, 2014, Mayor Michael McGlynn was pleased to accept a $299,350 in grant funding from the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities Park Grant Program, which will be used towards the construction of the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden. Tonight we heard that this grant wasn't approved until sometime the beginning of December and maybe a couple of weeks prior to that. So I'm not sure how the mayor takes the liberty to come out before the grants approved by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, accepts the check, which is a picture in the paper, I'm not making this up, and Lauren, you're in the picture, accepts the check, and then says, don't worry about the council. We know they're gonna accept this check. Don't worry about them. I'm going to accept it. I'm going to have my own press conference. I'm going to release my own press releases in the paper. And then the council will eventually vote on it, like everything else. They'll vote on it. They'll submit to my pressure, and they'll vote on it. So I would say, Mr. President, that, as I stated at the beginning, I support a modest memorial honoring the victims of the bombing of the marathon and with The additional monies that could be used, such as the Wynn grant, as far as I'm concerned, the Cummings grant would have to reapply and put what we really need in this community. But that would be my — if I had my druthers, that would be what would happen, Mr. President. So, tonight, I cannot support this grant that's before us for the $299,000, based on the reasons I just mentioned, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Knight.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. The commercial pays the second rate, which is higher than the first rate. So if you're a residential user and you use 700 cubic feet, you're going to pay that low rate. Once you go over the 800, 801, for that one cubic foot, you're paying the high rate for that one foot.
[Michael Marks]: But commercial is going to automatically pay that second rate.
[Michael Marks]: Automatically.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could touch upon that, and I appreciate Councilor Caraviello bringing this up. That marks the second fatality in that particular area within the past year. Two fatalities in the past year on that particular stretch of High Street. I've offered several resolutions regarding the lighting in front of the school and in front of the church. in that particular area and along High Street. And this council has offered many, many suggestions on traffic-calming approaches in this community. And as I mentioned before, we need to take back our streets from speeders and people that are breaking the rules and the laws of the roads, going through stop signs, Mr. President. And it's unfortunate that an incident like this takes place. However, it's becoming more available in this community, and we're seeing more pedestrian accidents in this community. And I don't know what we need to do, Mr. President, but we've discussed about widening sidewalks. We've talked about raised crosswalks. We have a pilot program going on right now, and we still fall short of the mark, in my opinion, in providing pedestrian safety. We don't clearly mark our crosswalks. They're not painted in a timely fashion. The lighting throughout the community is poor, Mr. President. The signage is inadequate, in my opinion, throughout the city. And we very seldom see any type of traffic stings or radar stings within our community that do have a profound impact in slowing cars on our streets. And really, Mr. President, I don't know what it's going to take, but in my opinion, we're at a situation right now that's epidemic in our community. And when you have two pedestrians within a year's span killed in the same area, Mr. President, that should raise a red flag. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. On the motion of approval, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, if you can record me in opposition, uh, until we come up with, uh, an ordinance to cover the taxi licenses, Mr. President,
[Michael Marks]: Is that working, that mic?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And the way I read this is that you're looking for financial data. Does this also include any inventory? that the City of Method is now in receipt of. Have we ever received an itemized list of any inventory from Channel 3?
[Michael Marks]: So, so Mr. President, if we could, and I have no problem asking for the financial data, I think that's appropriate. but also if we can get an itemized list of the inventory that was received, and I know Mr. Rumley said that he has a number of items, and I believe he has a list, I just never, I've never seen it yet. So if we can add that to this resolution, I would be in full support.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Anyone familiar with this particular shelter? Uh, it's across from the CVS on Riverside Ave, uh, right, uh, adjacent to the Harvard van God parking garage. And, uh, I had the opportunity just recently to, uh, actually go and sit underneath the shelter and just look around and see the condition of it. And I was, uh, really, uh, taken back by, uh, the lack of, uh, maintenance, uh, for this particular shelter. The paint is, peeling off the side of the shelter itself. There are gutters that are missing and hanging off. Inside was in very dirty condition. I don't believe, I think the intention originally was to use this particular shelter for people waiting to catch the bus on the opposite side of Riverside Ave. And I for one have never seen anyone waiting for a bus in that particular shelter. I do see people hanging around in the shelter, which I'm not opposed to, but it crossed me when I was in it, Mr. President, that this would be an ideal location in the middle of Medford Square to possibly have some type of wall put around the perimeter, maybe three sides of it, and maybe for eight to 10 months a year, have an art gallery or some type of arts uh, located right in the smack of a method square. Uh, you could also have a portion of it cause it's a good size, um, uh, coverage. Uh, maybe you could put a portion as a fruit slash vegetable, uh, stand. There's so many different repurposes of that particular, um, uh, shelter that really is, in my opinion, an eyesore and not being used to its full potential. And it's been like that for years. It's not recent. It's not the last week, month, year. It's been like that for years, Mr. President. And I would hope that the mayor takes this council vote, because I'm gonna ask for a vote that the city of Medford look at repurposing that particular shelter for other community uses. And I just throw out a couple. I'm sure there may be 20 or 30 other uses that residents or committee might have envisioned for that particular property, but it's a prime piece of property that right now is an eyesore and could have so many potential uses, and if you wanted to put a little heat inside of it and close it off and make it a glassed-in area, I mean, the potential is endless, and you could use it year-round, and you could provide more lighting in that particular area, because at night, if you ever walk down there, it's very dark on that side behind the cemetery, the Salem Street, uh, burial, uh, uh, cemetery. And, um, I would ask that, uh, we take a vote on this tonight to repurpose it. Mr. President asked the mayor if, uh, he is too busy with a lot of other issues, maybe this council could take the ball and run with it and, uh, find a use for it. But I would like to start off with the administration, um, to repurpose that particular, uh, shelter on the motion of council of marks to council of Penta.
[Michael Marks]: Before we adjourn, several weeks back this council took a vote on sending a couple of issues to the Traffic Commission. One was the closing off of the corner of Main and Yale Street, and the other one was to add bollards to the Harvard and Main Street corner. And I was wondering if we can get an update if the Traffic Commission received it, and when will that appear on the Traffic Commission agenda. Also, the second point, Mr. President, I believe we voted for a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss moving the bus stop on Main Street, you know, 20 or 30 feet down. And if you can set that up, maybe sometime after the holidays or... We're trying and we get two upcoming meetings.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion of councilor Penta, councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I just had a side question. Bruce, I hate to get you up there again, especially with no direct route.
[Michael Marks]: Bruce, as the commission looked at the number of bicycle racks currently in the community, do we have bicycle racks in most of the downtown?
[Michael Marks]: So that will be part of a future recommendation?
[Michael Marks]: Sure. And just my other question was, uh, I work in Boston and, uh, with their bike racks, uh, I noticed that, uh, some bicycle repair kits that are somehow affixed to the racks. Correct. And they have basic wrenches and other small pumps and just some tools that I guess bicyclists could find helpful to have along their trails. Is that something also that the commission would consider? having maybe a few of these sprinkled throughout the city?
[Michael Marks]: Uh, you know, bike racks, uh, I don't think of that costly. So I think that should be something that we, as a city of 56,000 people can, uh, can afford to do. We're building a million dollar peace garden in the square here. I'm sure we can add some bicycle racks. And I would like to see that as a recommendation from the commission. And, uh, you know, if you need support of the council, I think as you hear the council is very supportive of these initiatives. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for all your efforts. Thank you. Councilor Knight. Thank you, Bruce. Not so fast.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor max chief. I'm not, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question, but we are on the traffic commission. Uh, one of the things we struggle with as a council every year is the striping of crosswalks. And my concern is once these bike lanes are put down within a matter of, depending on what they use, historically the city uses paint. I've been pushing for thermoplastic because it lasts longer, it's highly reflective, and it's a little more costly, but it lasts longer. Who will be responsible for making sure these particular lanes get painted year after year in a timely fashion, unlike the crosswalks?
[Michael Marks]: Maybe someone from the commission. Has there been any consideration regarding the maintenance of these particular Bike lanes. Thank you, Chief.
[Michael Marks]: And what schedule is that, Bruce?
[Michael Marks]: That's the problem.
[Michael Marks]: So maybe as a commission, the commission members can assist us as a community to make sure that the city stays on top of these public safety issues from bike lanes to crosswalks. It's very important. Um, and they've been neglected over the years. So I would hate to see them put down one year. And next year, Bruce, your lane's on physical.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, on November 19th, the city of Malden held a public forum, uh, held by, uh, mayor Christensen and several of the city councilors. in Malden, I believe it was at the Beebe School. At that particular meeting, they discussed the development proposal to convert the Malden Hospital, which has been closed since 1999, into 398 living units. And the developer that was present and made a presentation was Felsmere Housing Group. And they spoke at the meeting, Mr. President, about the site itself. They spoke about the 398 living units of which 80 were assisted living apartments. 275 were market rate apartment units. There were 26 condo units and 17 single family cottages that were being built in the style of Nantucket housing. Also, they spoke about the barrier that's currently in between the Malden Hospital and many of the Method residents, which has been referred to as a wooden buffer that actually has a brook running through it. And that buffer and wooded area would stay as is under this particular proposal. Also, At the meeting, Mr. President, there were a number of Method residents that were not formally notified, but found out through the grapevine that there was a meeting being held in Malden. As we all are aware, many Method residents live closer to this particular site than Malden residents. And the impact of the surrounding area Lund, Grover, Fry, Murray Hill would be just as much if not more than an impact on Malden residents. And the resolution I want to offer tonight is the first resolution is to make sure that any meeting held regarding the Malden Hospital and the potential reuse and development of the Malden Hospital that the city administration notify the direct abutters in the area. That's my first motion, Mr. President. Also at the meeting, there was a conceptual drawing that was showed at the meeting. And the access road is Hospital Road. If you go up the hill, you'll know. If you come on up the hill, Hospital Road is on your right. That leads you into the back of the Malden Hospital. And then if you go a little further up, There is Lund Road, and the plan itself calls for the creation of a new street from this particular project, linking it to Lund Road. And all of us that have been around for some time and the neighbors who have lived there realize that when that area was opened into the Malden Hospital, it was a nightmare for area residents. There was a concern with traffic issues, there was a concern with public safety. At one point, a four-way stop had to be put at that particular area to alleviate some of the concerns of area residents. I had a discussion with Chief Sacco, and he agreed that the opening of that particular area, which leads into Lund, would have a devastating impact on area residents. And my second resolution, Mr. President, my second motion, actually, would be to call for an immediate erection of a barrier on the Method side, because right now there's a barrier that was put up by Hallmark Health some years ago, and it's closed. But under these plans, if this proposal goes through, Their barrier will be removed, and they're going to expect having access in and out from their particular development into our Medford neighborhood. And from the residents I spoke with, many homeowners who contacted me just recently regarding this issue, they have grave concerns with reopening that particular area. Also, Mr. President, I find it a little ironic that I realized this is a Malden project. It's Malden hospital, but part of the surrounding property at Malden hospital is method land and their proposal calls for building 17 single family cottages, as I mentioned. Um, and nine of the 17 cottages are located on method property. So those homes would be built that pay taxes to method. There would be method property for all official reasons and not one resident in the area, and no one from the city administration. Well, not one resident from the area was notified. As far as I know, the city administration was notified of the meeting, but there was no one there representing our city and safeguarding our neighborhoods, Mr. President. So, on behalf of the neighborhood, I know there's maybe a resident or two that took the time to come up tonight that would like to speak. But on behalf of the residents, Mr. President, I think it's only appropriate that we take a vote to immediately have a barrier erected there. And I know years ago, there was a concern about having fire access and so forth. And that could be accommodated, like many of the other barriers that exist in this community right now, where the fire department has access to get through a barrier and so forth. So I would ask that those two motions be put, Mr. President. And if anyone from the particular area would like to speak here tonight.
[Michael Marks]: A gate, a metal gate. I mean, it could be any type of structure, but a gate that could be easily accessed by the fire department. I know if anyone's interested, uh, on, uh, I think it's eighth or ninth street. There's, there's a gate back there that was put up some years ago that the fight department, I think have a lecture electronic gadget when they're heading to gain access in spring road as well, right? There's several of them in the city actually. So I understand it's been accomplished before. And, um, like I said, uh, this, uh, according to the chief, uh, and he's been around for some time that when this area was open back some years ago, it really posed a public safety concern in the neighborhood. And I don't believe that our neighborhoods should be turned into a cut through, uh, for traffic. Uh, it's a great way of omitting, uh, getting out and try to go on to, uh, the Fellsway from Salem street. You can cut through the neighborhoods and end up onto the Fellsway if you want to go 93 or so forth. And, uh, it really impacts a large, uh, area around our neighborhood. And I don't think it should be used as a cut through. Thank you, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: You know if that really is even the case and if the mayor didn't want to go we do have an office community development We do have other department heads that do attend meetings
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we're all aware, uh, the entrance to the McGlynn Andrews school on Riverside Ave is, a well-traveled area in the morning and the afternoon. And for the past week and a half, two weeks, there has been no crossing guard there. There has been a Medford police officer sporadically there covering the area, but there are a lot of kids that cross Riverside Ave to get to school. And I'm not quite sure why we can't have a dedicated person there. And if they're in the process of hiring someone, Why don't we have reserves that we can call upon if need be? And the chief is here, so maybe we can get an answer right away, Mr. President. Maybe we could have talked about this when we talked about Grover Road.
[Michael Marks]: Are there plans chief to build up the reserve?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Meis. Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilor Knight brings up a lot of good points about best practices, about the vetting process, about evaluating particular people, and I would be in whole heart, uh, support, uh, if we included, and I haven't seen your proposal yet, but, uh, it would not limit it to, uh, the president of the council, the vice president of the council. I mean, uh, you've already voted yourself on the president and the vice president of the council. Um, I'm not sure what vetting process you took into consideration during that process, but, uh, there are a number of positions, the, uh, all, all the different, uh, committees that, uh, people are appointed to, uh, all our council committees. So I think if we're going to look at a process, I would agree with you. And I think we should start from, uh, the appointment of the president, which is probably our most, uh, important, uh, appointment as a council and work our way down. So if your proposal includes that, uh, which I hope it does, because tonight there was a meeting to discuss organizational for next year. And I didn't hear anything about a vetting process. I didn't hear about anything about someone's ability to lead this council. Uh, so I, I, if it includes all that, that's, that's go for it. But I don't think we should just pick and choose, uh, what positions we'd like to take a look at and provide these best practices to. It should be everyone across the board. I mean the,
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As Councilor Penta mentioned, um, you know, I find it very interesting that we have permanent signs posted for resident permit parking throughout the city. For years, the city did never, no enforcement at all. We have a street sweeping program with no permanent signage and they tow and tag cars. I can't figure this city out, Mr. President. It doesn't operate correctly. You have permanent signage, you don't enforce permit parking. You don't have signage for street sweeping, you tag and tow. And this is not the first time we've heard this problem, as many councils will be. Last year we faced the same thing, when they tagged and towed a number of cars, and the city had to reflect upon it, and said they tagged and told an error. This happens year after year. And as a council, I think we've been on board, at least I know myself a dozen times asking the administration to look into permanent street sweeping signage. And we have yet to get an answer because we still currently don't have a full fledged street sweeping program in this community. It's no reflection upon DPW. It's a reflection upon the administration who refuses to put in place a street-sweeping program that makes sense, that actually sweeps our streets, and does it more frequently than twice a year. It's inadequate, Mr. President. And the fact that we're still using notification methods of an electronic billboard shows you how far behind the times we are in this community. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Just if I could, Mr. President, we received two responses. If I could just read them from the administration. Um, it was, uh, the first one is a paper 14 dash four nine nine. And there was a response, uh, out to, um, waste management regarding, uh, them picking up trash on major thoroughfares during peak traffic hours in the community. And we did get a response from James Nocella. Uh, he is the area manager of waste management. And if I could just read it, cause this is an important issue, Mr. President says, we have reviewed the council's request for the mayor to alert waste management on picking up trash on main thoroughfares at peak travel times. The issue was previously brought to our attention, by the administration as a core to our mission to zero safety program. We continuously review our routing practices and make every effort to avoid high risk situations. We will continue to avoid peak travel collection wherever and whenever practical. Thank you for your concern. And also, Mr. President, paper 14-743. It was a council resolution asking for the lighting on Boston Ave. from True Value Hardware down, be looked at by the Superintendent Wise. And Mr. Hurley came back saying he did go down and inspect and found out there were several lights that were out and he contacted National Grid. So on behalf of the council, I'd like to thank Superintendent Wise, Joe Hurley for his quick action, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Knight, are you all set? I am. Councilor Marks. You know, I don't want to speak out of turn, but I think one of the issues originally was the fact that there was going to be a walkway and some discussion needed to be had between housing and the city of method regarding the walkway. Cause it wasn't our area to, to connect. Um, and I, and I, that was one of the issues, but I'm not sure if that's what this is regarding. And I agree with Councilor Penta that, you know, you know, we've taken several votes on this already to move money and so forth. And, um, it's only appropriate that we get an answer on this immediately.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? I also have a question on that, too, if you wouldn't mind. So the $26,000 for year one, that includes the eventual buyout after year four?
[Michael Marks]: And what percent is that?
[Michael Marks]: So the buyout's roughly $26,000?
[Michael Marks]: And you're saying we've done this for a lot of pieces of equipment in the past?
[Michael Marks]: call for reconsideration. It's not reconsideration. He wasn't on the prevailing side. We never took a vote. We didn't.
[Michael Marks]: Before the roll is called, Councilor Marks. With all due respect, Mr. President, there were 25 items on the list that the mayor was asking for approval. If we went through them one at a time, we would have been done by now. We would have gone through them all by now.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, thank you for letting me speak. Before the roll is called, Mr. President, we should not be governing this body, Mr. President, by people leaving their position. speaking to people outside of the chambers, and then coming back with options on votes that just took place. Because that's exactly what happened, Mr. President. You left your seat to get some opinion outside of this chamber and come back. And you're deliberating not before this body,
[Michael Marks]: And that should not be taking place. With all due respect, Mr. President, I know you're new to the presidency, but you should not be doing that, Mr. President. With all due respect.
[Michael Marks]: It's easy as that, because the ruling is what we're talking about. Well, your ruling should have taken place at the podium rather than outside of the chamber. Well, it wasn't. Because that's where it took place. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the mausoleum study, this council voted back several years ago. And actually, we just recently, Mr. President, took it off of unfinished business after being on the agenda for a number of years. But I wholeheartedly agree with that particular study. It'll extend the life of the cemetery for a number of years for Medford residents if we were to build a mausoleum at the cemetery. So I wholeheartedly support that. A couple of questions I had. The first one is regarding the speed bumps that were mentioned. In order to put a speed bump on a road, you need approval by the Traffic Commission. Have they voted on allowing speed bumps?
[Michael Marks]: But we don't know whether or not they'll approve speed bumps on our roads. We currently don't have any portable or ever had any portable speed bumps. So it's your opinion that this will go through the traffic commission without a problem.
[Michael Marks]: And the reason why I say that is, uh, since I've been on the council, we've had a number of residents that have come up before us requesting these movable speed bumps on particular roads, uh, to calm traffic and calm speed is down. And we were always told that you can't impede traffic and so forth by the chief of police. And now it seems on a major thoroughfare, two major thoroughfares, we're looking at installing these. So I just don't know what the change of mind is all of a sudden, when before it was always just a dead no to the council when we asked.
[Michael Marks]: Race crosswalks have been around for 25 years. We haven't created the race crosswalk. I mean, they've been using the cities for years, but okay. You know, I just don't like to approve money when we don't have an official vote of the traffic commission purpose.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. Um, I agree with all the different park work. Uh, I think that's long overdue. Uh, I would also just ask if we could amend this paper, Mr. President, uh, Harris park as a council, um, a budget, uh, director Burke just mentioned is, is a park that's used, uh, 12 months out of the year. It really is. And it's a heavy traveled park in the taut lot. I've brought up on a dozen occasions. It no longer is a tot lot. It is a lot where animals go and do their business because it's mulch. And it's in awful condition. If people went down to the parks, as you mentioned, that would have been the first thing. We've asked that a rubberized flooring be put in, like many of the other parks, first of all, for safety purposes in a tot lot. and also to keep animals from going in there and making that their little place where they dig and do their business. And that's what it's coming to, and people aren't using that tarp lot anymore. So I would ask that that area, it's not a giant area to be rubberized, I think would suit its purpose and also benefit many people in that area. And the other issue, and I had a discussion with the mayor this afternoon regarding all these items, I asked him about the number of stumps that were going to be removed, and if the 400,000, which includes the water, if there was some water damage and so forth from flooding. He said it would cover, or he hopes it covers all the stumps. And my response is that I believe that the current city stump list underestimates what we have out in the city. No fault of the city, but if they claim there's 180 stumps, I say there's 280 in our community. And what I would ask is really the only legitimate way of doing this, because we've asked that a complete audit be done. I don't know if that's taken place or not. And I know there's other priorities, but if we spent a lot of time actually, well, we probably did, but there's some stumps that they're Browning on top. That's how long they've been there. And you know, you can see they're really aging. And I would ask that we put the stump list on the city website. So if you have a stump in front of your house, you don't have to say, well, I called five years ago. I don't know if it's still on there. I don't know what's happening. You can actually look at the stump list and say, I'm not on this list. I think I should have been on. And then contact DPW or send an email, call a Councilor, and get yourself on the stump list. And I think that's an effective way of managing what's currently out there. And I think we're going to find that the 180 is probably not 180. It's more like 280. That's my own personal opinion. from traversing the city. So I would ask that as part of this paper, Mr. President, that we ask that the full stump list be put on for review for residents. On the city website? On the city website. And the only other question I really had was regarding the lead conversion. Any idea how long that's going to take?
[Michael Marks]: So we're looking at the springtime? Springtime.
[Michael Marks]: And are they still currently changing the lenses?
[Michael Marks]: I've, I'll spot them out to him, but I've seen a number of them in the school.
[Michael Marks]: I don't think it's completed as of yet.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And also, uh, up the hillside, I had a business owner that called me. I went up, uh, last week actually. And, uh, the side where the liquor store is on up the hillside, that whole area is completely dark at night. And it looks like it's actually missing, not that streetlights are out, that it's missing streetlights. The liquor store up the hillside, right across from Hillside Hardware. That whole section over there is completely dark. And someone needs to take a look at that. If I could, Mr. President, when we're talking about light conversion. Other than that, I support everything that's on this paper. It all makes sense to me. I appreciate the fact that we're able to go through it and ask questions, not just for our ratification. You know, it's easy for a councilor to sit back and say, I'm well aware of this. I attended a meeting. I talked to the mayor, and this is great for the general public. But it's interesting to hear, and that's why people tune in, to listen and hear what's going on and be able to ask questions. and it's great to have meetings that are open to the public, but we all know, I mean, we have a meeting up here every night, and if you get 10, every Tuesday night, if you get 10 people, you're lucky. A Committee of the Whole meeting, if you get three people, you're lucky. Of a city of 57,000 people. So I don't buy into the fact that just because there's a Committee of the Whole, that everyone else in the community's on board, and I think this is very helpful to sit and go through it. It didn't take long to do, and I thank Councilor Penter bringing this up, because it's an important issue that we go through and get the answers, not only on behalf of the council, but on behalf of the people of this community.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Lachs. We were told by the mayor himself that fountains were going to be maintained by an outside group.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So, so the maintenance will not be done by the city.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I mean, there's not much moment to do.
[Michael Marks]: So there is going to be an expense that a perpetual care fund will have to be set up to maintain just the fountains.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, I, I agree with many of these, uh, structural improvements and, uh, fixes to the roof and so forth of, uh, this historic property. I think the larger issue that remains and we're all aware of is the access road. leading up to the manor and the carriage house. And it's been just probably several months since you've been before us. Has there been any update?
[Michael Marks]: What are we talking roughly for?
[Michael Marks]: So is EMBEL prepared to make a request to the administration?
[Michael Marks]: in terms of potholes. Right, but the study would be the first step in the process. Yeah, it's... It'd answer a lot of questions that are lingering right now.
[Michael Marks]: And if I had $100,000 to contribute to pay for the study, I would do it, but I don't, so... Well, you know, there seems to be a lot of money floating around from wind management, from free cash, and all other avenues around the city. And to me, this would be an issue I think we all can appreciate the fact, whether you agree with funding for the Brooks Estates or not, that the access road is extremely important and is vital to the success of the Brooks Estates, even in its current condition. And I, as one member, would hope that EMBELT approach the administration. We will do that, absolutely. And get this moving.
[Michael Marks]: The city has embarked on feasibility studies for the parking garage in Governor's Ave that never came to fruition, a feasibility study about a water taxi on the Mystic River. And here we have an historic piece of property, as we all know, if not attended to, is going to end up vanishing into the ground eventually. And I would hate to see that happen. And I think for the amount of money we're talking about, it only makes sense to move forward on that very basic issue of the access road. I appreciate that. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I have the paper in front of me. Mr. President, everything appears to be in order. Uh, this seems to be a simple request of, uh, an awning. This, as the gentleman mentioned, Avelinos has been a long established business in our community with a fantastic reputation. And I would motion for approval tonight and wish them well.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, you may. I'm in opposition, uh, uh, waiting and anticipating, uh, the much, anticipated revamping of our taxi ordinance. And until then, I'm gonna be consistent with my vote. In opposition.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to speak briefly on the passing of Mr. John Murphy. For any of us that know Mr. Murphy, he was a family man, a husband, a father, a grandfather, a very active parishioner at St. Joseph's Parish. He also was a worker at Verizon for 44 years. And he will be sorely missed by his three children and six grandchildren and many residents of this community. Here is a man, Mr. President, that has always put his family first and, after retirement, had some health concerns and never really bothered anyone, kept it to himself, as you mentioned, Mr. President. you know, for several years, um, fought diligently, uh, and succumb to his illness. And I wish the family well, uh, along with the children and the grandchildren. And he will be sorely missed. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. As we're probably all aware, and maybe some of us aren't, Curtis Tufts was created many years ago to suit a need in the community for students that, for one reason or another, weren't able to attend the high school in that particular setting. Some of it was for learning reasons, some of it was for discipline reasons, and the alternative high school, which is Curtis Tufts, was created for Method students. and allowed them to move forward to eventually get their diploma. And over the years, if you want to track it, it's out there. The number of students that are being serviced in that school has decreased. And the number of Method students has been severely decreased. And at this particular time, we're looking at a few dozen students. and primarily from outside of this community. Now, I realize there is a tuition that we gain from these outside communities, but as Councilor Penta mentioned, year after year I've been asking during the budget process that we should be taking a look at the per pupil expense and also compare it to the revenue we're receiving and see whether or not this particular program, which was all good intentions when it started out is still suiting the purpose of ultimately what it's for, the students of this community. And I would say if that no longer is taking place, then the school committee and the administration have to take a long hard look at this particular program. I've also mentioned over the years, because as we all know, The high school was built to house some 3,000 students. It's probably a third of the capacity right now. And it was mentioned that maybe we could use portions of the high school for this particular program. Because now you're maintaining a separate building. You're maintaining heat, electricity, physical maintenance of the property. Last year we had asbestos tiles removed in the building at a great expense. And these are the things I think we have to explore. And I think what Councilor Penta alluded to tonight, the changing of the guard, if you want to call it. Mr. Volpe was up there for a number of years as the head of the Curtis Tufts. I think speaks volumes at what's going on with that program. And I think really the need for the program needs to be explored. I'm not against students that may have certain problems and need additional help. I think that's great. I've attended their graduation in the past, and I think they do great things there. But I think, like all programs, this needs to be explored to see if it's still financially beneficial for students and for the taxpayers of this community. And I hope to get back that information as well, Mr. President, on the per-pupil expense and the current revenue that's being generated from outside placements. If my council colleague wouldn't mind, I'd like to amend his paper to include those figures also. And hopefully we'll get an answer. I know you didn't get an answer a couple of weeks ago, but hopefully we'll get an answer on this paper.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I agree with the restriction on delivery. I think that's a wise move. Also, where the gentleman stated, Mr. President, that he believes it's deliveries from other parts or other stores within the mall that we as a council through the city clerk send a letter to Meadow Glen Mall to make sure that no deliveries are happening prior to 7 a.m. in the morning. I think that's only appropriate for the neighbors and abutters. I agree with council at night. I like the 90 day review. And I also agree with councilor Lungo-Koehn that 10 days to me sounds a little excessive. I think we should probably put a cap on it, maybe at five days. That would be something that, I think would be amendable to me. I don't know how my other colleagues feel, but, uh, I would vote in support of this with the restriction on the deliveries and also with the 90 day review and also with council Lungo-Koehn brought up about limiting it to five days, uh, rather than 10 days. And as, as was mentioned, uh, this is open ended. So next year there's no need to come before the council. This is going to be in perpetuity, right?
[Michael Marks]: This is amended with a 90-day review. Right. My issue is actually the number of days. I think 10 is excessive. The 90-day review was offered by council.
[Michael Marks]: I think Attorney Bruese was amendable to eight days, which this covers. So maybe we can make it eight days rather than five.
[Michael Marks]: And a letter to the Meadow Glen Mall regarding deliveries that take place between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the morning, other than Kohl's. Yep. I want to send a letter to Austin to refrain from truck deliveries between those hours. We have that. On behalf of the neighbors. Councilor Penta.
[Michael Marks]: I want to understand my Councilor colleague's comments. Why would you think it would be so difficult for us to rescind the perpetuity that allows them to do it every year automatically? Why would that be so difficult by a vote of the kind? Just say in a year, two years from now, we say, you know what? Even after the 90-day review, we no longer like this.
[Michael Marks]: Indefinitely.
[Michael Marks]: My question was to my colleague. Why you would think that?
[Michael Marks]: Honestly, I think we have to base every request on its own merits. And you're right, if it was a business that was nestled in a neighborhood that wanted to open 24 hours, I would look upon it differently than a business that's in a mall establishment. And even the abutter stated that the front entrance would really have no bearing, people coming through the front entrance, on their sleep and so forth in the buildings. So I think you have to take every petition on its own merits. But my question was just whether or not and a year from now that we as a council can rescind this vote. And I believe we can do that like on any Tuesday night, and I don't think it's a difficult process. And if this didn't work out for whatever reason, I'm willing to take a vote to rescind.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, uh, if, if this is a special permit, as was stated, then we as a council can put conditions on the special permit. So, and we did correct. We can also put a condition on the indefinite period of time. If Councilor Penta feels better about that, we can put some language in there stating that even though this is for an indefinite period of time, that if there are any concerns or complaints brought before the Medford City Council, that the license will be reviewed. The special permit will be reviewed automatically. And that way it's in there, the language at least gives us an option to review it and a possible revocation of the license. I would offer that if that's... No.
[Michael Marks]: So, we put a condition on the indefinite period of time stating that if there are any concerns brought before the Medford City Council relative to the extended hours of operation at Coles that the Medford City Council either hold a hearing or review the special permit and make a decision on the special permit.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, maybe if we give initial approval tonight and ask that the city solicit a review language that would cover what we're talking about, that may be... You said something I think could be manageable.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, Councilor Marks. Just if I could, and I hear what my colleague's saying, but the 90 days is for this year. Next year, there's no 90-day review. If something happens next year, we just want to make sure as a council that we have the authority to revoke the extended hours. Right? Is that what you're saying? We just want to make sure we have the authority to revoke, because there's no official review next year. The attorney said he doesn't want to come back every year for a review, which I don't blame him. Of course not. I don't blame him. So we want to just put language in there that allows us, and maybe we don't need language, Mr. Clerk.
[Michael Marks]: So should we not ask the city solicitor?
[Michael Marks]: I have no problem granting it with the contingency that the city solicitor provide language to us within the next several days. I mean, we don't meet for two weeks now because of election next Tuesday and the following. If that's amendable.
[Michael Marks]: We could do that. Meanwhile, as the attorney stated, we can ask the city solicitor for his, opinion on the language within the 90 days. And then we'll attach the language.
[Michael Marks]: So why don't we do this? Mr. President, not to belabor the issue. Why don't we approve this year as was stated asked within the, uh, with the 90 day ask, uh, just allow for this year and then ask the city solicitor to come back with his opinion on language that would allow us to review it every year. Is that, does that sound acceptable?
[Michael Marks]: No, no. Once we get the language, then we will take a vote on the language.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Roughly, how long will the construction take?
[Michael Marks]: Less than five days.
[Michael Marks]: And just one day on the public way.
[Michael Marks]: And what's the length of the trench on the public way?
[Michael Marks]: And where is the trench again on the public way?
[Michael Marks]: The intersection of Emerson and Main?
[Michael Marks]: I have a copy. I just wanted to know if you can explain it rather than look at that.
[Michael Marks]: What other options were there, entrance options?
[Michael Marks]: So you did explore that option?
[Michael Marks]: I'm not up to date on this. If something was available, are they obligated to allow your access?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. I have a motion for approval, Mr. President. Councilor Mayne.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: And also, do you have a traffic plan?
[Michael Marks]: During the weekdays or weekends?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, too, just if I may add, and I know this is standard language, but what you just read, the last sentence says underground work will be done and there should be no disturbance to the city of Medford sidewalk or roadways. Doesn't make sense. We know that they're going to disturb. They're digging up the roadway. So that sentence really doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe if we can have that reviewed by the city engineer. It doesn't make sense. I know it's her language, but it doesn't make sense.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I don't recall that language in other petitions, but previous nights, but I would motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the one good thing is we're all in agreement here, behind the reeling, from what I hear. And I think it's prudent to have this particular meeting. I thank Councilor Penta for starting the ball rolling on this. This impacts a lot of people that are in the retirement system, and it really needs to be reviewed by the city. And as was mentioned, the longer we wait, the bigger the unfunded liability becomes. And at some point, it's going to become something that we're not going to even want to approach because it's so unapproachable to figure. So I thank my colleague for bringing this up.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And both speakers brought up some very valid points. And Jeanne, you're 100% correct. Every resident in this community is losing out. You know, even if you're not involved in local cable or want to produce your own show, the fact that we don't have the opportunity to look at high school sports on our local access. I remember the days where they used to have live feeds and you could watch the Medford High football game live on local cable for those people that couldn't get to the game. Council President, I think it was you that a year or two ago asked that all the boards and commissions, their meetings be taped. On channel 16, which I thought, and I think it was voted by this council, an excellent way of providing transparency in this community and allowing residents to get involved or look into the process of government. And I thought that was an excellent suggestion, but again, The residents are being stifled because there's no access in this community. Several weeks back, we had what I would say is one of the largest meetings in this community in the last 25 years regarding parking enforcement. And that's an issue that's going to impact every resident in this community, every business owner in this community. And we couldn't get that on local access to show the meeting. The meeting was taped. We couldn't get it on local access. However, every other event, Mr. President, if you look in Channel 15, is the mayor cutting a ribbon, the mayor going to the dog run, saying how we're going to have a dog park, telling people we're going to have a dog park in the near future. You know, it's almost laughable what is happening in this community now. As Councilor Penta said, you have one person controlling all access. all media access. Even the cameras here that are on the blink every so often, we have to beg the mayor to fix the cameras so viewers at home can watch our meeting without the tape going off and on, without the voice going up and down. You know, it really is a shame what's going on. And I, as one member of the council, Mr. President, think maybe it has come time that maybe that we do look at a class action suit, Mr. President. And I don't take this very lightly when I mention it, Mr. President, but there's no reason that ratepayers' money, week after week, month after month, year after year, is going into funding something that we're not providing to the residents of this community. And it's no different than resident permit parking stickers for years that may have had residents buy permit parking stickers and never enforced permit parking in our city. Never enforced it. It wasn't until one of the news stations came down and did a story on it that it uncovered many people parking on our streets, on resident permit streets, that didn't have stickers from other cities, days on end, and no enforcement, Mr. President. So, there seems to be a pattern here with the mayor of, you know, in one breath saying, leadership that works, and on the other breath, doing absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. If I look in the local media again, in one of the websites, and see another picture of the mayor walking around promoting candidates running for public office and not doing his job here at City Hall, Mr. President, to me, that's grounds for termination right there. We have so many issues that really, you should not see the mayor at a ribbon cutting for the next five years. His head should be buried in that office, working on the issues that he has promised the people and the residents of this community for the last several years. And the inaction in this community speaks volumes. It speaks volumes, Mr. President, on what's going on throughout this city. And what you're hearing now is a sense of frustration, because it's not one issue. It's many, many, many issues that are starting to build up. And people are starting to get wise to it, saying, you know what? Enough's enough. Enough's enough in this community. And whether it's the cable, whether it's parking enforcement. And just if I could, Mr. President, on parking enforcement, Councilor Prenta brought up and I won't steal his thunder, a few weeks back, the fact that the language that supposedly the mayor had added to the parking contract that stated there'll be two 30-minute free parking spots in each of the five business districts, and that there'll be a certain number of single head meters in each of the five business districts, as Councilor Penta so eloquently stated, That language was never included in the final contract that was signed. And I asked the city solicitor, and I'm not going to speak on his behalf, I said, why is that language not in the contract? And he said, that language is outside of the contract. He said, there's a lot of language that is included in the request for proposal that is not in the contract. but enables the city to move forward on issues like providing additional free parking spots in the community. So when the mayor came back to the business owners and said, I'm going to give two additional free 30-minute parking spots in each of the five business districts, he didn't have to negotiate that with Republic, the Tennessee company. He did that unilaterally, and he did it without any vote of this council and without any other support. In my situation, Mr. President, I would ask that the mayor increase that five-fold, that at least 10 spots, free 30-minute pocket spots be in each of the business districts. And maybe at some point we'll get to a point where Republic says, hey, this changes the financial impact of the contract and we can no longer do this unless we negotiate a new contract. But the fact is, Mr. President, the mayor was able to do that without any support of Republic or this council or any vote in this community. And I think, Mr. President, what we're seeing right now is not leadership from a mayor, but dictatorship, Mr. President. And that's what we're experiencing now. After 28 years of the same dictator, we're seeing that it's no longer consensus and trying to find out what's best for our community, Mr. President. It's someone just leading as a dictator. And I think that's a sad commentary, what's happening in this community. And I hope residents of this community get wise to it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And also, last week, the issue of the South Method neighborhood safety walk was brought up to a resolution offered by myself. And we had a number of South Method residents here. And at the time, it was mentioned that there was a violation of the open meeting law if more than four members of the council attended this particular meeting. And where part of my resolution was to try to expand this particular safety walk, I sent an email to the city solicitor and also the city clerk. And I believe we all got a response back via email from the city solicitor, Mark Rumley. And I just would like to read it for the edification of people that may be watching, I don't want anyone to believe that there was any doubt that there was no violation of the open meeting law at this neighborhood walk. But it says, dear Councilor Marks, you have asked me whether the attendance of city councilors at an event organized by a private citizen group for the purpose of addressing neighborhood safety and other related concerns could potentially be a violation of the open meeting law. My answer is that the attendance by City Council is at such an event would not be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The basis for my conclusion is that General Law Chapter 38, the Open Meeting Law applies to public bodies. According to the facts you have presented to me, the neighborhood safety walk was organized by a private citizen group and was neither scheduled by the City Council nor was it subject to the Council's direction or control. It was therefore essentially an opportunity for the participants, including the Councilors, to observe conditions in a particular neighborhood rather than to make decisions through a vote of a quorum or the city council. Even though the private citizen group that called for the walk was concerned with public issues, i.e. neighborhood safety and related issues, it is not a public body as it is not an entity within the executive or legislative branches of state government or within any county, district, city, region, or town. I hope this answers your opinion.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Is there any current legislation that you're tracking now or something that maybe we as a Council can review to get on board to support?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just a thought. I wonder if we, as a community, can enact our own hands-free ban. or does that have to be done on the state level? I'm not sure if that's possible, but maybe we can ask a city solicitor. I agree with you a hundred percent. And I think everyone behind this reeling, uh, that, that, that drives a car. Um, that's all you see people on the phone constantly. Um, and they're not paying attention. Um, and, and that goes for, you know, you hate to say it, but it's not only on the phone, I see people putting makeup on while they're driving. I see people doing a host of things while they're driving. And sometimes I'm in my car saying, please just drive your car because they'll be in the middle of the road, not moving while traffic's going around them. It's, it's just, it's, it's unbelievable in my opinion. And, uh, I read an article, I think it was a month or two ago in the globe that the number of tickets issued, uh, we would think because we have the texting ban that there's a lot of tickets being issued. It's minimal, if many at all, in this commonwealth. And one of the reasons is, like you mentioned, it's hard to pinpoint and catch someone in the act that could be dialing the phone, make a phone call, or so forth.
[Michael Marks]: I like the hands-free ban, although when you're talking, you can still get distracted. But if you're talking to a passenger, you can be distracted. So I think it's a step in the right direction to provide the safety we need on our streets. So Mr. President, if I can make that in the form of a motion, if we as a community can implement our own hands-free ban within the perimeter of our city.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, resident permit parking.
[Michael Marks]: It's going to be enforced under this proposal. Say it again, it's what? Resident permit parking is part of the enforcement.
[Michael Marks]: Through you to actually the city clerk, why is it so expensive to get a copy of the meeting? Is it $20 to get a copy? So that was set by this council? How far back?
[Michael Marks]: 2000 maybe. What would the actual cost be for the actual CD itself and the time?
[Michael Marks]: It just seems $20 seems a little excessive for someone to get a copy of a meeting. Um, also the meetings used to be, uh, copied onto the channel three website. Uh, and they did that for, geez, that's probably say close to a year. And then as we know, when channel three closed, that stopped. Uh, and I'm thinking Mr. President, if there's a way to get it onto the city website, uh, the council has an area for, the city council that list all of us and our email addresses and so forth, and why can't we get a copy burned into the city website of taped council meetings? It's a great way for access to residents, and we always talk about open government, and I think that would serve well for our community. So I would offer that, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I received an email a day or two ago regarding the mayor's new parking program. And the woman asked me if the handicapped spots that are in our business districts and throughout our cities that are on also resident permit parking areas will remain the same. Will they be the same number of spots in the community? And this paper is to ask the administration, where they are the ones that signed the contract and are most familiar with the contract, what is the proposal call for regarding handicap parking and are there any changes to the number of existing spots that currently exist in our community, Mr. President?
[Michael Marks]: I don't know if my colleague misspoke, but I believe there's only gonna be 85 kiosks.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, you said 1,700.
[Michael Marks]: It's only a thousand spots.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want anyone out in the viewing audience to believe that the meters are where we're going to gain a lion's share of our revenue. If you look at the revenue calculations that were presented to us, ticketing will derive two-thirds of the revenue. So it's not the meters that are driving the revenue. It's the ticketing that's driving the revenue. And, you know, I agree with my council colleague, Councilor Penta. When we asked, when I say we, it was us and the Chamber of Commerce. and residents of this community asked for enforcement, our vision was to enforce existing signage throughout the community. That was the vision that was out there. And then eventually, if you wanted to expand the program, you know, we refer to Somerville all the time. Their program has been in existence for 30 years and has been tweaked and revised over 30 years. We're starting off with a program that they want, the administration wants to be comparable to a program that's been in existence for 30 years. So we're going from nothing to something. It's like going from zero to 50 in a matter of minutes in this community. And I think there lies the problem, Mr. President. I would ask, because I don't think a lot of people in this community are aware of the revenue calculations, that if we can get a revenue comparison, Mr. President, on right now, if you want to feed the meter, it's a dollar for an hour. It's 25 cents for every 15 minutes. If we were to lower that to 50 cents for an hour, what would the revenue projections be based on that? with a look at, as Mr. Pompeo mentioned, Stephen Pompeo from Pompeo Insurance and West Method, that we provide free parking citywide for the first 15 minutes or first half hour, how that impact the revenue. and if we can get a comparison on that. Because if we're looking at ticketing driving two-thirds of the revenue, then if we were to provide 15-minute free parking citywide, the first 15 minutes, so if you want to run in and get a sandwich, or if you want to run in and get the newspaper, or pay a bill at a store, whatever you might want to do would cover a lot of people the first 15 minutes. And in my opinion, based on the revenue calculations that I saw, that would not hamper revenue at all. And it would provide a service to everyone in this community. It would address the business owners throughout the community, Mr. President, that have concern with it. And I think it makes sense. So I would ask my council colleague if we can amend his paper or add this, that a revenue calculation be done to compare parking for 50 cents for one hour as opposed to $1 for one hour. and first 15 minutes free citywide. How does that impact the proposal, Mr. President? A cost analysis comparison, I think, would be helpful. And just my last point, Mr. President, you know, we all push for this, and, you know, we can be critical and so forth, and something needed to be done. And as I stated from the top, I'm not in support of a lot of these initiatives. But I think a telltale sign, Mr. President, A telltale sign is last week, the mayor had a State of the City speech before the Chamber of Commerce. And during his speech, he did not mention one word about parking enforcement, one of the biggest things to hit businesses in the last 50 years in this community. He did not make one mention of it. And that to me is a telltale sign of this administration And the fact that this administration, I don't even think, supports the plan, Mr. President. And what we're going to see when this plan finally gets implemented, and I agree with Councilor Dello Russo, there's not enough notification now, there should be public hearings and so forth, that when this program eventually hits, people in this community are going to be shocked. They're going to be shocked, Mr. President. And no matter what we do for the first couple of weeks and give out fake tickets and so forth, people are going to be shocked because the way of life in this community, the way of doing business in this community is going to be altered, in my opinion, negatively. And I think this should have been addressed in a different manner, Mr. President. It could have been addressed in-house, and it could have been much more thoughtful to take into consideration how this community works and the way of life in this community. And then we could have proceeded from there, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: That's a great suggestion, but unfortunately the mayor already allocated $250,000 back to the business districts, so your resolution is moot right now. You said all revenue. He already allocated money, so.
[Michael Marks]: I agree with you.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last Friday, October 17th, members of the South Method residents together, better known as SMARTO, organized a public safety walk within their neighborhood. I just would like to thank Jim Silva, who is the organizer slash founder of SMARTO. And as we all know, behind this rail and many residents of South Method, that particular group has been instrumental in getting many initiatives from public safety, to streets and sidewalks and a host of issues accomplished through togetherness and through unity. And on last Friday, Mr. President, there was roughly 30 residents that showed up for the walk. The walk was roughly a mile and a half through many streets in South Method, starting from the Yield Street parking lot and ending up at the Columbus School. and back to the South Medford Business District. The meeting was attended by Chief Sacco, who was instrumental and lent his expertise on many of the issues that were raised that night by residents that joined the walk. We were also joined by several police officers who were assigned to the night shift in the South Medford neighborhood area so residents could see who's actually patrolling the streets, meet them and say hi to them and see a familiar face, which was nice. I attended the walk along with Councilors Caraviello and Councilor Dello Russo. As I mentioned at the beginning, the issues that were raised were public safety in nature. There were issues of concern with speeding on our streets. There was issues of break-ins. There were issues of different activity drug activity, criminal activity taking place on our streets, Mr. President. The talk also went not only to public safety, but there was issues regarding DPW, the streetlights, many streetlights that were either dim or out altogether, which was brought up before this council several weeks back to improve lighting in that particular area. We witnessed a number of double poles up and down the streets. that we took and wrote notes on. There were also many, many tree stumps that still strewn throughout the sidewalks in South Method. And again, we witnessed firsthand traversing the sidewalks with curbs that are raised higher than the sidewalk or a little lower than the sidewalk, which is a trip and hazard. We witnessed streets that were in awful deplorable condition. to walk on and to drive on, Mr. President. And at that meeting, we took down a list of what you would refer to as a punch list of issues that needed to be addressed. This is not a solve-all by any means, but a way of addressing individual needs from residents that showed up and neighborhood concerns that were in to Chief Sacco. Tonight, I'd like to go through some of the punch list. residents from Salt Method here that would like to also speak. And in addition to the punch list, which I'm going to go through just briefly, and the residents can speak on it, I would like to personally propose, Mr. President, where this walk was such a success, and I think my colleagues would agree with me, and the neighbors would also agree, that we imitate this particular safety walk in other sections of the community. And I reached out to Chief Sacco already, and he said he'd be willing to do that, Mr. President. I also mentioned to Chief Sacco that it was great to have the chief there, but because the issues involved other department heads also, and I didn't want the chief to be, you know, wearing too many hats, that we also invite for these particular walkthroughs in different neighborhoods, the police chief, the DPW commissioner, code enforcement, and the Board of Health. I think that probably covers the gambit of issues that were raised. And if anyone would like to invite anyone else, the chief so far, Sacco, said he was on board. And I would like to implement these through Mr. President. And the one thing I'd like to try is that the city has the reverse 911. It's a great tool. As we all know, we receive two or three calls a week now. in notifying residents on what's going on, different things in the community. And I would ask for the administration, in cooperation with this council, to set up these particular meetings, because we can use the reverse 911 to contact neighborhoods. So if we wanted to, in a month from now, say we want to contact the Haines Square area and do a walk-through in that particular area, it would literally take a five-minute phone call that's done by the police department to send out thousands of phone calls notifying residents. I think it's probably the most effective way of reaching everyone in the community that would have an interest. And I would ask, Mr. President, that we establish neighborhood safety walks in every segment and every section of this community with the heads of the different departments. And that be done by a reverse 911 call. And if we want, we can meet with the administration to figure out a process to set this up. But in my opinion, until you walk the street, until you hear from the neighbors, I mean, we all get phone calls and emails, but it's really an eye opener. when you actually walk the street, and you see the different things, and you feel it. You know, I don't live in the Salt Method neighborhood. And you know what? When you go down there and walk the streets, it's very different. You know, I'm in my neighborhood a lot, and I traverse the city. But until you actually get into the neighborhood, I think you feel the very foundation of what that neighborhood is all about, and hear from the residents firsthand on what their plight is, and what they're going through, and their issues of concern. And I heard from several residents, which is troubling, Mr. President, that night that people are looking to move out of the community because they're disappointed with the lack of response from the city when they call on an issue, because they're disappointed that nothing seems to take place. And that's very troubling to me. And I think it's something that we as a community have to work on and different initiatives, as Councilor Longo offered, with the 3-1-1 program and other initiatives to involve the community in a direct link into the city. But if you would just indulge me, Mr. President, I'd like to just walk through the list briefly. And I was hoping that we, as a council, some of these might be initiatives that we can push forward, and other initiatives maybe the SMARTO group will have to follow up and follow through with. But the first punch list was an issue with a curb cut at the corner of Yale and Main Street. As we all know, I think we've all received phone calls from residents and so forth, and this has been an issue of contention. There's trucks that are going over the curb, which is now a curb cut, an extended curb cut, I might add, and they hang out onto the sidewalk. It poses a real public safety concern. I'm not sure, and the chief agreed, how this took place, when it took place, who approved it. There seems to be no record around of this particular curb cut. But the recommendation that I'm making tonight based on Smato's recommendation is that we close the curb cut at the corner of Yale and Main to prevent cars and trucks from parking next to the building. So that would be the first one, Mr. President. And I would hope that we as a council, can send that to the traffic commission with support of the council to close off that curb cut in regards to public safety for the neighbors of that particular area. The second one, well, the second one was the bollards, to install bollards on Main and Harvard Street. And as we all know, that's on the other end of where the Oasis Bakery is. That also has been an issue. We were there last Friday night, and when we were crossing the street, some of us had to jump out of the way because there were cars coming up onto the sidewalk or backing out trying to get off the sidewalk. And it really was a public safety concern. So the second request, and we can send this to also the Traffic Commission and the DPW, is to install bullets at the corner of Harvard and Main next to and along that corner where the Oasis Bakery is, Mr. President. Another issue is in front of the Oasis, there's a bus stop that takes up several spots. Many residents of the community thought it would be a great idea if we were able to move the bus stop. I know it's highly used. Some of the residents say, you know what, we really use this. And we said, we're not going to eliminate it. We're just going to shift it slightly. And we're going to shift it to the north corner of Harvard Street. So right now, it's in front of the Oasis restaurant. We're going to shift it to the north side, where the dry cleaner and the yoga establishment is. And that will open up the section for delivery trucks. which currently is one of the major problems in that area. There's nowhere for delivery trucks to park, so they're going up onto the sidewalks, parking. And we witnessed it firsthand, and the residents witness it on a daily basis. And it's just a matter of time, honestly, before there's a public safety concern or a death in that area, and I hope we can prevent that, Mr. President. So, my suggestion would be to move the bus stop from its current location, which would be a vote of this council, of the Oasis, which is in front of Oasis, and put it on the north side of Harvard in front of the dry cleaners and the yoga place. And in my opinion, that would lend itself to an area where trucks can park for delivery and also keep the bus stop in a reasonable manner. It's only maybe 30 feet or 40 feet from its existing stop. So I would ask that, Mr. President, The next one is to designate times for the loading zones. It's done in other communities. If we can have maybe loading zones between the hours of whatever it might be, 9 and 10 in the morning, or pick a particular time. Because now trucks are coming, as we heard from residents, they're coming at 11 o'clock at night. They're coming at 6 in the morning. And when you hear the beeps and the backup noises that go on when trucks back up, it's a disturbance to the neighborhood. So, the neighborhood would like to designate times for a loading zone in that particular section that I just referred to, which is hopefully the new truck delivery section, Mr. President. The pole five number of pole number 513 in front of Arthur's Bakery looks like it has a bird nest inside. It's completely dim. And as we all know, Arthur's Bakery is one of the central businesses on Main Street, and that light needs to be fixed immediately in the interest of public safety. So I would hope that we could send that to the head of wires, Mr. President, as a recommendation from this council to have that light fixed immediately. Also, and I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing the cafe right, Daya, which is at the corner of Alexander and Main Street, They own the first, I think it's four or five feet, like all the businesses there, of sidewalk in front of their establishment. And they have an area which is used for eating, which I think we all agree with. It's a nice addition to the area. But they built a little curbing around their eatery where you would eat on the sidewalk. And if you go there at night, it's a trip and hazard. There's no courting. off right now. It's not fenced off at all. It's just the curbing. They may be in the process of putting that there, but that definitely needs to be looked at. And as a council, maybe we can have the administration or compliance or someone send an email or a letter to this particular establishment about
[Michael Marks]: That's very important, thank you Councilor. So maybe if we can get an update for the area residents on what's gonna happen There must be a plan on file with the city, and that's good news that it's being reviewed. Also, the sidewalk in front of LaCoste's Bakery, we stopped there. It is completely crumbling and needs to be paved over in the interest of public safety. The trimming of bushes and improved lighting at Tufts Park entrance is a public safety concern. The bushes are overgrown and high and It lends itself for a difficult area to traverse. And also, when we're up at Columbus Park, the walkway at Columbus Park has period lighting, like in the square, and many of the light fixtures are tarnishing and turning yellow, and they're not letting off enough light, and it's very dark in that particular area. So, I would ask, Mr. President, we have members of SMARTO in the neighborhood, South Medford neighborhood. They'd like to come up and speak. And again, I'd like to thank all the neighbors and Jim Silva in particular for setting this up and for organizing it, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, Mr. President. Maybe if we can just go through them and take a vote by the council to refer them somewhere now. Some of them and some of them we can decide what we want to do. The curb cut closure at Yale and Maine, can we take a vote of the council to refer that to the traffic commission? The chief thought that was the appropriate place for them to review it. So if we could take a vote of the council. To the traffic commission. Send it to the traffic commission.
[Michael Marks]: So we'll want to take one at a time. Yale and Maine, the curb cut to the traffic commission, the bollards. The bullet's installed on the corner of Main and Harvard Street. Same thing, send it to the Traffic Commission. Traffic Commission.
[Michael Marks]: So those two will be sent, the curb cut and closure yield, and the bollards at the corner of Main and Harvard Street will be sent to the Traffic Commission. The merging of the bus stop, I think I agree with that. Maybe we should have a committee of the whole meeting. Transportation. At least have one meeting that's a major moving of a stop. Transportation.
[Michael Marks]: Actually, it affects the commuters more than the business owners.
[Michael Marks]: We'll take a look. We can always tweak it. We can always tweak it.
[Michael Marks]: I think we should wait. If we move the bus stop, then we can talk about the Loading Zone. Does that sound all right? Committee of the Whole discuss it. If one doesn't happen, the other one's not going to happen.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, your next item. Next one is poll number 513 in front of Arthur's Bakery. The light is dim or out. Can we refer that to the superintendent of wires? Poll number 513 on main street in front of Arthur's bakery. Uh, the fence at the corner of Alexander and the calf council Dello Russo was gracious enough to let us know that the city administration along with the businesses are working on some something in that area. And maybe if we can just get a report back, who's ever just report back to the administration. It was an OCD project. OCD. Okay. If we can get a report back from OCD, that'd be great. Thank you. Councilor. Um, the sidewalk crumbling at the cautious bakery, if we can refer that. And also the trimming of the bushes, uh, and improved lighting at Tufts park to the DPW commissioner and, um, the lighting issue at Columbus pocket. If we can refer that to the superintendent of wires, And then, Mr. President, if we could take a vote on a proposal that would be in cooperation with the mayor and this council to hold these public safety walkthroughs throughout the entire community, along with the appropriate department heads, and the use of the reverse 911 to notify residents. I think that would be worth its weight in gold if we could set something up like that.
[Michael Marks]: All right.
[Michael Marks]: So, create a proposal where the mayor works with the city council in cooperation. Who's going to create this proposal?
[Michael Marks]: Well, we could do it in cooperation with the mayor so we can do a committee of the whole, however we want to handle it. But, um, I think it would only work with the administration being on board also.
[Michael Marks]: No, no. Do you want to speak more on this item? No, no. After.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, I do.
[Michael Marks]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I appreciate Councilor Knight bringing that up on behalf of Mary, who's been very involved in that area. But because it's Mystic Ave, I think we should also notify our state delegation. There's been a lot of issues, as you know, in that particular area, the crosswalks unpainted, the lighting's poor, the median strip. You know, there's been a lot of issues. So if we can involve our state delegation in that particular area. The ironic thing is this the state DPW yard right on Mystic Ave over there. That's the ironic thing. And unfortunately we can't get things resolved next to their own yard.
[Michael Marks]: That's not all of it.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, I think Maria is here to speak about her water bill. Yeah, we're going to get to that. No, I know. No, but I think she's here to speak about her water bill. She saw the paper that was listed as unfinished business and it dealt with water and sewer. But I don't think you're here to speak on that particular paper. You were here to speak on why your bill is so high. Let's take the vote on the paper. I think you're better off taking the vote on the paper and suspending the rule so she can... I mean, you already gave your statement. Good point, councillor. But it's not regarding this paper. It's not here regarding this paper.
[Michael Marks]: Salary only. Yeah.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. If you contact Fred Pompeo in the Treasurer's Assessor's Office, he'll refer to the site section of the law.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And Marie, if I could, I know you, I remember it has to be eight years ago that you came before the council. And at the time, uh, I believe it was right around when we were changing the meters and, um, you had a giant water bill that you got. Um, and you disputed it, I believe at the time with the water and sewer commissioners. And, um, I believe they replaced your meter back then.
[Michael Marks]: I understand that. But at the beginning, you questioned why we bought new meters as a city. Yes, I did. And if I could just state to you that back some 10 years ago, roughly half the meters in the community were being estimated because they were malfunctioning. So when you estimate a meeting, it's someone at city hall saying, I believe based on what I'm looking at, that they consumed this amount of water. Now I, as a rate payer and a taxpayer, I don't want someone estimating my bill. I want actual usage. So we as a community knew that we had a problem with these meters that were 25 and 30 years old because they were the meters that were installed in our homes. Thought it was best to move forward with meters that would be accurate. So if you use X number, you pay for X number. There's no if, ands or buts about it. That's what you pay. So that's why the city had to move forward because we were estimating more than half the residents of this community that water bill. And in my opinion, that was unfair. The second point is that this council has been pushing for an outside meter. So when you water your lawn, you don't have to pay a sewer cost. Uh, when you wash your car, you don't have to pay a sewer cost. And that was implemented back a few years ago. We also, which we're going to meet under council longer current shortly, is we're going to create a new tiered system in the community. So you're going to pay not the one water and sewer rate that you currently pay now. So you pay the same water rate that Tufts University pays. You pay the same rate that the Budweiser plant pays. Not the same bill, the same rate. And what we said is it should be based on your consumption. So if you're a high end user, you should pay more because you're taxing the system, you're using the system more. You should pay a higher rate. So the mayor hired a consultant. He sat down with the Water and Sewer Commissioners. He's been meeting off and on with the council, giving us some, how the project's going to work. And we're going to meet finally on this within the next couple of weeks. But what that's going to do is it's going to allow someone to conserve. So if your issue is that your bill is too high and you're paying too much, we know your meter's probably accurate now. It's a new meter, and it's, you know, quite frankly, it's probably accurate. You'll be able to have a direct impact on lowering your bill by doing whatever you can to conserve. That has never happened, really, in the past. And your rate will be based on that. So you'll end up paying a lower rate than you currently pay. You may have a savings. And just if I could, Mr. President, because you brought up so many valid points, I agree. The $8.4 million, that's a surplus. It's excessive. Members of this council have asked to offset the rates. So whatever the rate goes up, Like this year, water is going up 9%. That's not us. That's the MWRA charging us 9% more. We wanted to offset that rate so you would not get hit that additional 9%. So we as a council recognize that with this surplus money, it should be used to offset rates. It should be used to do infrastructure improvements that could eventually lower your bill. You know, right now, the infrastructure is crumbling under the ground. You don't see it. If our sidewalks and streets are crumbling, can you imagine these pipes that are 90 years old under the ground?
[Michael Marks]: Right. And it's called I&I, inflow and infiltration. And we're still dealing with that today, because we don't have a program in place to address this. So every time it rains, we have water that's going into our outdated sewer pipes. And it's going out to Deer Island, and it's being treated as raw sewage. That's rainwater. And you're paying for it, and I'm paying for it. We're all paying for it. But this is what we need to use the surplus money to address. And in my opinion, the administration has fallen short to make these improvements. The administration is at fault.
[Michael Marks]: They may not have sewage. Right. So, I mean, I think you have to compare apples to apples when you look at something and say, well, they're paying less than we are. You know, as I stated last week, believe it or not, it costs one cent to get a gallon of fresh drinking water to your house. One cent. When you state that, people are amazed. That's what it costs. But I'm paying. That's the best buy in the world. One cent to get a gallon of fresh drinking water to your house. Can they do better low in the rate? Absolutely. I agree with everything you said. But until the administration's changed, until something happens in this community, we're going to be seeing. It's going to be Groundhog Day. We're going to revisit the issue over and over again.
[Michael Marks]: Two weeks ago, Mr. President, I asked for a complete audit of the finances that have been received to date regarding the dog park. And we have yet to receive a response on that. Should we send another question again? Or I'm not sure how long it takes. Yeah, I'm not sure what the secret is of what the finances are on the dog park. The mayor has already publicly come out and said that J.F. White gave money for mitigation for the park. There's been fundraisers held in this community where residents have donated money towards a dog park. And I don't understand why we can't have transparency when we ask a question of where is the finance and how much money is in the account, Mr. President. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It shouldn't take several weeks to get that answer. So, again, I ask respectfully, Mr. President, that requests go back out to the administration.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilor Penta for offering this resolution. He mentioned that Mr. Lasky has done yeoman's work in regards to green initiatives with the MWRA. And also, Mr. President, a little-known fact that while under the leadership of Mr. Lasky, the Water Authority has grown into an establishment that provides safe drinking water to many thousands of residents of this commonwealth. And in addition to that, Mr. President, another little-known fact is the fact that it costs — and consumers probably wouldn't realize this, but it costs roughly one cent to get a clean gallon of drinking water to your home. And that's through the hard dedication and leadership through Mr. Lasky and the whole MWRA over the years, Mr. President. And I personally want to thank Fred. I've known him for a number of years. As Councilor Penta mentioned, he's a great family man, and he really does a service to not only this community, but everyone in the Commonwealth by his leadership at the MWRA, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just want to echo the comments of the last two speakers regarding the Be the Match program. And, you know, it's not often that you could make such a donation that is not financial in nature, but it's a donation to actually possibly save someone's life. And I can't think of a better donation to make. And as was just mentioned, it's just the swabbing of the inside of your mouth. And I plan on going down. this weekend, Mr. President, and I would urge residents of this community to go down and not only enjoy the event, but also take part in the Be The Match program, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Yes. Council marks suspension of the rules to take paper 14 dash seven Oh five and 14 dash seven Oh seven.
[Michael Marks]: You're all set.
[Michael Marks]: Move approval. Move approval. Councilor Marks. Just if we could, we have, uh, the city solicitor here and we also have, uh, Mr. Buckley, uh, here, if they could just give a brief statement on the petition itself.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion? Mr. President, just if they can give us the length of time that it would take to install this easement.
[Michael Marks]: Move approval. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree. I think the fact that a certified meal is not the letter of the law, that past practice, which has happened according to the city clerk for the last 75 years, kind of goes out the window. And we should conform to whatever the current standard is, which is prepaid postage. And that's acceptable, I think, from what I'm hearing the city clerk ask is that we direct him to do away with past practice, which was certified, and to follow the letter of the law. And I think, is that correct, what you're looking for, Mr. Clerk? And that would apply to everyone, so we're not going to pick and choose.
[Michael Marks]: The papers all appear to be in order. And at this time, I'd move approval.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, again, all the papers appear to be in order. If the gentleman just could give us his hours of operation.
[Michael Marks]: Motion for approval? Hours of operation, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Where the suggestion of Councilor Knight is offered, should we ask maybe if we can get the Board of Health to give us an opinion first? Yes. Rather than setting up a subcommittee meeting and so forth. It may be helpful.
[Michael Marks]: And Karen Rose, right? Got an answer quicker from Karen.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Stearns have had some underground work done. I believe it was six months to a year ago. And part of the street I went by the other night, part of the street towards the lower end of Stearns Ave is actually sinking in where the work was done. So I would ask that clerk of the works from the city go out to that site immediately. and see what's happening. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I offer this resolution tonight due to a meeting that I attended last Wednesday that was offered by the Medford Police Department, and it was their monthly community meeting they have the first Wednesday of the month. Myself, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, and Councilor Caraviello were present at the meeting. That particular meeting was of utmost importance because they were discussing the issue of the shooting that took place in South Bedford a few weeks prior to that. And they, at the meeting, and I won't speak on behalf of the police department, let residents know that this is an ongoing and active investigation that's taking place and that they're putting all their resources into finding out exactly what happened and that a step up in patrol was going to happen also within that area. as well as some recommendations that were offered by the chief about to increase lighting in certain areas in that particular vicinity, and also the fact that additional cameras within the police department would help to help solve some crime within our community. But, Mr. President, I offer this resolution tonight because at the meeting, One of the officers spoke up and directed his comments towards members of the city council, stating that it would be helpful, because other surrounding communities do it, if they could have what I would refer to as a revolving account that's within the police department. I mean, the account, in my opinion, could be within DPW. It could be here at City Hall. But to have a revolving account that Fines, when people are caught doing graffiti, fines of whatever is issued will go directly into the revolving account and can only be used for appropriation to remove graffiti within our community. I also had the opportunity to look at some of the surrounding communities. And I noticed that the city of Somerville has a program which they handle similarly with an account. But they take it one step further on their website. They also offer, which I'm going to add to my paper tonight, Mr. President, is that graffiti knows no age, no sex, no orientation, no, you know, people vandalize for whatever reason. It was mentioned that it's done on private property. As we know, it's done on public property. As we experienced, it's done in parks. And it's done throughout the community. And the fact that someone may tag a public building, it's easy to city contacts. I know in the past, Mr. President, you work at the sheriff's office. They've been gracious enough to come out with their itty graffiti machine and clean the graffiti. But if it's done on private property, some communities have city ordinances that require homeowners to remove the graffiti within a certain amount of time. And that adds insult to injury, in my opinion. The fact that you're at home, someone tags the outside of your vinyl siding, and the next day you receive a call from the city saying You have 10 days to remove the graffiti. You may not have the means to remove it. You may need to have the graffiti remain on your house for a period of time for insurance purposes and a whole issue of items. And why I bring this up is the city of Somerville has a contract, and it's right on their website, and I have copies if anyone wants to see it. And it's removal of graffiti agreement and release of liability. And I won't read it, Mr. President. It's a page long. But it goes over the fact that if the city is willing to go onto private property and remove graffiti from the side of a home or a garage or wherever it may be, that the homeowner will hold the city free from liability, and they'll remove the graffiti at no expense to the homeowner. And I thought that's a great idea, Mr. President, to eradicate graffiti in a community. I know the city of Malden also, just recently in March, they introduced a new service that they provide to residents. And they modeled it after the city of Boston. And it's modeled after the Citizens Connect smartphone application. that the city of Boston currently uses. And Malden just started this in March. And they stated that, as an example, if a resident sees graffiti on the street, they would normally call or email the Department of Public Works. Now a resident can simply take a picture using their smartphone. With one click, the request is automatically sent to the department. Once the graffiti is removed, the resident is notified on their smartphone. that the issue has been resolved. They stated also in their press release, we are already seeing great results from the program. Since its release, we have had 576 requests to the DPW. Not all were graffiti. These are just requests to DPW. And 543 were resolved with the balance slated for spring repairs. That equates to 94% of all issues being resolved via the new application. And most were fixed within 24 hours. This is a great, great application. It's a great way to connect residents of this community to City Hall. And also, it goes on to say that they thanked, at the time, Mayor Menino and the city of Boston for their leadership on the initiative. And also, which I found quite interesting, they thanked Governor Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Murray for offering funding for the applications so communities could take advantage of this technology. So apparently there's grants or money out there that we can obtain as a community to not only have a revolving account, which is my request, but to also implement something similar to this Connect phone, smart phone. I know Somerville uses, I think it's 311, Smart 311, I believe it is. 311 to allow residents to contact the city. They get a response back immediately saying that their request was accepted, the date and time. And then, within a period of time, they're contacted by the city with updates. It's just a great way of doing business. And I would ask, Mr. President, that we not only have the administration look into setting up a revolving account exclusively for the purpose of graffiti removal in our community. We also look into this particular Citizens Connect smartphone application to allow residents the expanded means of communicating with the community. Also, Mr. President, I received a number of e-mails because of this resolution, and one resident who asked if they can appear before the council Couldn't make it tonight, but will be before the council in the near future, is applying for a mural funding from the Medford Arts Council and also from the Senator Charles E. Shannon Community Safety Initiative. And from what I understand, it's going to be very similar to the mural at the Medford Hillside. And they're looking to put a mural. I don't want to let the cat out of the bag, because this woman has done a lot of work on this. But somewhere in South Bedford, they already received approval for a mural. And this, in my opinion, will go a long way to covering up a wall that is typically, this particular wall that she's referring to, has been tagged a number of times. And it will go a long way to beautifying the area and also making it less inviting for someone to come out and use that to tag Mr. President. So I would ask that the paper be amended. to include the expansion and implementation of the Citizens Connect smartphone, Mr. President. And I look forward to the mayor's response on this.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. just read over the email that we all received, too, regarding the mayor signing the contract. And, you know, I find it ironic, Mr. President, that in the mayor's opening statement, he said the city's goal is to provide the best possible parking experience for its citizens. And you would think, Mr. President, over the last several years that this would have been a goal of the administration. There was a spotlight, I believe it was done by Channel 5 about six months ago regarding the lack of enforcement for resident permit parking in the community. It didn't exist at all. So at that point, the mayor wasn't trying to provide the best experience for citizens in our community. He also said in his statement that the objectives of this program are to deter illegal parking, to ensure timely turnover of parking spaces, to benefit and enhance the business districts, and to create a friendly environment for consumers. Mr. President, what was asked for back in 2009 was to enforce existing signage. That was the recommendation back in 2009, to enforce existing signage and be consistent which never took place in this community. So if we had consistent enforcement throughout the community, there would be no need to hire an outside company from Tennessee to outsource it to Tennessee. We all know the contract is based on performance. And that will result, not could, it will result in very aggressive ticketing in this community. it will result in aggressive ticketing in this community. So if the mayor was really intent on putting the best possible parking experience for citizens, all along, he would have provided consistent enforcement by our own in-house personnel to move these cars along. I agree with that. However, I don't agree with hiring an outside company, Mr. President. It also goes along to state that one of the benefits of this particular program, and I'll quote it, it says, the chamber also acknowledged that there are several beneficial aspects of the plan, such as the user-friendly kiosk. I've been talking to residents, I've been talking to business owners throughout the community, it's a hot topic, and I haven't heard one resident so far say, you know what, I don't mind getting out of my car in West Method, walking four or five car lengths, which may even be a little further because there's hydrants and there's bus stops and everything else within this community crosswalks, putting my plate in the kiosk, putting my time in the kiosk, putting my money in the kiosk, and going in the West Method Spa and getting a newspaper and going back to my car. I haven't heard one resident say that they feel that's a benefit, that they feel that that's a good idea. Mr. President. So, I'm not quite sold on the use of kiosk on the streets. I don't know any other community in this surrounding area that use kiosk on the streets, Mr. President. I don't believe it's user-friendly. And I believe, as was mentioned at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, that if you happen to be stopping in one of our business districts and you happen to have your kids with you, or you happen to be taking your elderly mother to a doctor's appointment, It's not user-friendly to walk several spots to put money in a kiosk, Mr. President. It was also mentioned that the mayor was willing to settle or compromise with the business community in giving free spots throughout the community. And that was very admirable of the mayor, but let's break it down for a second. This plan calls for 1,000 parking spots, roughly 1,000 parking spots. The mayor, under his new proposal that he just signed, is allotting two parking spots for 30-minute free parking in five of the business districts. So that's 10 spots. That's 1% of the total parking spots. So this great, grandioso plan that the mayor came down and decided with the business owners who were all advocating for some sort of free parking, albeit limited free parking, but some sort of free parking. Now, the mayor was gracious enough to give us 10 spots citywide. So if you happen to be in Method Square, there may be a spot down by the CVS, down by Carlene's. And there may be a spot on the east side, all the way down by City Hall. Those are your two spots for free parking. Doesn't seem like a lot to me, Mr. President. And I don't think it's what the business owners intended on. Secondly, Mr. President, this council asked several times, and recently a couple of weeks ago, to hold a public hearing. to allow residents, business owners, anyone interested to come up and address the council, address the mayor, address the administration, address this company from Tennessee, and the mayor refused to hold a public hearing. He kept on going back saying, don't forget, there was a public hearing in September 2009. Mr. Mayor, that was five years ago. Things change in five years. There are new residents in this community over the past five years. There are new business owners in this community. There are new challenges facing our residents and our business owners. And to go based on a hearing that took place five years ago, the mayor must have his head stuck in the sand. So there was no input from this council, and I speak for myself. And I'd like to know if any member of this council was able to effectively make change in the mayor's proposal. I'd like to hear it. Because every time I offered something, the mayor just poo-pooed it. Oh, that can't be done. We can't do it like that. This was the mayor's proposal from the start. No one had any input, the business owners, nor the residents of this community, Mr. President. I know the mayor, in his statement, keeps on going back, saying the business owners and the chamber are on board. What about the 56,000 residents of this community? What input do they have? They're the ones that traverse the businesses. They're the ones that go to the schools and the churches and the medical appointments in this community. Why do they have no input, Mr. President? You know, I don't know why the mayor decided to craft this program in a vacuum. He crafted it, as he stated three weeks ago, with members of his departments. That who has ultimately made the final decision. Members of his department heads made the decisions. And then once the program went out for RFP, request for proposal, and came back, the mayor was about to sign it. And he thought better of it and said, let me have the council do a committee of the whole meeting. where business owners came down, the ones that did know about it came down, and they offered many suggestions. And I talked to a business owner tonight that was at that meeting, not gonna state his name, and he wasn't aware of the mayor just signing this, but I asked him, is that acceptable, two spots? And he said, absolutely not. And he thought he was gonna have some input. And he had no input at all. So I don't know who the mayor met with, as Councilor Penta mentioned, but this was a decision made strictly by the administration. If the mayor was so concerned about providing such an experience for parkers in this community, why did he let resident permit parking go for so many years without enforcement? But he collected the fee for the permit. He didn't let that go, Mr. President. He made sure he collected the fee, but he didn't provide the enforcement. The mayor allowed people to park from Winchester and Arlington and West Bedford for years and take the commuter rail in, and take the buses in. He allowed them to park in Bedford Square and Haines Square for years, Mr. President, without enforcement. So, you know, I'm not sold on this program, Mr. President. Councilor Caraviello just mentioned the fact that retired police officers possibly doing the role in-house. I offered back some years ago, Mr. President, to look at having crossing guards who I spoke to the union president, said they would be more than happy to do that task. They already have uniforms. Many of them are already trained. And at the time, it just fell on deaf ears to take this in-house. The mayor went off, signed it, Mr. President. I wish him well on this, but I wish there were more public hearings. I wish that there was more input from the community and from business owners in this community, Mr. President. And I wish we had some time. We waited this many years. I wish we had some time to really sit behind the table like we did a few weeks ago and really iron out some of the differences. And we really didn't have that opportunity. And I think the mayor fell short of the mark on this proposal. And it's going to come back. At some point, when the aggressive enforcement starts, it's going to come back. And the mayor is going to do everything he can to hide behind the issue, like he did in this letter, stating, if you read half the letter, half it's about the council votes. What member behind this reel voted on the proposal? We voted to allow the mayor to enter into a 10-year contract because of state statute. My vote wasn't predicated on what was involved within that proposal. My vote was to allow them because all three bids came back for 10 years. So at the time, the mayor presented it to us saying, I can't negotiate at all because I don't have the authority to go and negotiate anything over three years. You have to give me the ability to negotiate. And that's what this council did. We never voted on the terms of the agreement. Not one time did we ever vote on the terms of the agreement. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. And I appreciate Mr. White being here on behalf of the chamber. You just mentioned that you've participated in the process all along. Other than the meeting we had a few weeks back, Jonathan, what other participation has the chamber had in crafting this particular proposal?
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, if he was The mayor was consulting with the past executive director. Why were so many business owners caught off guard of what actually was in the proposal? And I'm not quite sure that I buy the fact that the chamber has had so much input in this proposal because the input really didn't take place until three and a half, four weeks ago. And as you mentioned, this has been a process since 2009. This has been an ongoing process for five years. So I guess why all of a sudden in the last three weeks was it that the chamber was invited to the table to give input when supposedly there was open dialogue and input from the chamber for the last five years. I don't understand why he took such a direction. If there was that much input for the last five years from the chamber, I would have think some of the issues would have been addressed. And really, the issues that I hear from business owners weren't addressed, still really aren't addressed, but weren't really talked about until three weeks ago.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. For those that are not aware, there are many petitions circulating the community right now for support. of a dog park in this community. We were promised back in 2011 by the mayor that he was going to implement a dog park somewhere within our community. And I am asking now for a complete itemization of the money that the mayor supposedly accepted from J.F. White bridge construction, which was mitigation money. back in, I believe, 2012. And also, September 2010 was the Medford Jingle Bell Committee. They had a dog show and raised money for the dog park. Also, the Doggie Fun Run at Hormel Stadium, which was in 2013 and just recently held in 2014. 14, and also the Boston Volunteer Solutions Incorporated donated $1,766 to develop a dog park. And I would like a complete itemized list of the different groups and organizations that have donated the money, when it was donated, and how much is in that account as it currently exists, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to thank my council colleague, Councilor Knight, for those kind words. And, Mr. President, you know, I recognize, and I think many people behind this reeling, because we've all supported it, the fact that there's a need in this community, the fact that we have space in this community, The fact that money's been raised in this community, Mr. President. And I think all three combine to a reason why we need this park. And I, as one person, believe that we can no longer wait for this in our community. It was promised back three years ago. It's a great way to exercise, socialize your dog. People meet. You know, Somerville last year licensed over 7,000 dogs. in Somerville. Method licensed, I believe it was about 425, 400 dogs in this community. So I think it shows you, Mr. President, When you have a community that has support for a dog park, support for initiatives like that, that people come out, they'll license their dogs, they'll get active, and that's healthy in a community. And I think other surrounding communities that do have dog parks, Melrose, Somerville, Cambridge, Boston, Brookline, Arlington, Malden, Billerica, that have dog parks experience this, and our residents, I believe, are losing out on this experience as well as the need to exercise their dogs, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Anyone interested in passing out petitions or putting them in businesses can contact myself. or, you know, maybe do it collectively. Any Councilor, right? Right. I mean, you know, we're, we're trying to organize and like Council Knight said, it's grassroots and it's very difficult to get the list of, we did get a list of everyone that pulled the dog license. We're in the process of trying to contact people and eventually where the hopes are, Mr. President, that we're going to present all these petitions on a dog rally here at city hall. And hopefully we'll have enough interest and enough participation to show the mayor that this is something, and I think the mayor agrees, but he's working slowly on it, that there's a need out there, and the need is eminent, and there's no reason to wait.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Mr. President, I thank my Councilor colleague for bringing this up. And I think actually Councilor Knight hit the nail on the head on the fact that the ball's in our court. And if we want to have a public hearing here, if we want to have a committee of the whole meeting, if we want to have a subcommittee meeting, I personally prefer the fact that the Water and Sewer Commission has come up before the podium, as was just stated, and present to us the plan. Because honestly, I think we've all advocated for a tiered system for a number of years, and I wasn't aware that potentially they would mesh, if you live in a three-family, all three together, and then they would divide by that. I wasn't aware it would work that way. But these are the things I think that we have to listen to. And regarding where the tier falls, if it's 0 to 800, or 800 to 1600, At any point you decide on, there's going to be a cutoff. So if it was zero to 1,000, what about the people that are 1,001? So I don't think you can really go too much on that. And as was mentioned, the tier system that we push for as a council, and don't forget, the council also pushed for, and it's been implemented, a second meter outside to save on your sewer bill. That was another initiative by this council pushing I think the TAD system will eventually promote, as was mentioned, conservation in the community, but also make people mindful of the fact, because the water and sewage, you feel like you have no control over. Let's face it. You go to the restroom, you've got to flush your toilet. You've got to take a shower. You've got to drink water. You've got to wash your lawn. There's basic things that you need to do with water. And this is the first time that someone may have control over what their bill is actually going to look like. So if you wanted to conserve and fall into a different range, then you could do that. You'd make every effort to do so. And I think we'll end up. saving as Councilor Knight mentioned in the long run, people money, save money in this community. And the fact that we have, as Councilor Penta just mentioned, $8 million, I am shocked to hear $8 million. I know it was $6.5 million or right around $6 million not too long ago, but that account is growing exponentially. You know, every member of this Council has stated That count was never intended to be this pot of gold, Mr. President. It's for infrastructure improvements and to offset water and sewer rates. And God knows we need a lot of infrastructure improvements. You know, the water and sewer that's, the water that's seeping into our old drain pipes, our old sewer pipes, that's costing us millions of dollars to treat as raw sewage. As Councilor Penton mentioned, INI, the, I mean, the leak detection program, that's also costing the rate payers of this community millions of dollars. These are the things that that $8 million should be going into. We have illegal catch basins right now that are directly connected to the sewer system. So when it rains, that water goes out, and it's just groundwater, and it's treated as raw sewage, costing us millions of dollars a year. We know where these catch basins are. We have $8 million. Why aren't we doing anything to improve the infrastructure, Mr. President? This has been a bone of contention that I've spoken about for years, Mr. President, and now we have money sitting in a fund. Why don't we use it for infrastructure improvements? I know some attempts have been made, and we've made some progress in that direction. of improving inflow and infiltration and also leak detection. But at the rate we're going, we're never going to get ahead of the bell curve. We're never going to get ahead. And residents are going to be looking at their bills saying, someday this is going to be more than my tax bill. And the way we're going, this is not my statement. It's been stated 100 times before this council that someday your water and sewer bill will be more than your taxes. And people will be looking to point the blame. And all they can point to that is the fact that we've done very little as a community to improve our infrastructure. We've done very little to improve it. We do take advantage of 0% finance loans every so often and so forth. But we're never going to get ahead of the hundreds of miles of pipe that exist underneath our roads. unless we start being proactive. Every year, take up a certain hotspot. We know the hotspots are where there's a lot of leakage and so forth. We know where the hotspots are that are accepting groundwater. We know where the leaks are. We know where all the issues stand, Mr. President. However, because it's underground, you know, out of sight, out of mind, the old saying. You know, the administration tends to put that on the back burner. And they like to have that little nest egg out there so they can say, well, our bond rating is low because we have these reserves. I don't think we should be using the rate payers' reserves out there if we're not going to the intended purpose, which is infrastructure improvements and to lower the rates, just to say we can get a better bond rating. That's not the intent of that account. And the intent is definitely not to build an $8 million surplus on your hard-earned money, Mr. President, my hard-earned money, and every other taxpayer in this community that's working to make a buck. We should be holding $8 million in reserve, Mr. President. I thank my colleague, Councilor Penta, for bringing this up.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Also, in addition to the city solicitor, can we also invite the city engineer at the meeting? And did you mention Councilor Penter as the chair?
[Michael Marks]: Right. I would ask the chair then if, uh, I think you would need at least two hours in a meeting like this. Uh, cause I think sometimes in an hour you're hard pressed to get the questions and answers. And, uh, so I would ask that, uh, if my colleague would try to plan a two hour meeting on a Wednesday night.
[Michael Marks]: He's a paid consultant, so I think we're going to- Well, he came up with the rates, I'm sure, so.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. These were two separate trip-and-fall accidents on Carolina Street. One, the woman was taken to the hospital. She broke her nose. She did some damage to her jawbone. And the other woman fell down. I believe had some leg damage, Mr. President. But both sidewalks are above, actually, the curb. So when you step up onto the sidewalk, you hit the lip of the sidewalk, rather than just go onto a flat plane. And they really, in the interest of public safety, need to be done immediately, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we all know, and Jean's been very vocal over the years, Jean has been a staunch advocate of the police department. So even though her statements went in many different directions, I think where it lies with Jean is She's always been a supporter of public safety and the men and women in the police department. Also, Mr. President, while we have her here, and I know it's getting late, but Jean has attended a meeting in Washington and has done yeoman's work on all sorts of disability issues and VA issues. And I'd like to hear- Councilor Marks?
[Michael Marks]: I just would like, Mr. President, if Jane could fill us in on her endeavors with the VA and the disabilities and what she just recently did in Washington.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I just would like to thank Jean on behalf of all Method residents for her work and diligence with the DAV and all the great things that she does. That was very interesting to hear. Thank you, Jean.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, uh, you know, year after year after year, we speak about this time of the year about repainting our crosswalks, which is a major public safety issue in this community. year after year after year. Some years, it takes several months. Some years, it takes just a few months. You know, Mr. President, it would only make sense from a standpoint of public safety in our community to install thermoplastic crosswalks. Painted crosswalks last one year, if that, and then you're back again painting them immediately if you get to it. Thermoplastic crosswalks, their life expectancy is three to five years. They're highly reflective, much better than paint, so you can see them from a distance when you're driving, and you can see if someone's in the crosswalk from a distance, and they're slip resistant also. We wouldn't have to discuss these issues every single year, when are we gonna get out and paint? We gotta get our whole crew at DPW out to paint the crosswalks. Wouldn't it be more efficient, not only for public safety reasons, but more efficiency to have a crosswalk painted once every five years rather than five times? It doesn't make any sense, Mr. President. It really doesn't make any sense. Thermoplastic crosswalks are a little more expensive. But you know what, the state uses them on the highway. They use them for a reason, because studies have been done to say this is a far better way of marking intersections and crosswalks. And if we're really all interested about truly public safety concerns, we would all be pushing for thermoplastic crosswalks. And we wouldn't have to talk for another five years. But year after year after year, it gets brought up. We hope the city gets out. And then we find out there's 40 in this area that weren't done, another 40 in this area, another 40 in this area. And then we do a piecemeal. And by the time we're done with them, the snow starts to come down. That's what happens every year. I don't know what it's going to take to get a handle on it. It's no secret, Mr. President, thermoplastic has been in existence for years. Federal, state highways, they all use thermoplastic. Painting is a thing of the past. It's almost as bad as marking your streets that need to be swept with paper pamphlets. It's almost as archaic as marking your streets with paper pamphlets when you have to do street sweeping. So I don't know, Mr. President, maybe we should be putting a resolution together as a council saying, you know what, Mr. Mayor? We want to see, if it's too late this year, so be it. The budget's coming up very shortly. We're going to start discussion budget in June. We should be pushing for thermoplastic crosswalks if there's a cost. associated with you, I know there's a cost associated with it, that should be in the budget and then we won't have to discuss public safety issues year after year and we can focus our time on issues of importance. Well, safety is important, but when you have your crosswalks painted, then you can look, with thermoplastic, then you can look at other issues. You don't have to keep on refocusing your attention on the same issue year after year after year, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I just want to mention what my colleague mentioned. The pilot program is for raised crosswalks. I'm mentioning about thermoplastic crosswalk, which is very different than a raised crosswalk. Although I support both initiatives. Just want to set the record straight on that. Mr. Clerk, call the roll.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, at this weekend's memorial, uh, ceremony, I had a resident come up to me and hand me a list of, uh, 13 names of just residents in his area, uh, of people that support a dog park. And, um, if you look at the list, Mr. President's Lowell court, Rockwell Ave, Pool Street, Evans Street, Middlesex Ave, Chipman, Burnside, Lawrence, Hurlcroft, Spring Street, Central Ave. These are residents, Mr. President, name and phone number of people that support a dog park just in a small general area off of Central Ave. A small area that this gentleman went out and just got a number of signatures of people that support a dog park. You can take this list. and a hundred fold throughout the community, people are wondering where this dog park is. It was several weeks ago that I offered a resolution and Mr. Clerk, I don't know if it's been answered or not by the mayor, asking for the status of the dog park. Where is the dog park? I don't believe we got a response back from the mayor and that was voted on this council, by this council, seven weeks ago. I don't know what's happening, but if the mayor's gonna make statements that he received mitigation and what the mitigation is and so forth, then at the very least, residents should hold him accountable to what was stated. If part of the mitigation for the Bridge Fast 14 project was a dog park, then where is the dog park? Is there a location, Mr. Mayor? Who's working on this? Did you create an advisory committee? What's going on? All we want is a status. I know things don't happen overnight, but all we want is a status. So for those thousands of pet owners in this community that want a place that their dog can run free, because that's what a dog park is. When you take your dog to a local park now, they have to be leashed. They can't run free. This would be similar to the dog park that's in Somerville, the dog park that's in Cambridge, and all the surrounding communities that do have currently dog parks right now. This would allow them to exercise and run their dogs. We're not asking for anything other than what the mayor said he negotiated. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Council Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate what Carol Rosen had to say. A lot of that makes sense. However, in order to accomplish some of what Carolyn spoke about, you need to have seven independent Councilors. And that's key to the process. If people aren't going to be independent behind this reeling, then it does break down to just a political process. Does the mayor have his votes? And then he pushes his initiatives through. You know, tonight, Councilor Penta mentioned to the mayor at the very end, I don't know if anyone else heard, Councilor Penta asked, he said, Mr. Mayor, because this project now, you're asking for an additional million dollars, I'd like for you to sit down and create a priority list. Is that what you stated, Councilor Penta? And the mayor said, I'm not gonna sit down and put together a priority list. He said, we can afford to do everything. That's exactly what the mayor said. We can afford to do everything. So it's great, Carolyn, I can agree with what you're saying, the fact that we need to sit down and so forth, but if you have the mentality that we're hearing from the administration that there's no priority list, there's no list based on what we can afford to do, because according to the mayor, we can afford everything. And not only can we afford everything, we can afford to do it right now. Not that we should have done it over the last 20 years. You know, when the DPW building was condemned years ago, the police station has been a pit for years. A pit for years. The high school pool's been down for seven years. And the associated cost we heard about, the additional 1.2 million, was further deterioration. So because we didn't do, as you mentioned, Councilor Caraviello, why don't we do this seven years ago? Because we waited, it cost us an additional several hundred thousands of dollars. And as Carolyn mentioned, and I mentioned it last week. Well, that was part of it, was further deterioration. Also inflation. Now there's an inflationary index regarding construction. So if the mayor took the cost from a 2007 architectural report that was established saying the report's gonna uh, the pool is going to cost us 2.3 million. The mayor could have looked up the index. I've got someone in the building department look up the cost of construction work done in 2007 compared to construction work done in 2013. And he could have said, counsel, I know the figure has increased by three, $400,000. Now that's still not an exact figure, but I know there's an additional three or 4,000, three or $400,000 built into this. But when he came to us several months back, As I stated to the mayor tonight, one of the first questions, Mr. Mayor, you originally asked us for $2.3 million. And at the time, you knew there was accessibility issues. At the time, you knew there was inflation. You knew all this already, Mr. Mayor. Why would you come to us for $2.3 million? And he said there was no way of figuring this out until a secondary report was done. And the only thing I can think of now is, we're all on board with the DPW yet. Is that the figure that we voted on? Is that the figure that we're going to end up costing for the DPWR? Or is it going to be double or triple that? Because that seems to be the process how it works. I don't know how every other entity and every other company and business and municipality does it, but it just doesn't make sense. as someone was quoted in the paper saying. You know what, Mr. Mayor, if that wasn't a fair and accurate estimate, then why give one? Why come out? Because it was the politically correct thing to do? Come out ahead of time and say, okay, we got the pool on target now, and I'll go back and get a million dollars somewhere down the line? We heard that tonight. We were told by the administration tonight that once we do the pool, spectators, mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters, brothers, can't watch their kid swimming and meet. There's nowhere for spectators to sit down. It's such a beautiful facility once it's done. There's nowhere for spectators to sit. And we heard from the mayor, which is par for the course, we'll handle that after. We'll take care of that after. similar to the field of dreams and the accessibility issue at the field of dreams. We'll make it accessible after the fact. We all know what happened with the field of dreams. You can't continue to operate a city in this fashion. And I agree with councilor Penta, you know, we've been asking for this priority list for a long time now, several years. And finally the mayor came out with chart the course. And he gave us a list, not in any particular order, he refused to give it any order, a list of projects that need to be done. And we heard tonight the lack of maintenance seems to be the Achilles heel with this community. No maintenance, no maintenance, no upkeep, and everything deteriorates. We don't even know what the pool right now, who's gonna manage the pool? You saw the equipment in the basement. You saw those tanks that house the sand and the overflow for water, giant tanks that are six feet in circumference, 10 feet high. You think someone's going to go down there like you're changing your pool and look at the chemicals and dip a little cotton swab in there and say, oh, everything looks fine? You need constant 24-hour, seven-day-a-week maintenance and someone that knows how to handle pool maintenance specifically. And there's no mention of it at all. We heard how the pool may generate money. Oh, don't worry, the mayor said, this pool's gonna generate money. And he referred to other communities that generate money with their pool. Just the business we wanna be in. Just the business we wanna be in. Let's rent our total facilities out to generate money. And not put a nickel back into the wear and tear and the upkeep. And in five years from now, we'll be discussing this pool again. It's all it's going to take. We'll be discussing this pool again. These are the issues we have to look at. And I agree with Carolyn. I agree with members of this council and we should have the paperwork and so forth. But let me tell you, without seven independent Councilors, none of this is going to happen. It's always going to be political. And Carolyn, you're right. What happens is they pin person against person, organization against organization. None of us are opposed to having a swimming pool at the high school. I swam in the pool when I was at the high school. It's a great asset we have as a community. We're lucky to have a pool of that size and caliber within our confines. We're very fortunate. But we can't continue to operate this way. We can't continue year after year after year to look back and say, well, what are we going to accomplish right now? These have to be done long-term, long-term systematic approaches to capital improvements. You can't do everything in a year or two. This is 20 years worth of neglect, 20 years of neglect and lack of upkeep, and we want to accomplish it in one or two years. That's what we're looking to do, one or two years. It can't happen. We can't afford, we can't sustain spending of that nature. People are struggling now. And the last thing they want is their taxes to go skyrocketing. You know, we're in a rock and a hard place. We already, seven of us already took a vote on the pool. We already said we support having a pool at the high school. We even think it's a priority, and we're going to move forward. And then to come back several months later and say, you know what? There are some additional costs of $1.2 million. The total project was $2.3 million. You come back with $1.2 million. How outrageous is that? I could see $50,000, $75,000 for different costs. Another million too. And the phone calls I'm receiving is, geez, how come the council's not supporting the pool? How come you don't want the kids? My son or daughter has to get up at five in the morning to go swim somewhere else, and I have to drive them. And I sympathize with the parents, because they've been doing this for seven years. However, what I explain to the parents is, the council's on board with the pool. As I stated to the mayor tonight, I thought there were going to be people swimming in there right now. That's why we took the vote. And now we're being told it's another million, too. And then the locker room is a different issue. And he found, miraculously found funding for the locker room. So it's not going to cost us much for the locker room. I don't know, Mr. President. You know, at some point, something has to give. And the administration was up there in full force tonight. It's funny. We have the bond initiative before us to vote on the actual expenditure and not one department head shows up. Not one person from the administration. We call for a meeting on site at the pool. We couldn't get in the room. There was so many people from the administration up there. It was mobbed with people from the administration. And they were quick to come to the mayor's defense when things were mentioned. They were quick to say, oh, that's not true. There's nothing in the report, as Diane McLeod said tonight. There's nothing in the report in 2007 that talked about accessibility. And I said, there most certainly was something in the 2007 report. You should take a further look at it that mentioned, if you do the construction of the pool, it's going to trigger off accessibility issues. So be on notice that you're going to have additional cost. And the city was on notice. The city knew about these additional costs back in 2007. But we have department heads saying, there was no mention of that. We weren't looking for accessibility issues. Actually, they mentioned tonight that when the project came out, all they were looking to do was the pool and the surrounding platform around the pool. And I mentioned to the department head, why didn't we look at something else? Well, that's what we looked at. And I said, you looked at it because that was what you asked the architect to look at. You asked them to look at that specifically. That's what we're going to pay you to do. You give us the results on this. What do we need for a pool and a platform? So it was the administration that said, we're not going to look at accessibility issues in the bathroom, in the locker rooms. They're the ones that commissioned the report, not this council. So the only reason why the locker rooms weren't looked at in 2007 was because the administration, at that point, maybe didn't feel it was necessary to talk about accessibility. Or maybe felt by talking about accessibility, you're going to inflate the project, the cost of the project. And maybe you can't fly a project for 3.5, million, but you could fly a project for $2.3 million. These are the things. And that's why, when I said last week, and I still stand by it, we should have been presented with a close estimate, the closest possible estimate. No smoke and mirrors. The closest possible estimate, Mr. President, so we could vote on it as a council. If we thought it's too expensive, as Councilor Caraviello mentioned, let's go back and look at some other proposals. Maybe we don't have to do X, we'll do Y. We'll do Z and Y, whatever it may be. But we were never given that opportunity. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Question. So is this your first owner's license and method?
[Michael Marks]: But it's your first, you've never had an owner's license before in the city. Have you driven in the city before? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: He has an owner's license now, currently. And this is the addition? Two and three.
[Michael Marks]: So where does that lead us now with the number of ono?
[Michael Marks]: And where are you going to be operating out of?
[Michael Marks]: 40 Canal Street?
[Michael Marks]: And I assume you're gonna hire, you're gonna look to hire people to drive these cabs?
[Michael Marks]: Roughly how many drivers would you need to have to?
[Michael Marks]: Two drivers? Mr. President, I've, in the past several weeks, not voted for operator licenses. The owner licenses I will support, and as soon as the magic number of 50, or if we plan on reducing it, is met, then I think that issue will be resolved. However, the operator license right now I will not support. Uh, but this gentleman is not asking for an operator license. You're asking for an owner's license. And until we get a new ordinance on the, on the board, uh, and look at the application form that's in front of us. So, uh, we can tackle the issues that, uh, have been confronting this community with, uh, taxi operators operating outside of the community. Um, so I will support this here tonight, uh, for the taxi owner license.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, the purpose of this resolution tonight, uh, is to create a transportation advisory committee, uh, with volunteer citizens who shall act as a clearing house for transportation issues affecting the city of method. The committee should provide input and advisory direction to boards and commissions and city administration to assist in suggesting creative ways to deal with the myriad of traffic, pedestrian safety issues, transit service, and transportation planning issues in the city of method responsibilities. I perceive this committee to have Mr. President is to review and provide comments and recommendations on a longterm plan to improve pedestrian safety within our community. Also to review city bus ridership, bus routes every six months and make appropriate recommendations to the council review and provide recommendations on transportation policies, issues and programs, which involved the MBTA and the commuter rail. Review and advise on citywide parking management plan and traffic flow. Review and provide recommendations on a citywide bicycle plan. Establish an annual work plan to address specific issues. You know, the town of Arlington has had a Transportation Advisory Commission, which they refer to as TAC, in place for several years now. And the city of Newton has had this same advisory committee in place, manned with volunteers throughout the community. And they are not to replace current traffic commissions, boards, authority of anyone in the city. It's to act in an advisory capacity to assist in moving issues forward that deal with pedestrian safety. deal with transportation issues in the community, traffic flow. These are the issues that we hear week after week, month after month, year after year within our community. And we as a community can no longer afford to sit back and wait for accidents to happen on our street and then react. We can no longer afford to do that. We need to take back our streets. Our streets have become raceways. They're no longer a place safe for children, seniors, families to walk down our sidewalks or cross the street. We as a community have to get serious about this. And one way I believe we can do this is not to react on every street that comes before us or every issue that comes before us, but to have a board, an advisory committee, whatever you want to call it, that is there to address issues, to do research, to offer opinions, to hold meetings, to get community input, and to follow through on issues. One of the biggest concerns I have in this community is the lack of follow through. And it's not just the administration, it's this council. We need to follow through on issues. You know, we had the residents of Golden Ave that came up before us several months ago. I'm still getting emails from those residents that were concerned about heavy trucking and speeding on their street. Nothing has been done to date to improve the conditions on Golden Ave. This is symptomatic throughout the entire community. We need, Mr. President, to tap upon the many involved citizens in this community. We can no longer say that this is being handled by the traffic commission, or this is being handled by off-street parking. We need to get people that want to be involved in this community, want to offer their expertise, their life experience, and involve them in committees. Residents want to get active. They want to know how they can help out. I've already had several emails from residents of this community stating, Mike, if I can get on this committee, please mention my name. I'd be interested. Unsolicited. People want to get involved. People want to know how they can help out their community. There's no salary attached with this citizen advisory board. It won't cost the city a penny to establish this. And I'm hoping the mayor sees fit in his capacity as the chief executive officer to create a committee, not just to serve for a year and then dissolve or two years and dissolve, but to be established lifelong committee in this community. Transportation, although the forms may change and the type of transportation, there'll always be a need to oversee transportation within our community. There will always be a need. to make sure pedestrian safety is at the forefront of every issue. There will always be a need to make sure that our streets are safe, that the T's are accessible, that the current routes work, that the Green Line extension, whatever the capacity may be, It's going to be beneficial for our community. These are the things I envision this volunteer committee to work on and make recommendations and they will have a yearly agenda. This won't be behind closed doors. This won't be operated in a vacuum. These will be meetings held by committee posted by the city clerk and attended by residents of this community. You know, I talked to one of the town administrators over in Arlington and they said, honestly, they don't know where they would be without this advisory committee. That's how involved, how influential and how active this committee is in pushing issues forward and doing the research and offering the framework that needs to be done in order to get the plans. You know, these are the issues that need to be looked at, and we can't afford to address them one at a time. What street comes up that doesn't have resident permit parking? The unfortunate accident on Winthrop Street where a student was hit, and now we have painted crosswalks and signage. No, we can't afford to operate a city no longer like this, Mr. President. I know there's a resident that came up, there was several residents that emailed me that said they couldn't make it tonight, but we're in full support. I believe they sent the entire council the email also. They're in full support of this and I'm hoping, Mr. President, that the mayor sees fit, that it's time that we move this community forward. We start addressing the transportation issues. You know, we're five minutes from Boston. We have all sorts of commuter rail access, T access into town and it's about time that we take this issue by the horns. And it's about time we take our streets back. And I don't want to hear from families that they're afraid to send their kids out because of the speeding on their street, or they're afraid to send them to the square because of the traffic and the cars and the lack of enforcement. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: And I respect the gentleman at the podium, as he said, stated, I've known him for a lot of years. Um, I think he's missing the resolution. And if I could just state, no, you're hiding the resolution, Mike. I met Councilor Marks. He's got a point of information. The resolution is printed on our agenda. So nothing is hidden here. The intent of the resolution, Dr. Wood is to establish an advisory committee in nature to assist the city, and I know you're trying to make this a Green Line issue. No, I'm not. That's all you've stated is Green Line. Well, you want me to go further? This is not a Green Line issue, Bill. This is an issue relative to having citizens of this community take an active role and taking back our streets. If you heard the issues that I hear on a daily basis regarding people that are afraid to cross our streets, regarding transportation issues, regarding speeding on our streets, regarding the lack of signage, the lack of crosswalks, and the list goes on and on, Dr. Wood, then you would realize that there is a need to supplement what's currently taking place, as Councilor Del Russo alluded to. What's currently taking place right now is this community reacts to everything. Rather than having a committee, in my opinion, there would be advisory in nature, and it would be appointed, and that's why this wasn't crafted to create a committee. There's no language here that says how many members, who will appoint, or so forth. We're asking the mayor in his capacity as the chief executive officer to look into this and establish a transportation advisory committee. We're not asking him to turn this into a political ball. We're not asking him to sway this to put people that are in favor of the green line on this committee and, and, and, and make everyone else not part of this committee. So I don't think there's any, um, you know, as you state that, uh, you know, there's no malice behind this. There's no intent to exclude people. Anyone would be welcome to serve in a citizen advisory committee. I appreciate your input, but I just don't want people to believe this is Green Line or against Green Line. This has nothing to do other than with improving transportation within our community.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. From what I understand, Councilor Penter is looking to establish a joint meeting with the school committee, which would include the superintendent of schools, and I would assume the head of curriculum and headmasters and so forth. And then we can probably get some answers on what the curriculum is, what's being taught, and so forth. So I would support having a joint meeting. We actually have one of the newly elected school committee members in the audience, Aaron DiBenedetto, who I don't expect to get up to the podium, but is showing an interest by coming to our meeting tonight on this particular issue. And I believe that it would be worthwhile. None of us are gonna sit down and read 40 chapters. I can speak for myself. I'm not gonna sit down and read 40 chapters. So if I say let's postpone this until I'm done reading the 40 chapters and viewing the 60 minute video, it's never gonna happen. But I'd be more than happy, and I'm interested enough in this particular issue, to sit down with the school committee, listen what administrators have to say, listen what Mr. Belson has to say, the head of curriculum at the public schools, and then make an informed decision on which way. But I think to say we don't have enough information, you're correct in one aspect, but the other aspect, when are we gonna have enough? When are we all gonna get together and say, you know what, we have enough information, let's move forward on this issue. I only think a joint meeting would help us have a better understanding on what's being taught in the public schools. Maybe listening to parents that have concerns, as Councilor Penta mentioned. about what's being taught and so forth. And that's, speak on fact, not what we believe or what might be. But, you know, so I'm in favor of a joint meeting. We asked several months for a joint meeting regarding the high school pool. Has that ever happened? So, you know, there's a lot of things that we asked, you know, to get together with the school committee. And this, I think, is a worthy issue to discuss. And so I would support having a joint meeting with the administration and the school committee. Thank you.