[Robert Penta]: Well, the first thing that I've seen over the past four years, especially with this particular council, is how they treat the people when they come to the podium. And it's not very nice at times. and I've been a product of what they've done. They're not courteous. They're not willing to listen. They have an agenda sometimes, many times, has nothing to do with the city of Medford, and when you try to correct them on that, they don't want to listen to you. Also, the fact that they cut down the speaking times at the podium, another act that just doesn't speak well for good government, because good government as an elected official, you're supposed to just sit there, listen to what people have to say, and then get involved in your conversation. And that's, can I just detour one thing real quick, because it has something to do with this. It has everything to do with what we just went through now, to get onto your program, John. Because when I was in the city council, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a class aid studio up in Method High School, okay? And to unfortunately have to do this late at night, not use that studio, that's there for the people for public access. That's what it was there for. And the city administration uncomfortably has made this very hard for people like you, who does a wonderful job in bringing both sides in, not to be up there. I'm just upset, to be honest with you. That's why we're not at the studio, okay?
[Robert Penta]: As an addition to that, John, hopefully, if a majority of these new independent candidates get elected, one of the The first few things that they do is they bring back the weekly meetings, number one. And number two, they bring back the five-minute rule to let people speak. And if it means speaking more than once, so be it. Listen, some of the issues that are going on right now in this city demands an awful lot of the people's input, because that, unfortunately, is what's causing this election to go forward. They're not being heard. And you have this group of people that are on the council right now that only think one way. They will not open up their brain to listen to an opposing opinion.
[Robert Penta]: I do. The fact of the matter is this whole issue had its initial beginning a couple of years ago on the Salem Street area. A lady by the name of Shoah Rodriguez, a great warrior for the neighborhood, was out there and they came to they eventually came to an agreement between the neighbors and as to what was being proposed in the city and the city council this city council wanted to go against it and they did and that suddenly it was a pushback okay but what they're proposing they were proposing to put you into a 4,000 square foot lot and they're allowing you, if this goes through anywhere, some one to three additional units. They're also taking the 75-year-old homes that are in a particular district, and you'll be able to put two to three more in-house people in those 75-year-old homes. The setbacks from the street in the back, they're changing all of those. Wrapping up what Michael is saying, If even if a developer were to come in and this was going to take place, doesn't people realize that developers buying the property, so he's going to be paying a lot of money, then he's going to have to pay to develop the piece of property. So if you think you're going to sell that to a low or moderate income person, no, because he's going to want to get his money back. That's for sure. And then add on to that, if it has an effect on the school system, for which it will, all these people coming in. Somebody's going to have kids. And right now the school system is at max of these elementary schools. What are we doing? So the planning here is absolutely ridiculous, okay? And once the mayor got a hold of it, I believe it was in August of this year, she sent a letter to the council and to the planning board to let's just push back She didn't realize, I believe she said she didn't realize that the pushback was so strong on the neighbors. And as a result of that, you know, it hasn't gone anywhere. But the sad part is this, John, this is the sad part. You've got seven independent candidates that are running and hopefully they get in there, at least the majority. Because if they don't get in there, the unfortunate part is if four out of the seven get in there of the present city council, which are OR revolutionary, they're just going to go forward with this change in zoning. And this is going to really send the city into a tailspin. You won't recognize Medford after this.
[Robert Penta]: John, one step further to that. One step further to that. If this were to go through, you could get a hodgepodge on the same street. One side of the street will be zoned one way. It depends on how the development is going to take place. This doesn't belong in Method right now. They've got 1,000 new units coming on board. And if the city was so concerned about affordable and low-income housing, they should be going out there and look at pieces of property. A classic piece for them to take would be the carbons on Salem Street, because they're getting that from nothing from the MBTA. And make sure that the MBTA cleans the land first, OK? Yeah, you know, we could go on and on. Like Michael says, we could go on. There are so many nuances, so many nuances to this here. You know, like I said, right now you're allowed to put an additional 900 square feet unit on your house. But if you can go, the state allows you, you can go back to the city, get a special permit from the city and you could put two on on your present existing. So this is you've got to read what they're proposing. It's crazy. It's absolutely.
[Robert Penta]: Not for anything. This is where Michael and I part ways because, you know, seriously, because I know a lot of work went into this, okay? And having served for many years in this council, I was never even asked for my opinion by the group of people. That's number one. Number two, Michael's for what councils? I'm not for what councils. I don't see any need to increase the annual budget by a minimum of $120,000 to add four more councils on there. And then at the same time, make the financial corrections in the council chamber to put the people in there.
[Robert Penta]: Well, let's put it this way. Whether it's $30,000 or $17,000, you're still going to be increasing the budget of the council. That's number one. Number two, They have a thing here on page eight of this new document, which is 54 pages long, that the city Councilors can submit expenses and their costs for being a Councilor during the course of the year. So let me remind everybody, including you, Michael, we were on the council. The IRS came in and said you could not do that. So whatever you were going to be getting for your expenses would have to just go into your salary and that's how it was corrected. But this is included in this particular budget, excuse me, in this particular piece of legislation. The mayor is serving for 16 years, but there's no term limits for the city council or the school committee. And that's not right either. The idea that the school committee would have two wards put together, why they couldn't agree to come to 11, I don't know, but two wards put together because in one of the two wards, there'll be a school. So at least there'll be a school for every two wards. That doesn't make any sense. What happens if another ward and the future years decide they want to have a school? Are they going to need a school because of the increase in the population? They should have just left the school committee alone seven members at large, and then they decided to take the mayor off the school committee as to being the chairperson, because now she is nothing more than a member. So think of this logically. If she sits on that school committee as a member, but he or she in the future is also a mayor, That's the money person in the city. Do you think you're going to put a non-money person that's going to sit in the chair that's going to be arguing with the man who's going to be sitting on the floor? I don't think so. Plus the fact, John, this has always been my belief. When I ran for office, I knew what my duty was. I had to go out there and campaign. And I lost 36 pounds my very first time out there, ringing the doorbells and having people meet me, passing out my literature and going forward. I'm a firm believer, if you really want something that bad, then go for it. Because that's how the city of Medford has gone on for so many years, since 1939. They've had seven councils at large. So by just increasing them, the next argument would be, let's just say I'm coming from Ward 8. and watch two, three, and four don't like me, okay? For whatever the reason is, they don't like me, my style, whatever I'm proposing, I'm not gonna get anywhere with them. But if I was at large, it affects the entire community. And you could see that through the years. And I'll tell you another thing. The camaraderie that existed with seven Councilors in the past, even when Michael was there, at least we got along. We have differences of opinion. This is just going to open up a ball of wax that somebody in Ward 8 needs something that's more important, and they're going to consider it more important than another ward in this and that. And then you're going to get into this political hangover. It's just, I don't know. But no term limits for Councilors, no term limits for school committee, but the mayor gets 14 years. I don't know where that comes from or where the logic to that came from.
[Robert Penta]: And you just gotta balance it out, but it is a living- But one important thing, this is a document that got passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, okay? I've got it right here, 50 some odd pages. The taxpayers of this community should have gotten a copy of this document, be made available to them so they can read it.
[Robert Penta]: They're not in the city clerk's office and they think you're talking Chinese to them. Can we get a copy of it? The registrar voters should have a copy for anyone that would want it. Not everybody has a computer to go on and read it. If it's such a good document and if the city thought it was such a, what would it be to spend a few thousand dollars and mail it out to every registered voter?
[Robert Penta]: That's why he's on the other side of you right now.
[Robert Penta]: What's the answer? First of all, John, last year, when that override for $456 a year and keep going forward, the only way that's ever gonna come off is the council is gonna have to vote it out or put it on the ballot. Plus the fact, plus the fact, that 456 has got nothing to do with the tax rate that's going to be set. So that's going to be 456 over and beyond. But the fact of the matter is, you keep talking about, you'll tell me why there is a need for a new high school, because number one, if the school had been maintained like it should have been, you know, we went through this with all the elementary schools after so many years, You know, they didn't take care of the schools and they're in almost the same condition right now. But that's not the point. They put a new science lab in there. They did a new section over there where the pool is and stuff like that. The infrastructure of our city is in desperate need of help. The high school is not falling apart. You have to have a sense of priority of where you're going to go in the city and how you're going to spend your money. OK. So therefore, I would hope that this new council, when they come in, they look at that override and just saying, hey, when that override was passed on, it was $28 million in city monies and free cash sitting there. And the override was only for $7.5 million worth of what was needed at the time. So they could have deducted that from the $28 million, but they didn't do it. And the unfortunate part is the at present city council doesn't think like this. Okay. They have more on these national issues and more on these social issues and whatever it might be. They don't know how to think about Medford and where it's going and how to spend the dollars. And that's the problem. And that's why you're seeing, you're seeing seven new Councilors running this year, you know, to get back and take a grip back of our city. And we've got to do it because you just go up to keep, who do you think is going to keep paying for all these things? It's the taxpayer, right? There's no doubt about that. And that's just it. Common sense, right? Common sense when you're going to spend the taxpayer's dollars.
[Robert Penta]: I want to jump in there because he brings up a good point, Councilor Marks. The fact of the matter is every year the state auditor was supposed to have an audit of the expenditures of the new schools going forward until they were paid off, okay? And while that was supposed to be five percent of the budget of each school, five percent of the budget of each school, it never took place. And because it never took place, those schools just fell into disrepair. You could go into the Brooks School and you'll find, you know, I don't want to name any schools. I mentioned that.
[Robert Penta]: I hear you. But the fact of the matter is this, John, OK? It's your elected people. And if they were doing their job, they would have realized that that money should have gone in there. There should be no reason to be spending hundreds and millions of dollars to refurbish new schools. It doesn't make any sense.
[Robert Penta]: So before you get to that, Drive down the streets, look at your potholes, look at your sidewalks. And if you want to talk about something crazy, talk about the crazy bump outs all over the city, OK? You tell me what that's going to serve.
[Robert Penta]: Some of it has no rhyme or reason. There again, you say a lot of things need to be done. You can go back to maybe a year and a half ago. This all starts in West Method, coming from Winchester, not being able to take a right down Plaisted Road. They put those stupid cones there. And as of last, a few months ago, what did they do? By Osborne Road, they shut the street off. For what reason? okay? And then you have Councilor Lazzaro, Emily Lazzaro, trying to take credit, trying to trade credit for the Salem Street Rotary. If you look at that, the first snowstorm, that traffic is going to be backed up into 93. It doesn't make any sense. You go on Main Street by Stanley Road or Stanley Street, they're all over the place. Compare that to a legitimate street that needs to be, Riverside Ave, where Councilor Marks lives, that really needs to be rehabilitated. High Street, going from the Winter Street Rotary up there, you wonder what the hell is going on. Who's running the city? And you know another stupid thing, John? If you drive on Mystic Ave, okay, next to the Great Beer Garden, you go a little bit further down, they have a bike lane in the middle of a highway, okay? It doesn't make any sense. Whoever's running these things, department heads, you could go to, we won't get into it, but go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: I appreciate that. And where were the Councilors? Not one Councilor speaking up, at least no matter how. That's why you need a new direction. The direction should be Medford. Let's do a Medford direction.
[Robert Penta]: Right. If you want to just jump in real quick, when he talks about the Greek school, there's an island down there. If you go down High Street on the island, And then the wintertime, that sign that's in the middle gets knocked down two or three times by cars and trucks because they put the island in there, but they don't paint the cement, the borders in orange. They just leave it. I mean, you can just drive into it. Simple little things like safety, you know, I mean, paint, what's a little orange paint, a yellow iridescent paint, something, you know, it's just... One driver, one bike, people riding bikes too, it's the same. You know, you talk about riding bikes. If the police department really wanted to make some money, they could do it with these bikes. These bikes should be registered and insured. These guys driving down the street and girls going to red lights, cutting people off and then giving you the finger after they do it, please, please.
[Robert Penta]: John, this all reflects back on the council that is there right now, back to the days when Michael was there and I was serving. I mean, you would get a few things done in this. You cannot, the last four years, you could not go before this council, express your opinion, especially if it was contrary to theirs. And when they cut everybody from five minutes down to three, Yeah, that's it.
[Robert Penta]: You also have your first responders in there, you know, and yeah, they do the first respond, they do just not a lot because he basically hit it. Firstly, me if I were back in City Hall, my concern would be the contracts. There's no reason to have contracts go over and beyond their due dates of when they should be renewed by. You negotiate a contract for four years, whatever it is, once it's done, you should just go right into it, not wait until maybe six months before. And then when you go to these contracts and you go to these meetings and you hear both the fire and the police say, someone doesn't show up and that just pushes it back and pushes it back and for whatever it might be. I think there needs to be a new direction that's looked at personally with the council and the fire and the police and anything that does with public safety. Because that's the mainstay. If you don't have a safe city, what do you have? You have nothing. You can say anything you want. DPW, do they have enough people? Who knows? It seems like they have enough equipment. But if you look at the issues, the guys who turn around and say that they're being told to go here, there, and everywhere. You know something, John, I'm just going to go back. Sometimes I repeat myself and I apologize, but I don't apologize because I don't like to repeat myself. I don't like to say the same thing over and over. And if this administration, and I don't know how they're running it, would take more of an active position with the council and start to share what the needs are and what the concerns are and what the finances might be or has to be or what it should be. And yes, that's one of the things they do address in the new charter. That's OK. I'm glad they put it in there. It's not going to get corrected unless there's a meeting of the minds. Why should we, sometimes when you are there, have somebody come in and they start talking about, you know, their concerns for the city, you know, and they'll turn around and say, well, we don't want to say anything in this and that. But it bothers them, you know, and that's just it. It's the whole idea of having communication and common sense. If we can afford it, we can afford it. The best example, am I going to spend almost $300 million for high school? Or am I going to look at these streets and these sidewalks and the public safety that's really needed? And the concern of the public safety of the elementary schools that are there right now. It's a shame that they're spending millions of dollars. Rick Caraviello, when he first ran, I'll never forget in his first term, And he made the comment that the schools, and that's when he got elected some 12 years ago, the schools were at a million dollar a year repair rate. And now it's even more than that. That absolutely should have never, never happened in a million years. That's management. That's poor management.
[Robert Penta]: Do you know something, John? You say there's a lot of good in the city and there is. There's much more good. There are many more good people than there are But the unfortunate part is when you serve in politics, what you basically see most of the time is what needs to be corrected. It would be great to go to a council meeting and just every, oh, wasn't this great? Mary's kid got a scholarship. It would be great to do that, but it's not happening. And that would be abdicating your responsibility because you're supposed to be looking out for the city as a whole, okay? And I don't care whether you're a ward council or a council at large, no matter what you vote for, it's going to affect the city as a whole. And that's how I looked at it. That's how I looked at it, and I still look at it that way.
[Robert Penta]: John, you know what y'all like? Y'all like Medford's Joe Rogan, okay? You are his podcast, okay? Because that you are, your group of folks are the only ones that have done anything, okay? You know, listen, you know, Michael forgot one thing. He mentioned the six people you know, the six people, the names there that are running. They seem to forget that the people that they're running against have thousands of dollars. They have thousands of dollars coming in from all over the place. That's why the people of Medford, if you're really serious about wanting to save your city and elect people that are independent, okay, you've got to get out and vote and vote for these seven people, you know. The shame to the whole thing is These folks, they don't own businesses. They have no idea what it means to pay a more, I mean, not a more, I mean, to pay the rent, to pay taxes, to pay insurance. It just doesn't make any sense. But I'm going to go back to what I originally said. It's this. When somebody comes to the podium and they're mistreated rudely, OK? And as Michael earlier said, sometimes they're even condescended. And I, being a former member of this board for many, many years, And at times, not only were they disrespected, wasn't even allowed to speak, okay? That's what's wrong. That's what's wrong. That's why they should all go.
[Robert Penta]: And John, the bigger part of that, the bigger part of that disgrace, what Michael was talking about, how they made a last minute deal that nobody even knows what the deal was, which changed the vote. Right.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you're not even in the studio. Where are you?
[Robert Penta]: There's still things we have to do, so... I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I'm a firm believer in that studio issue. We spent many hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars for that studio not to be open at nighttime and do things like this. That's what it's all about. Right. Yeah, it's not a nine-to-five job.
[Robert Penta]: Well, let me ask you, the next time I come on, will I get a blue background?
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. Having served on this board some years ago, the city of Medford and Tufts University engaged in the pilot, a million dollar pilot program. And the pilot program consisted of six students from Medford, six students from Somerville, who'd be able to go to Tufts University for nothing. The million dollar cash part of the program consisted of three years of getting cash up front with the remaining portions of the money to be used for I think there could have been fire or police equipment here in the city of Medford. Now that hasn't been followed through since, for what reason, I don't know. But the idea of taxing up to 25% relative to the nonprofit, whether it's Tufts University or someone else, I guess you haven't hit the dollar mark yet of where you're gonna go. But speaking with leaders up at the State House, the one thing that the City of Medford hasn't done, as other cities and towns done, you have not moved to provide an amendment to the CPA tax, which would include affordable housing. And as a result of that, and knowing that the Commonwealth now does not give back to the City of Medford from their surplus to the CPA, it's all going to be on cities and towns, excuse me, individually. So I think the city of mid that has an opening over and beyond your 25% also to amend the CPA to now include affordable housing. You know, you give it to churches, you've given it to schools into swimming pools and open space and land. This is a great opportunity right now for you as a council, first term especially, to move forward on your reps and on your senators to make this amendment. You're not getting rid of the CPA, you're amending it. And by amending it to put this inclusion in there, this will be your first step along with your 25% for the purpose of going forward to get your affordable housing. The other part of affordable housing is very simple. What has the city of Medford, can you folks, any one of you here, give an accounting of how much money has been used for affordable housing, where has the location's been, where is the land, and where has the working relationship taken place between a private contractor coming in with the city of Medford to provide affordable housing along with regular housing. I don't think you have a big inventory on that. And I think if you keep talking about affordable housing, you keep talking about the transfer tax, you keep talking about the registry, I think you should start there. Because if there's nothing on the books right now, I think you need to get your feet wet in that particular area, get your base set up before you go into this next move. 25% sounds good. I think you need an inventory of all the property in the city method that's tax exempt. And I'm quite sure you'll find There are other pieces only on Tufts University where you can get that 25% from. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: But a few years ago up in Beacon Hill, before the 25% came into play, there was a percentage ratio that went, like I believe Tufts University at the time had a $30 million endowment. And there was a dollar amount that was set on the endowment that the school had. as to what percentage it would go. Now, Tufts doesn't have a large endowment. It's not like Harvard University that's into the billions of dollars. But there was a dollar amount, you may want to check this out once again, do your homework, go to Beacon Hill and find out what that legislation was. Unfortunately, it didn't pass because as you said before, Academy of colleges and universities. But still, it's a stepping stone to go forward. You know, and these are all pilot programs that you can look into, just because somebody is multi rich, like having I mean, Tufts University, you might find other locations where, you know, Listen, if you treat one one way, you got to treat them all the same way. And it might be better to have a universal thing rather than go to the 25% and just go for the biggest one. Because if you can work on all of them, maybe in the long run, you'll be able to get more in the long run than just grappling at the first one.
[Robert Penta]: But what you don't have right now in your inventory, you might have that, which I can vote, but you don't have the physical ground locations with new and additional affordable housing can go in and working toward that with getting this money, whether it's again, the 25% of the affordable housing of the CPA money, whatever it might be. Understood. Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, can I speak on that first? No.
[Robert Penta]: Did you withdraw it?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Chairman.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Pinto, Zero Summit Road in Medford, Mass. Regarding the public letter that was written on April 16th regarding House Bill, I believe it's 3128, the Affordable Home Act. In that particular bill, There were transfers fees also that could be beneficial to a community that were discussed. And there was seven inclusions as it related what you could and could not do, which also had an opt-in and an opt-out proviso in that bill. But I'd like to, to you, Mr. Chairman, I want to get to your letter of April 28, where you sent out a notice saying, correcting the record on Medved's plans to address the housing crisis. And two particular paragraphs were sort of like, watch me. The first, the first one states the following. The City Council and the City Planning staff are working on zoning rebuild reforms to allow more housing to be built, reduce permitting and regulatory burdens for private property owners, encouraging major economic development, and require construction of more subsidize affordable housing units. We are also working on policies to benefit good landlords like the Good Landlord Tax Credit. And the second paragraph reads, the final piece of that comprehensive approach is anti-disbursement policies targeted at the large corporations who are buying properties, jacking up rents, and earning a huge profit by knocking out long-time residents and making unnaturally affordable units too expensive for the average person. I understand what you wrote, but I don't understand who these large corporations that are coming in here into the city of Medford and they're dispersing people. I see houses that are bought by individuals who had an opportunity to buy a single family or two family house as an individual, but not as a corporation. And you sent this out apparently because you wanted to allegedly, you know, correct something that was sent out. But if I were to see this as I did see it, I'm confused right now because I don't know of any major large corporations that have come in to the city of Medford and bought single or two family homes. either tore them down, rebuilt them, and sold them for large profit. I know individual people have done it. But when you say large corporations, it makes it look like this city is now being overrun by large corporations. And if you're going to address that through your zoning and your community development, The wording is very important. And this type of wording makes it look like corporate America has just taken over the city of Medford, making it unaffordable for people to live here. And that's not fair. You also have the opportunity of a business person or a business lady who may be able to come in here, can afford to buy a single or two or a three family house, do it over, and if they can make a profit, so be it. If the city really wants to get into affordable housing and low and moderate income housing, They've had the last eight years to talk about this and do something. And if they're not going to do it, then maybe it should be on the burden of the city council. And maybe you just you guys and girls, you just voted tonight on a CPA to give more money out, maybe to a place in the Brooks Estates. But put that aside. If you're really concerned and really serious about affordable housing, you should start putting all your pennies together on all your nickels and all your dimes and all your resources where the money can come in. and really have a second look. You know, when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I think it's could be almost 12-13 years ago, came out with the CPA tax, we were supposed to, like other cities and towns, get a percentage of what the profit was on the state's annual profit. We haven't gotten anything. So you're really putting the burden right back on the Medford taxpayer, or the Medford city government to go forward and look for that type of development, look for that type of money. Well, here's your chance. Before you get into the, you know, Worcester just got through passing, I don't know if you folks realize it, they just got through passing on April 29th, March 9th of this year. The registry as it relates to single and two family and three family homes. They had that, they voted on that in September of 2022. And it took them two years before they implemented it. They are now meeting in their next main meeting to make revisions to it because of the pushback, because there's a lot of stringent material into that registry. But the best part about the whole thing, as the city manager said, he's willing to make changes and tone it down. Can you imagine having, if you don't go and register, you're gonna get a $300 fine, and every single day you don't register, it's a $300 fine? That's kind of excessive, really excessive. I mean, you don't wanna go to these extremes. And what you do wanna, if you really believe in what you're talking about, you wanna have a full-blown discussions with the pros and the cons, and how this thing can or cannot work, and how does it fit into the city of Medford's lifestyle. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not see large corporations coming into our city in Medford, street after street, buying and taking over real estate, turning it over and making a huge profit. If a single person, be it yourself or any member of the council, has the ability to do it, good luck to you. That's what America is all about. If you're trying to reduce the rents, you're trying to reduce the cost of living, trying to reduce everything else, then speak to your state legislature, speak to your federal authorities. They're the ones that should be looking out for you, just as well as your local authorities.
[Robert Penta]: You're welcome.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, former member of this August body, and I'm really getting confused. It's been almost eight years since I've been back before this council, and I've been here three times since December. And I feel like there's something wrong with this council. You're going in a direction that doesn't speak about the Medford City Council taking care of Medford City issues, streets, sidewalks, okay? Also, my concern with this is, is the City of Medford City Council going to go into a public service agency? by going into housing and being property reviewers, and you talk about a registry that a homeowner has to go and apply, well, I'm quite sure you're gonna charge them a fee. And it's another money grab for the city of Medford, unfoundly, and it's wrong. And in the very last line of your document here, Councilor Lazzaro, I mean, excuse me, Councilor Callahan, I apologize. you indicate that this is going to be good for our climate and our affordable housing goals. Well, let me ask you something, as you folks going to manage this, you know, you have a program here that you want to create a review between now and when I don't see any name here as it relates to a real estate group of people that should be involved. Because if anybody knows the whereabouts of the city, and the renters, it would be the real estate people because they're the ones that are renting out. not renting in. So what purpose would the city council have to try to tell a real estate agent or its company that this is who you have to rent to? These are the type of people and then what are we going to do stop making a registry of who you are renting to and be discriminatory. In fact, in the future, toward a certain class or an ethnic group of people.
[Robert Penta]: city of Medford last year, and once again, this year put out in their documents, a it's called a notice of tenant rights and resources. And if you look into the tenants rights and resources, it also makes reference to what the state law allows you. Now, if there's something wrong with a tenant or renter, they have many places to go, they can go to MCAD in Boston, they can go to state real estate board, you can go to your right downstairs here. And you can also go to the public health department. Right now they have five available ways for renter feels that they're being in frowned upon. But every good real estate broker knows whether it's in the city of Medford or any other place, that the fact of the matter is they're going to try to get the best person that they can, who can afford to pay the rent, and it's not going to be subject to a background check to their ethnic background. Because that unfortunately, is where this is going to go. Because once you get somebody in there, they're going to want to know where did you come from? Let me see your references. And where were you renting last? That's not what this council's job is all about. What an answer!
[Robert Penta]: Pardon me?
[Robert Penta]: You don't know you haven't gotten there yet. You just you just have you just I'm not gonna I'm not gonna sit here and say that we're going to hear you have discrimination as the chair as the chair.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't say you were you said you're going to put a registry.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, what's the registry going to include? Ask the maker of the motion. You cannot come here with resolutions and not be able to answer the questions for what you're looking for. Then you don't belong here. Go someplace else. Okay.
[Robert Penta]: I'm just frustrated. And probably taking it out on all of you. But I am taking it out on you for a particular purpose. I'm going to repeat myself. I have a bad habit of repeating myself. Please just do what you were elected to do. Well, you guys went out there and campaigned and rang on the doorbells and asked people to vote for you. Did you tell him you wanted to put a registry for housing in there? No. No.
[Robert Penta]: Let me just conclude by saying the following.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you know something, just relax. You had a little do to do with their Councilor Scarpelli. You took my time up. I'm gonna ask Mrs. Callahan, I'm gonna ask Mrs. Callahan to withdraw the motion. and think this thing through, if you really think it's worth something, come back at another day with definitive answers. So you don't have an audience that's screaming and yelling that they don't want it. Maybe there is something that can work its way out. Maybe if you work with the real estate brokers in this city, it can make some kind of sense. And the two person homeowner doesn't have to pay a fee to get himself registered or her registered. And at the same time, there's going to be none of this background check that revolves itself around where I am, who I am, what my ethnic background is, what my financial status might be- Thank you, Mr. Penta, your time is up. No, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute, I'm not through yet.
[Robert Penta]: You took time away from me to talk to Councilor Scott.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penta zero summit road former member of the August body. Number one local government is what it's all about. So we're not talking about state government here. We're not talking about federal government and I don't really care what was on that shot about other cities and towns. We're talking about our city of Medford. And for 12 consecutive years, his name was Council President Bob Miyako, it was emphasized every single night during those 12 years of city council meetings, that this was the people's forum. This is the only place that they could go for redress, whether they went to a department, the mayor, what have you, they were dissatisfied. And there were nights we stayed here till 12 and one o'clock in the morning. And that didn't bother me because that's what the job was all about. First and second of all, if you have a meeting as you've had over the past, since December now coming forward, when you have lines of people waiting to speak, let them speak first. The people at home, they're sitting in their chairs, they're sitting in their comfort zone. You have people here that need to go to work the next day, have paid for a babysitter, or just came down here because it's finally got to them. Something is really interested. Two of your free people that are sponsoring this, have never done anything here in the city of Medford that should even qualify them to make a result of going to two minutes. And then you go from two minutes to three, just like that. I mean, that's the way it was the consideration for that. Why don't you just keep it at five minutes. In 2022, you went from 10 to five and everything seemed to work out. And the only reason why these meetings are getting to be as long as they are, unfortunately, because you're every other week. So maybe you should go back to being every week. And that way the the agendas won't be as long and they won't be as contentious. But to worry about the length of time that you would have to sit here, you get $30,000 a year to supposedly represent the people of this city. And don't you dare think you're gonna come back here and ask for a pay raise because you have to stay late at night and you do committee meetings. That's crazy. If anything, it would be wise for you to make a decrease in your salary because of the conditions that the city of Medford is in right now to show and put your good fest forward. But that'll never happen. just like a pay raise will probably come forward. You know, the sad part about this whole thing is, again, you're spending time on what? Just tell me what is so bad to sit here and listen to someone for five minutes? What is so bad that you have to go and look at another community and see what they do? You're talking about Medford. And if you spent your time doing your homework, when you're out there campaigning, you would realize you're talking about Medford, not Arlington, Cambridge, Somerville, Malden, or Everett, or Chelsea, Let me ask any one of you when you're out campaigning, and you rang the doorbells for your votes. Did you spend more than two minutes and say, I've got to go. I only give them two minutes to speak to you. Of course not. That would be the height of insulting. But you want to insult people coming up here who pay your salary with our tax dollars. That's a shame, that is wrong. And not to single anyone out of you, I'm gonna blame all of you, because if all of you vote for the craziness of this, and I call this a stupid resolution, because it makes no sense in the interest of good government. You can talk about Harvard all you want, you can have your special days. And just as an information to Councilor Tseng, you indicated this month is Ramadan. Well, do you know what today is? Do you know what today is? Today is National Autism Day, sponsored by the United Nations. I don't see that on the calendar. That to me is as important as your Ramadan. But you people want to talk about all these national issues and put them on the calendar. What does that do to help the city of Medford, the people of Medford, to pay the taxes on a daily basis that go to work here? I strongly suggest the three members who put this forward, cancel it, take it off the ballot, and leave it alone. And let the good people of our city have their five minutes at the podium, have their say, whatever it might be. And hopefully, if you go back to maybe every week, the amount of resolutions that you put on there won't be as contentious, and it won't be so controversial, you won't have to stay here. But even if you do have to stay here, eat it, because that's your job. That's what you signed up for. You wanted to be a council to represent the people. And if I heard you correctly, Mr. President, you said you've spoken to people to disagree with you. So to some people from an hour, two hours, whatever it might be, and you didn't accomplish anything. You spent two hours of your time on a conversation. But you want to cut us down to two minutes of this podium. That makes absolutely no sense at all. And it's absolutely contradictory to the whole premise of what this resolution is all about. Again, I respectfully ask the three members who put this forward to cancel it out. And also, there's a book, it's called The Naked Socialist. Anyone have ever heard of it? It's a very interesting book, okay? It's a naked socialist.
[Robert Penta]: Pardon me?
[Robert Penta]: No, it's not about you. I'm gonna just read with you at the very conclusion of what it says. This goes back to 1968. A lady by the name of Ezra Taft Benson, she was the former secretary of agriculture under President Dwight Eisenhower, gave a speech outlining the following- Mr. Penta, you're five minutes in. Regarding public participation. One line, and it says the following. Government may not possess more rights than those held by the individual, and government may not simply assume them as well. When it does, you're operating toward tyranny. Thank you. Let me just finish, please, okay? Thank you. I would can I just finish please. Thank you. Can I just finish please sentence. Okay. I would just hope that this council does not find itself being involved in the naked terrorists and any kind of socialistic communistic movement by stopping the people from speaking. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Why do I only have two when I should have five?
[Robert Penta]: Well, you're tired, you want to go home, is this all about?
[Robert Penta]: Show me the rule on the council, because rule 16 says five minutes. That's what it says.
[Robert Penta]: Can I finish what I'm saying? You have two minutes, we accept two minutes. Well, you shouldn't be speaking from the chair. You have no right to make an opinion from the chair. You have no right from the chair to make an opinion. Excuse me.
[Robert Penta]: You're against Robert's rules of order.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to ask the question.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to ask the vice president question.
[Robert Penta]: We may I know I can't.
[Robert Penta]: On the motion of this meeting, I am not the chair of this meeting. City Council meeting bears.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a former member of this August body, and back then it was an August body. So I'd like to make a suggestion before we even start. There's many people in this room, and there's a long line behind me. The people at home can wait. They're in their own house, sitting in their own chairs, under their own roof. I would appreciate it if you do that. That's number one. Number two, let's get into the whole issue. You own a house, you pay taxes year in and year out. You get your water and sewer tax bill. Then you have an addendum that was picked on the water and sewer tax. Then you have the CPA tax, which is an end run on proposition two and a half. And now you're coming in here tonight and you're talking about possibly a transfer of tax. With all due respect, Councilor, you said it's been three weeks since it came up until now. But what happened in the last three weeks? You folks voted to have these meetings every other week. And now it's three weeks. So what happened? I don't understand.
[Robert Penta]: Pardon me?
[Robert Penta]: Just because there was an election, there's four other days in the week. Come on. You know, let's be honest about this. Where is the proposal from the administration that wants what you people want to propose here tonight? If you really want to be heroes about what you think this tax should be, you should vote tonight to end it, receive it and place it on file. That's number one. Number two, if you really think it's that important, you should maybe in a couple of months call for a public hearing on a non election on a non Tuesday night. And that way they you can listen to the people as to what you're proposing, because what you're proposing right now, it's quite obvious, either the message got out wrong, the information isn't being heard correctly, and you people are going to send it to a committee. And what's it going to do in the committee? either you're for it or against it, because if you have it on the agenda to discuss, how much more do you need to discuss it? You're either for it or you're against it. That's why it's on the agenda, period. Now therefore, if you don't want to vote on it, and you want to refer it to a committee, well then kill it tonight, and then have a public forum if you want, and have the entire community come whenever they want. You have real estate folks out here, the real estate folks out here buy and sell homes, they're buying and selling of homes and the taxes that are paid into this community represent almost 82% of the city's budget. They more than anybody understand what the real estate tax does for the city of Medford. And for you now want to put a transfer tax on there for no godly reason why I don't know, you could talk about all the affordable housing you want, but you have no plan in front of you, you have no locations, multiply, you have no reason and no dollar amount ready. But what about the proposal next to the old GE place that was supposed to be affordable housing. What about where Bertucci's is with the science, public science building was going to go, what about a mystic Avenue 500 mystic Avenue where there's going to be a proposal for 500 units in commercial. You've got locations here. You talked about your first time in 30 years, you're doing a rezoning. Well, where's the rezoning? Where is the rezoning here tonight that you can present to the people of this community where affordable housing is going to go? You don't have it. You haven't brought in the real estate people so they could see so they could work with you as a council so they could understand what your needs might be so they would have an idea of what they can buy and what they can sell for the people that they have to deal with on a daily basis. have to understand something. These people are upset out here. They're upset only because of the way it's come up. Don't forget, you had the meeting canceled. And now it's here in their mind, they're thinking it's a 2% tax, it's going to go out. So why don't we just forget the tax? Why don't you just forget this resolution? And if you guys and girls really think It's worthy of having a conversation to call for public hearing and see what the input is. Rather than saying it's going to be 2%, 1%, it's going to be at a million dollars. The lady that was on there, she hit it right on the head. She bought a house for $44,000, then she paid 68,000. She was the American dream. And why should she be penalized in her senior years of her senior American dream that she would have that money that she would have to give back that's not going to her. You know, we're talking about a democracy each and every day with this political election that's coming up. Right now, what you folks are talking about, socialism. You think you should be sharing your people's products. It's wrong to get in this mode. And I don't really think this council really wants to travel down this road. But if you really want to be genuine about this issue, rather than refer to committee. I would strongly suggest that one of you, if not many of you, make a motion to receive it in place and on file tonight, and then call for a public hearing, two or three weeks, when the entire city of Metro would have an opportunity to come and speak, not like this.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass, former member of this August body. First of all, let me start by saying, what does this pay raise have to do with education? That's number one. Number two, there's no demanding from the public for any pay raise for the school committee. And lastly, there's no professional city population job description pay report that even substantiates or supports what the council has alluded to. The gender issue that was alleged this past December is nothing more than a sexual red herring allegation of discrimination that has no merit to the issue before us. The job is what the job is. The responsibility is what it is. It doesn't say it has to be male or female. That's the red herring to the whole thing. But if this proposal were to pass, should we now compare all our municipal positions with the same amount of financial equity and equality as compared to each position, especially with those having different responsibilities? Fire, police, school teachers, they all have different job duties and responsibilities. But if we're looking at something that's now saying the school committee should have equity pay to that of a city councilor, well, you're setting a standard here. And this standard should be compared to, right now, what is presently found in your municipal contracts. Additionally, if this proposal is to pass a comprehensive review, should be undertaking to set a years of service pay scale to be compatible with all of the municipal employee negotiations, comparing newly elected newcomers to both the city council and the school committee at the beginning of the pay scale formula. Therefore, for the new members in the council, as compared to the new members on the school committee, why should either one of you reap the benefit of the maximum pay when in fact all other municipal employees start at a base pay and they go through a process. So if you're looking at this equity for both and all sides, then let the council and the school committee also be put in the same type of position. Okay, as such by granting the city council additional type of raise without having increasing any educational value, without having any community support for it, and without any professional city population job description report only demonstrates the power of behind the scenes internal politics, where the power of the dollar personally overpowers the needs of our public school educational needs. We have surrounding communities, and I took the six surrounding communities that we have. Arlington, they get paid $3,000 a year. Everett, they get paid $11,500. Malden, they get paid $7,000. Somerville, they get paid $16,600. And Methodist, they get paid $12,000. Methodist is the second highest paid school committee of the surrounding areas. You serve in these jobs for the quality of giving good education to the community, not for how much money or you should be paid equal to that or in excess of our total to the amount of what a city councilor makes. Last December, the pay concerns for paraprofessionals, classroom assistants, custodians, substitute teachers, et cetera, were discussed, but they've yet to be addressed. This hall was full with almost 200 teachers. At the city council, the school committee pay raise increase without any proposal to differentiate the differences between the city council and school committee responsibilities. As the gentleman just stated, showing the need such raise or pay equality has yet to be proven. Therefore, at last meeting on December 12, these were the issues that were of concern. A, needing additional instructional hours for students, AP classes, class size needs, athletic programming, student activities, school library resources, counseling services, school security, custodial school maintenance, after school programming, and something that's gonna creep up on you fellas, it's unprepared for migrant student educational studies and support. Now, these are all dollar amounts that need to be addressed. And if you are going to take on the proposal that's before us over the next two years, approximately $76,000, you're taking that $76,000 away from your school department educational budget that could be used somehow to get into some of these programs, if not all of them, to some degree and a percentage of whatever it might be. The pay scale for those caring for these programs was at issue, and yet as of today, nothing has been done to resolve any of the issues as presented. The City Council School Committee pay raise proposal does not recognize and connect to the short and long term needs of our public schools. So when and if you folks are sitting here and you're discussing these needs, and you think that the school committee should be making more money, and you have a school committee that's been around for so many years, allegedly for 20, if that's what the issue is, well then let's, what do we need to motivate and show that their need and they're worthy of it other than You know, they should be making the same as in Worcester. They have an audience that does say up to 50% of what a city council makes. But their job responsibilities may be entirely different. Do you realize right now, a kindergarten assistant, if we were to follow this pay raise as proposed, a kindergarten assistant who works five days a week and is subject to everything in that classroom as every other teacher, will be making $1,000 less then this pay proposal for a school committee person, okay? Makes no sense at all because a school committee person doesn't have to sign in, doesn't have to check in, has no responsibility as it relates to, you know, what am I doing on a daily basis that says I'm doing something that's educationally correct for this community. By granting from the city council, let's put it this way. There should be some justification before you folks from, and it can't be from the at present school committee because there'd be a conflict of interest because they have a financial gain from it. So it's gotta be as according to the state law, the chapter is gonna come from your folks in the state council. But what has this school committee done, especially with its new members that has said Medford's education is better, Medford's discipline is better, and that's seriously questioned as to what's going on up at the high school. The sports programs is getting better. Parents are getting more involved, but also at the same time, where is the educational standard in comparison to other cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Has the school committee made such great strides that, hey, they're working together with the teachers and their organizations. When you had here last week, and I know you have some new folks that are here. On December 12th, there was almost 150, 175 teachers that were here. And they explain to you the plight of not only being in the classroom, being attacked, where their pay is. Some of them have to work five years, five years before they even make $25,000 a year. That's unconscionable. Justin, I understand that you want to give them a pay raise, you know, but I didn't hear your logic behind it.
[Robert Penta]: Well, he's the one, it's his resolution.
[Robert Penta]: Okay, through the chair, Justin, I know you wanna give them this Bay Race, okay? But you haven't said anything, none of you have expressed any comment as it relates to, they deserve it for the value of what they do. Can anybody explain to me, If you really want to give somebody a pay raise, isn't the job description and your job duties and your employer supposed to do the review of you? Now, of course they can say, the Medford taxpayer is your reviewer and you run for office and they elect you. Okay, that's all well and good. But the Medford taxpayer doesn't pay your salary, it's the Medford City Council according to state law. So the Medford City Council, by right, can make a great demand on this school committee. If you really want to improve it, we'll look at this in two years. Let's see what this new school committee does over the next two years. Let's just see through your intervention with the Medford Teachers Association and from the superintendent all the way down, that everything that's taking place in all our schools, from kindergarten all the way up to the high school, has gotten better. Grades have gotten better. Discipline has gotten better and under control. That would make a big difference. And maybe people might say, hey, okay, you're working toward it. But when you have a job that you don't have to sign in, check in and give any report as to what you do and why you're doing how you do it, and expect to start off at a higher rate than people who have been here for years. That's just not fair. And the last thing, let me just say this as it relates to that, and I told you Arlington gets $3,000, Everett gets $11,500, Malden gets $7,000, Somerville gets $16,500, and Method gets $12,000. We're the second highest one of the surrounding communities. A kindergarten through the chair to Justin, a kindergarten teacher assistant after the second year gets $21,568. That's $1,000 less than what you wanna propose to a school committee person who doesn't go to this job every day, like the kindergarten teacher goes to school every day, five days a week, and does everything that education says of that person. Maybe you should have a sit down. with the school committee. Because they can't tell you that they want it because it would be a financial benefit to them, that would be a conflict of interest. But somebody needs to understand, just because they need to get paid more, because they're not getting paid enough now. Well, they're getting paid $12,000, and if they don't want it. And through the chair to Mrs. Callahan, not for anything, you made the comment that you think that, you know, to get good candidates, you need to pay more. I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you. a good candidate is someone who wants to run for the job because they believe that better things can be done and I can do it. And if I can't do it, then the people won't reelect me that salary has got nothing to do with it. And the salary should not be used for your own personal gain. I'm going to make $30,000 a year now more 24,000, whatever it might be. And the sad part about the whole thing in conclusion, If this proposal were to go through, you're taking $74,000 a year out of this Medford School Department education budget. It's bad enough now for them to work on a daily basis without having enough of the money that should be in there. Now you're gonna take another $74,000. And you know, where does that go? How do you explain that to the Medford taxpayer? You can't explain it to me because I wouldn't buy it. Because right now, The Medford School Committee is working with all they can do just to maintain their budget and to get by and to start taking more money away to give it to an elected official who does absolutely nothing to enhance or embellish or make better school education. That's, it just doesn't make any sense. So if I understand you correctly, I believe you said you would like to have this go and have a decision come up by the end of December of this year. I believe that's what you said. That would be okay. But to vote on this tonight, I think it would be wrong. I think it would serve no purpose. And I don't think it would be good for Medford public school education. That's my opinion. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Can I ask a question to the chair? Sure. Did I misunderstand Mrs. Cowell? Did you say in part of your questioning there is, I think you- She listed a variety of different reforms, rank choice- All right, it was one of the things that you said you wanted illegal aliens to vote. Did you say that?
[Robert Penta]: Oh, okay. I'm more than happy to answer any questions.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, just a point of information, just as a notice for this council, I think it was three, maybe five to six years ago, there was a report that came back from the Department of Revenue, Mass Department of Revenue that said, the old school thought was in the council budget, you could only decrease, but that's not true. You can now make appropriations that go the other way. So I think it's just something I think you really need to take into consideration as it relates to something that you might see in the budget, where the old school was that you only could reduce if you wanted to save money, so there would be no way that you could transfer that money to another section, but that's not true because now you can look at certain sections within your budget as it relates to appropriating for or making something less. And I think that would be very key, so let's stick to your, Councilor Collins' comment as it relates to this could be a beginning step. If it's going to be a beginning step, it should be a step that parallels every single municipal employee from step one. Some school teachers, I believe, have 10 steps before they get to the top, but an elected official has no steps. It's never been that. So if you're going to put everybody into the same genre, so to speak, well then maybe An elected person can maybe have five or six steps, whatever it might be. Don't forget, one of the real benefits of an elected official is if you serve for 10 years or more, you get a pension. You get a pension from here, okay? There are some cities and towns that don't offer pensions. So besides the salary, you're also getting the benefit of a pension with a minimum of 10 years. So I think that really needs to be taken into consideration when you're talking about pay scales and pay raises and whether it be for the council or the school committee. And one of the things that seemed to be a juggernaut in the school and the municipal side is just that particular issue, whether it's in the fire or the police department when they're in their pension areas. So it's really something that serves you folks with a good benefit, school department issue. school committee person, same thing as a city councilor, but you really, you just don't want to throw that aside without realizing that you're getting a benefit that a lot of cities and towns do not offer. So just thought I'd let you know.
[Robert Penta]: I have a two-page statement.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., a former member of this August party on the City Council. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 52, does grant to the City Council, by a majority vote and by the city charter, the responsibility of how much members of the school committee get paid. But historically, the city council has paid more than the city school committee because the council's responsibilities exceed those of the school committee. The city council responsibilities include, but are not limited to enacting ordinances, zoning, fire and police, public safety requirements, setting the city's tax rate, and has the final authority over the city and school department budget. As examples of major differences between one challenging equal pay for equal work between the city council and the school committee. Further, just as in any business, job responsibilities and pay are what one is applying for. Under this proposal, it is a gender attack being disguised as pay parity, for equal pay for equal work, for which it is not. The proposed school department 100% plus pay increase will be paid from the Medford Public Schools. Let's take a look at what that means. Annually, we are barely able to meet the resources we have now at our school's disposal. If we cut further any of our school resources by not funding them, and instead giving them 100% plus salary increase for school committee members, we should be concerned as to where we are heading. If we are to cut some $90,000, because that's what it'll come to, plus each year from going forward from the school department budget, the results can possibly affect the following. Fewer instructional hours for students. Elimination of AP classes. Increased class sizes. Elimination of some athletic programming. Elimination of support for some school activities. Elimination of school librarians.
[Robert Penta]: I think the rules say five minutes if you check the council rules. Reductions in council services, school security being at risk, reduced custodial cleaning and maintenance, after school programming, migrant student education support, and unbeing prepared for migrant student educational support. I meant the public schools short and long range term should not be subject to this. And if the school committee pay increase does go through, what do you say about the salary for the everyday school paraprofessionals? As example, every class assistant under five years would finally earn $30,000. And everyday kindergarten teachers after five years would only earn $25,980. This after five years, while the school committee would receive $29,000 annually for a part time job with no everyday reporting requirements and responsibilities is at best. If the city council is to accept this ridiculous proposal, maybe the council should then set a pay scale standard for both the city council and the school committee for years of service as compared to pay scales a standard for just every other municipal employee. Using the presently proposed gender issue of females being more in number who are elected to serve is not only discriminatory, but a sexist allegation that has no merit. And what about a person who claims to be other? And what about when trends tend to go back to when men become more elected than women? Being elected is a gender neutral opportunity, not to be disguised as pay parity for equal pay for equal work. As I said in the beginning, job responsibilities and pay are the guidelines for which one is applying for. As of this meeting, there has been no input from community members on the Medford School Committee regarding this 100 plus salary increase. As a thought, and this flows right into what you said Councilor Scarpelli, if the council is so inclined to accept this measure of allowing this red herring issue of more females than males being elected officials, then maybe in the spirit of physical conservatism and the council being magnanimous, the council should entertain being paid the same $12,000, as we said before, annual salary that the school committee is currently paid. Therefore, on the city side, if the city can save $90,000 annually from their city council salary, which can be used for municipal needs, the school department, one sentence, the school department will not lose the $90,000 annually that can go to public school education.
[Robert Penta]: One sentence.
[Robert Penta]: I wanna close by saying my following sentence. Mr. Penta, Mr. Penta. What?
[Robert Penta]: Why, hey, wait a minute.
[Robert Penta]: Let me ask you a serious question. I served on this board for 36 years, and we stayed here sometimes till 12 and one o'clock in the morning to let everybody speak, not to be shut off.
[Robert Penta]: I want to make my last sentence. Do you mind?
[Robert Penta]: No, I might. OK. I shall close by saying, why did the city council president put this controversial proposal on the agenda now? Was it because of the busy Christmas season and it being at the end of the year? With the hopes that nobody would observe it and find out. But they did. But they did.
[Robert Penta]: Good question, Robert Pencil, Zero Summit Road. It's quite obvious from the comments that have been made here today, whether you're a paraprofessional or you're a full-time employee, you just haven't been treated the correct way. And I think it's incumbent, I believe it's incumbent upon one city councilor who will have the guts and take this resolution and say, receive it and place it on file and kill the issue now.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., former member of this August party. I'd like to read a line in the mayor's message today. She wrote, even if we all agree that these additional expenditures on city services are helpful, we need to understand the sacrifices we're asking taxpayers to make and the other pressures they are under. Sacrifices. Madam Chairperson, you're the perfect example for this, what I wanna say. You recently got married, and when you got married, you- No, I got married six years ago.
[Robert Penta]: Okay, when you came to Medford, you moved to Medford a few years ago.
[Robert Penta]: Almost 10, okay. Well, I don't have an exact number.
[Robert Penta]: of what you've got going through right now is the fact that you just have a nice brand new baby, okay? And you're a brand new mother. And that's very important for what I wanna say, because there's a cost factor that goes along with all of that. It's a mental factor and it's a financial factor. And I'm quite sure you realize what it costs now having a young child, what that entails on a daily basis. When we hear the fact right now that there are additional pressures that are gonna be placed on individuals, whether it's a single family, because that's the only one we heard, it was a single family. We didn't hear about the two family, the three family, the condos, or the apartment dwellers. We didn't hear that, that information hasn't been brought forward. And it should have been brought forward if you're going to be thorough in this presentation. And when you wanna talk about spending, or controlled spending, you need to talk about it. So as Councilor Knight has alluded to, not thinking this be the right way to go, and I agree with that. You've never really had, as Councilor Marks alluded to, an outside independent order on every single department that would justify this council going into an administrative decision with the city administration to discuss, we need to now go into a Proposition 2 1⁄2 override. You folks are sitting here tonight with not one city administration here. I don't know if they were asked. I don't know if it was intentional for them not to be asked. But it would have made a big difference in trying to understand why we are at this stage at 12 and a half. Two and a half weeks ago, you folks voted at a budget meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, you voted seven to nothing not to approve the budget, but after the mayor came in and a quarter or two in the morning, you voted seven to nothing for the budget. So what was asked for and what was gotten all took place between seven o'clock and quarter to in the morning. Now, is that an exact budget science? I don't think so. Is that the right way to go? You have a proposition here tonight being proposed to $12 million. Where is the statistical information? Where are the reports? Where are the reports from the school department? Not one school committee person is here. Not one school administration person is here. The superintendent should be here if she thought she was gonna be so lucky to get almost $6 million out of a $12 million proposal. And then we go on the city side, We're there. You have seven unions in this community, but there only seems to be two that have been recognized here. And very conveniently, they don't mention the Veterans Affairs Office, the veterans in this community who paid who paid through their lives for us to be here and give our commentary. To be exact, you need reports. And the only way you can have a good report is to make sure that you require it. Now, I think I heard Councilor, I don't know where he disappeared to it's his resolution. You know, Councilor Bears I believe said you know we've been asking for the last seven months and this and that. And the mayor hasn't come around. Well you know something, who has the greatest power in this city to control the mayor. It's the Medford City Council. And what you also can do at any one given time, whatever that mayor, he or she wants, this council can vote against it until you guys and girls get what you want and what you ask for, because that's the way the game is played. I'll help you if you help me, but if you're not gonna help me and you just go along and you vote for it, well, you're just as much Just as much to blame think about it. You've allowed these budgets to go forward. And if you know they knew this was going on, and you did nothing about it. And if you started in January asking for these financial reports and you didn't get them. Then you should have stopped anything that came from the mayor's office, looking for approval until you got your reports. Your responsibility and for the city is to run its financial management, and when you have intermittent and you don't have administrators in this building that can come forward to explain what 12 and a half million dollars will do more than $550 on a single family home. You got the doubles. What about the commercial piece of people property. You haven't even discussed them, and in the following years they keep going after two and a half automatically goes up each and every year. It's something to really think about, because this is not chump change. This isn't $1, $2, or $3 million that you probably could find if you went through that budget and you cut through it. This is $12 million. And who come up with the $12 million? Two Councilors. Two Councilors who don't even pay real estate tax. They don't understand the value.
[Robert Penta]: I'm gonna continue what I'm saying. If you understood, if you paid real estate tax, you would understand the impact that this would.
[Robert Penta]: Now, you maybe missed my point. My point was this, not owning the real estate and having to pay those additional taxes, that gets itself disseminated down to you as a renter. So if you, as a renter, are gonna pay the difference in the increase, but you're putting the burden back onto the who. And if she has a tax, if she's paying a rental tax, that she can afford right now, maybe about a two or $300 a month increase, she won't be able to and that's what we're talking about people on fixed incomes, seniors on fixed income. And when you hear the story, when you're watching on television, every dollar counts. Is it going to be for my medicine? Is it going to be for my where I'm living? Is it going to be to put gas in my car? Is it going to be for food? Is it going to be that I can't go out? I got to stay home? That's what we're dealing with right now. You're dealing with an economic impact in this country that's affecting everybody. And that $12 million will kill this city of Medford because the city of Medford will never recover from something like that. If you vote for that, you're going to... If you vote for that $12 million, you're going to take away what Medford is all about. Councilor Knight was absolutely right. Sit down, have a discussion, go over the whole thing, and ask for an independent outside audit to address all these departments. That's what you need to do. You know, we're too good of a city. We are way too good of a city to let something like this happen. We've sat here for years with former Councilors and myself, and we never, never experienced anything that was presented in the middle of the night. That's what July is, it's the heat of the night, it's hot out, it's almost 90 degrees. where the people that this hall should be full of people. And it's not because as Councilman alluded to, there was an issue way back a couple of two or three years ago in Mystic Avenue in the month of August when they had a public hearing and all the people showed up and they got so scared as to what's going on, they canceled the meeting. And after they canceled the meeting, they took the vote. No way should this happen. Let me just leave you with this last thing. Your own Rule 19 on the Medford City Council states that the Medford City Council shall not approve of any bond or expenditure that does not have a written explanation of such expenditure at least seven days prior to said vote. You got this three to four days prior to today. That's not seven days. You cannot even vote on this tonight because your own rules say it. And your own rules also state The following any financial paper appearing on the council agenda for the first time, shall be automatically laid on the table for one week when such action is requested by any one member, I'm quite sure there was at least one number here willing to put that on the table unless they have another motion to go by, you know, I didn't mean to get to an argument with you and I wasn't trying to be right. I was just trying to compliment you. I got my day years mixed up. The fact of the matter is I look at individuals today and I say to myself, how do they afford seven $800,000 houses? How do they afford when they have two cars and they have kids running all over? Maybe you must be maxed out to the answer degree in debt. We never did that growing up. We worked for everything we got and we went along as we went. This is huge, $12 million. This isn't $1 million or even two that maybe you can figure out how to massage your budget. It doesn't work that way. to be good Councilors, dismiss this action right now, move yourself into a committee to meet with department heads, hire an outside independent auditor to come in. If you could spend, as Councilor Knight said, $300,000 for an outside law firm that should be doing exactly what this law firm and the city of Medford is paying for, there is something wrong. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Panto. I live at Zero Summit Road, a former member of this August body for 36 years. For the past 82 years in the city of Medford, you folks have had weekly council meetings. I've served under both a plan A and a plan E form of government, and they held steadfast, not only to their weekly meetings, they held steadfast that this microphone, this podium right here was the people's voice on a weekly basis. We've gone through the years, situations, in the Wellington area, whereas if you were on every other week situation, the rat problem that took effect a few years ago, would have never got itself involved. Then Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight can remember people coming from the Morrison Ave Park area regarding in the wintertime storms that took place. And if the people had to wait every other week to come down here, their problems would have been exacerbated. You talked about making decisions as you relate of committee meetings. If committee meetings are a result of what takes place here at a city council meeting and forwarded to a committee, and the committee does whatever it's work has to be. It still has to come back before the council, but it initiated itself right here in the city council. Tonight was a perfect example. When the gentleman from the. front porch came down here and unfortunately all the papers weren't in order until the clerk went downstairs to get the papers. Now, if the papers were not there, he would have had to wait two weeks if this process of two weeks took place. That would have been a financial burdensome on that individual through no fault of his own because his papers were filed. And when the chairperson got the papers and he saw they weren't filed and they were signed off properly. When all of you folks ran for office like myself, I knew it was on a Tuesday night and I also knew that no matter what the day and the week was, was immaterial to the job and my responsibility to do the job. Now, if you folks wanna go to every other week with 18 committees that you have set up, and of those 18 committees, if you decide you wanna have three or four of them or five of them on every other week, and some of you are on the same committees, how is that gonna work during the same time? It's just impossible. Right now, you can meet anywhere, as Councilor Scarpelli alluded to, you can go Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and you're meeting every week. This podium is here for one particular reason. This is the safeguard that a taxpaying citizen has to come here without having to wait, geez, I gotta wait two weeks because the pressing need is happening right now. You folks are getting paid $30,000 a year to do this job. And you know what the time commitment was. And you also know what the dollar amount was to the salary. God forbid, if you ever go to every other week, you want to come in here and ask for a pay raise, you really will be adding insult to injury. Because that's just something that will never pass the muster of why you folks got elected. You got elected to do one thing, to represent the people the best way you could. And right now for 82 years it's been every Tuesday night. Now Councilor Caraviello says change is good, but all change at all times is not good. The lack of community input to every other meeting, the lack of a community input as it relates to why are we making this change? You have two brand new city councils that just came on this term. I'm quite sure when they were running for office, this was not an issue. And since it wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now? Second of all, when you go into the meetings, you talk about the regular meetings of the city council shall be held every two weeks on Tuesday evening at 7pm, beginning the first Tuesday in January. Then in the last sentence, it turns around and says the following bit further resolve that these updates become effective on September 1 2022. So what is it, September 1st or is it January 1st of 2023? There's a mix of words there, something is wrong. Also you talk about here, an emergency meeting shall take place unless immediately undelayed action is deemed to be imperative. Well, just think about it. Does any one of you know right now what an immediate action could be? What an emergency could be in somebody's life? or some business. Pardon me? Does anybody know what an emergency could be? I don't, and neither one of us know.
[Robert Penta]: I'm talking about the community interest for this to make this change.
[Robert Penta]: You presented on the agenda for this evening, the word meetings, and this is a result of the change that took place. So is it January 1st or is it September 1st? What's it going to be?
[Robert Penta]: So if it's September 1st, then it does not become operative January 1st, but that's not the issue.
[Robert Penta]: No, it doesn't. It says in the bottom. Yeah, September 1st.
[Robert Penta]: I don't think this is no devil coming from the sky.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Madam President. The fact of the matter is simply this. The reason why we're here on a Tuesday night is whether, like last week, you folks only met for maybe 30, 35 minutes, and you've had a pretty easy go from January till now, but once the budget comes in and things start to pick up, okay, so be it. But imagine if you had it every other week. And once the budget takes place and you start to get into every other week, and you're here four, five, six hours, and then you're going to put a time limit on because you're incapable of probably making an intelligent decision because it's kind of like late night. Why do you want to disturb something that has worked? And more importantly, if you felt such a need for this, and if this council was so engrossed in the fact that we had to change this, then why don't you just make it effective beginning September of the next election? Why would you do it? It wasn't even an election issue. So how did this become an issue right now, less than six months into the term?
[Robert Penta]: I understand that, but it's been while it's been, it's not like it didn't come out of the, it came out of the blue, but while it's been discussed, it never got passed.
[Robert Penta]: So the question is to the metric citizenry who are watching this, they're going to have to figure out, they only can come here every other week, but at the same time, at the same time, you have 18 committees. So are we going to say between the first week and the beginning of the second week, these 18 committees are going to work and your committee, the holes are going to work. I mean, is that going to make any kind of sense. There's 18 committees and there's only seven of you, and many of you are on the same committees. I mean, so how do you, how do you go through this, this process.
[Robert Penta]: You know what I mean, it's the only place for a public forum, you've got your opinion, I have a forum on what it's a public forum for someone to come and speak on whatever the issue might be, it might be a neighborhood issue that doesn't find itself on the agenda, it might be an emergency that doesn't find itself on the agenda.
[Robert Penta]: You have your opinion, I have mine. As far as that goes, Madam President, I said what I had to say. I just feel, like I said, it's been 82 years, it's operated under plan E, plan A. It's been every Tuesday night. You never really know what the situation might be. And when you got elected, you knew. You knew when you got elected, the meetings were going to be every Tuesday night and subcommittees were whenever they're going to take you. And why should time? Why should time even be an issue? Whether you meet one night a week or whether you meet four times a week, that's what you got elected for. And whatever the issues are, they are. Well, being elected never bothered me to go to a meeting. And if it was every week, I went every week. If it was two or three times a week, we would meet two or three times a week. And let me just conclude by saying the following. If in fact, this council feels that they now want to change to every other week, please do not put anything on the agenda that asks for pay raise, because you would really be insulting the people of this community.
[Robert Penta]: No, that's not what I said. What I said is if you're going to make this vote to go to every other week, please don't come back and vote in support of a pay raise for yourself, because then $30,000 for every other week becomes overpaid. And as Councilor Caraviello alluded to, when he made his comments two weeks ago, if you go to every other week, maybe you should reduce your salary from 30 to 15,000. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I'm Robert Pentezero, Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I believe a couple of weeks ago, this council passed two resolutions. One was a million dollars for new sidewalks, and I believe the second one was for $250,000 to remove tree stumps. But there was no identification of where the sidewalks were going to go over and beyond money for new panels, and there was no identification as to what tree stumps were going to go. Now, over the past few years, here in Medford, former public works director had one, two types of lists, one for tree stumps, and one for sidewalks, but unfortunately when the council passed at this time nobody asked that question. So as a citizen, the council did ask, they asked a question of where they're going to be located, the tree stumps, and the sidewalk. So is there any way that that could be made a public disclosure, either on this, we don't have any city newspaper anymore. So method patch, or in the city web page could that go on there as soon as we get it, we can put it in, we have a dry folder. Madam President, you say as soon as you get I understand that but you should have had it the night that you took the vote.
[Robert Penta]: But, but is there a list right now that it is available.
[Robert Penta]: So then just a very simple question, not to beg the issue, but maybe it is. I mean, you get something to vote on, especially tree stumps, much more than sidewalks. Those locations should have identified. This is the third time something like this has been presented to the council. So did you get the first two lists? I mean, have any of these lists tree stumps from the first of the second list even been taken care of some of them with duplicates especially on sidewalks. It's just a thought because some residents are saying a million dollars. There's a lot of money for sidewalks.
[Robert Penta]: Is it possible, Madam President, you can just secure a list for both?
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Of course. Okay.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Pantazzo, Summit Road. And what subject would you be speaking on, sir? I'd speak on the Ambulatory Surgical Center up at the location of the Lawrence Memorial Hospital at 170 Governor's Avenue. The reason why I'm bringing this up was after reviewing your city budget and recognizing that you folks set a tax rate this past week, unless I missed it all together, there was no inclusion at all as it related to the amount of money that the new ambulatory service center would be bringing to the city of Medford. I believe this past, last past Tuesday, On the 14th of December you folks sat in committee and discuss the tax rate. And I believe, and I could be wrong. One of the questions that was asked by one of your colleagues Council marked to the assessor as it relates to have you arrived at any kind of a decision regarding the tax rate. at that location 170 Governors Avenue and the assessor responded that they had filed for a tax exempt status. Conferring upon that and having a brief discussion once again and reaffirming this conversation with Councilor Falco who once again had the same type of concern as related to the assessor's issue of how and what they're going to be taxed. I think she said that it's charitable or something of that nature. So putting that together, and I just went back and just did a little bit of history on this because I was involved in many of the issues on this particular matter. On August 28th of 2018, I sent a certified letter to the State Department of Public Health. And one of the components of the letter, it was issued, I issued the regard regarding tax exam status, which up until that point in time had not been mentioned. On September 17th of 2018, in the method transcript, And headline title future of the lots of oil hostile include community input on this say, but in paragraph number 10. I like the existing building, it says the ASC will be a for profit and will therefore pay property taxes to the city of method that came right from them themselves. October 30 2018 and the city council meeting. It was discussed again as to whether the proposed ASC being a builder and the hospital footprint would pay taxes, would it be by the square footage of the whole Lawrence and will hospital footprint itself. November 19 2018 at the council meeting, there was a need for an update for clarification for our city of sex office as to how the SC will be determined for tax purposes if approved by the State Department of Public Health. Will it be for the whole Lawrence Memorial Campus to be considered as a for profit, or would it be broken down by the square footage of each building separately. Again, on November 27 of 2019 Susan Sandberg, then CEO and Vice President of Melrose Wakefield Hospital, appeared before the city council saying for the first time that the AFC will be a for profit business here in the city of method. Again in November 2018 I sprinted into the method transcript. The discussion was once again, a for profit business. December 6 2018, the method transcript said in the proposed commentary period regarding method officials. Then in paragraph 13, quote, the proposed method surgery LLC, a joint venture between then named Melrose Wakefield and the Shields Healthcare as being a for-profit taxable ASC. February 19th, 2019 at a city council meeting, issues were presented as it related to the construction and to the taxing status. March 19th, 2019, Melrose Wakefield then notifies the city council and the city that the separate footprint that was going to be at 170 Governors Avenue would now be merged into the property of the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. April 23 2019 the city council meeting, Sue Sandberg said that she was so pleased with the development that have been taking place regarding this proposal taxes will be determined by the city assessor regarding this tax matter, and Michael Max F at the city will be doing a pilot program on the $733,000 community health initiative that community health initiative was a planned a planned program for health services within this community and surrounding communities over two to a five year period. I have not heard one comment by this city, this city administration, or the city assessor's office, as it relates to what is the plan program. And if in fact it became a pilot program, it was possibly discussed at that time. May 7 2019 at a committee of the whole meeting once again Council mass ask who, who is going to be paying the taxes on their separate office space, or not. The mayor at that time, who was the city council, indicated that she was concerned of a pilot program as it related to just what and how, if we're not going to be getting taxes, if we're going to be involved in a pilot program. Councilman Fred De La Russa also made comment as he was concerned over how the tax issue was going to take place. On May 28th, 2019, city council once again Vice President Susan Sandberg said the ASC will provide new tax revenue and will provide an additional $750,000 within a two to five year period for additional area services. She reiterated on May 18, that for which was said on April of that year of the Community Health Service $750,000. On June 4, a letter was sent to Susan Sandberg by myself once again, talking about issues as it relates to the taxing issue. And then on October 15, 2019, Susan Sandberg reiterated that the ASA will bring tax revenue to the city of Medford. Also, then-Councilor and then-Mayor Brenna Lundgren stated that she wanted the developer to provide for the city of Medford a tax, a tax review number one and number two, the vote will take you can say that the vote that the council is taking that the, the, the agreement would go to the petitioner, not to the land. When they made their proposal before this method city council into the state. Their information presentation read as follows in one of their sections. What benefits will an ASC bring to the city of Medford? Their response was the ASC will pay local taxes, as well as add jobs in the area. In addition, as part of the state revenue process, there will be a substantial community benefits contribution, that's the $750,000 I was talking about, to help address the pressing health and social welfare needs of Medford and other communities. The total amount the ASC will contribute towards community health initiatives is approximately $733,000, and that'll be paid over a two to five year period of time. From that period of time, from May 7 of 2015, that can be the whole meeting. And I believe you had at that point in time made reference to Councilor Falco as it relates to that particular meeting, as it relates to how taxes were going to be paid. This city council has not been advised, never mind the council, the taxpayers have not been advised as just how and when it's going to take place for taxes. And how are they going to pay it and when are they going to play it, and what meetings if anything has taken place at that meeting in May of 2019. I also presented before there before the city assessor communities such as Weymouth, and then the central hospital and what they were doing with their cities and towns in combination of either a and in lieu of taxes or a tax payment to be made. You have received nothing. Nothing has come back, Mr. President, as it relates to this particular issue. I secured from the Secretary of State and the State Attorney General's Office, there was no filing of any sorts, other than the amendment that they filed in 12-4-2020, which was December 4th, of a change of address. They had the original address in Boston, and now they changed it to 170. Now, just because they're built at 170, 170 Governors Avenue, same address as the Lowell Memorial Hospital, where urgent care is there right now, There should be no taking advantage of that being a tax exempt nonprofit. When she was came in here. They made it perfectly clear that the linchpin to this deal was that they would pay taxes to the city method on the ASC 16,000 square foot piece of building that they were building for $17,500,000. It's a shame that during this budgetary process, when you were setting and addressing your tax rate. Nothing was presented as it relates to the anticipation of approximately any wisdom, five and a half million plus dollars on an annual assessment of that piece of property, what that would bring in for taxes here to the city of medicine. But before this council gets going again in January next year that this issue is brought to your attention we've heard all kinds of rumors oh yeah they're going to pay, whatever it might have been, you have nothing from the assessor's office in this city. That's saying number one, they're going to pay. You don't have anything regarding the community health portion of $755,000, that's going to be paid over to a five year period of time for the health initiatives and concerns that you might have to be brought forward, and that was brought to the state's Department of Public Health. When this was all presented. This is a real concern that I have I'm very concerned over this because That's hundreds and thousands of dollars that potentially could belong to the city of method coffers that could be used, whether it's in our public health department, our schools our budgets police fire, whatever it might be. This is too small of a thought to be issue when in fact it's a big issue. And to me it's such a big issue that it hasn't been discussed, I say shame on everyone who knows what that should have been done. This should not be a red herring coming up now to say okay why are we talking about we're talking about now because nobody in the city has talked about it. And if somebody made a mistake in their commentary that that's it's for profit will then so be it. If it's a for profit, not enough. If it is for a for profit business, excuse me, you people should have this information. We the taxpayers should have that information. I don't understand. Is anyone behind this real received anything.
[Robert Penta]: So let me ask you this, Mr. President, directly. You had a conversation. Do you have anything in writing from them that says that? If you want something in writing, I will get something in writing. I think the council deserves it, and I think your tax base and your tax rate deserves it. I will have something in writing. I would strongly suggest that a council resolution go forward seeking that, and that nailing it down. And for further information, Sue Sandberg is no longer with Melrose-Wakefield.
[Robert Penta]: Well, excuse me. I didn't realize you're gonna allow folks from the audience. We're here with someone from 1892. Great service, Mr. Delato, 1892. He looks the same. I don't know what the pill is that he's taking. It's probably not the blue pill, but that's neither here or there. When I look at these two gentlemen here, I don't know John Falco as well as I do Michael Marx, but I will tell you this, going back to when John Falco was first running for school committee, I met with him and my wife at a restaurant at Mystic Avenue, and he was gracious enough to listen to her concerns being a school teacher as to what possibly could be things that he could bring forward to the school department for which he did. And I appreciate that and I commend them for taking the opportunity for run for higher office this past year, because it takes an awful lot for someone to give up something that you might have as a security position, which would be a council school committee seat to take the next step forward. But if you don't try and never know. As far as Michael Max goes all I can say. I wish he was here a little bit longer because I think he probably would have given me the one last incentive to once again run for this August party only for one reason. This city is going through a tremendous, like the country, a tremendous amount of change and you do need some level-headed people to understand yesterday, to capitalize what's going to take place for today. I just hope and wish that this new incoming council can put together with the fellows that are here for a few years, some wisdom and common sense that recognizes that we are the city of method, and as an as inclusive as we are, we should not be divisive at the same time, because it cannot work and you cannot sustain itself. I thank you, Michael for your years of service your dedication. But more importantly, I thank your family for allowing you to do it like my family allowed me to do mine for 36 years. I appreciate it and I know your folks and your families appreciate it. I just hope that the incoming city council grasps the knowledge that needs to be taken to make this city work to go forward and to be able to question without having to be called divisive rather than not divisive. Asking a question to get an answer is the best way to resolve an issue rather than not listening. Because I think it was you, John Scott that says, you listen and you listen. And the more you listen, the more you can learn. Merry Christmas, happy, healthy new year. And congratulations, John and Michael. You're welcome.
[Robert Penta]: My name is... My name is Robert Pinter, Zero Summit Road, mentioned NASS, former member of this August board. Let me just tell you something right up front. I spent 36 years behind this rail, and I never once denied anyone the ability or the action to come before the board and say whatever they thought was important to them, because this is their house, not your house. That's number one. Number two, Council Mark is only asking them to denounce. That sends the message citywide, anyone who might be watching, reporting or what have you, that we're not going to tolerate this. It makes absolutely no sense at all. And let's get to the real major thing. Mr. Vice President, you talk about how many more times are you going to do it? Well, this all started when the mayor of this community sent a message down to this council to say that the city of Medford was systematically racist, and you folks voted for it. So you've already been in, you're already in this, you're already in.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I mean, what's kind of an idiotic remark is that we're talking about how this thing, how this thing all generated itself, you know? And if Mr. Beers wants to have a debate any day of the week on this particular issue, I am quite sure, I'm quite sure he can be accommodated. He's a Councilor. He's an elected official of the city. And that's who he is. And that's what his responsibility is, not just to move on and let's get to the next subject matter. Listen to me. You're talking about human beings out here who for the past year have gone through a life and altering whether it's their business, whether it's their family, whether it's their kids, or what have you. The city has never been subjected to this. But the cowards, and that's what they are, the cowards who are behind that racist amendment, let them come forward, take their position, and stand their ground like a man or a woman, rather than go in the cubby hole, and I'm gonna just keep throwing these bombs. Councilor Marks, you hit it right in the head. The whole idea of what this thing here tonight was, people have gotten frustrated. No matter what the outcome is with the investigation, which is now criminal, that in and of itself ought to tell you something's going on, and I hope our police department, and I hope our police department does find it out. You know, everybody tonight has kept mentioning, you know, the mayor's comments. The mayor's comments were written on July 17th regarding the July 15th rally. She wrote them on July 17. And what she said on that, and that's the reason why they're here, and they're rightfully to be here. They talk about that the attendees used language that was disgusting, abhorrent, and it has no place here. Well, can somebody please come up here and tell me what was said by any one of the 30 people now recognized? Because they stood there in behalf of, they stood there, they didn't even speak, they stood there in behalf of our Metro Police Department. The people are right there every day defending us and taking care of the needs of our community. Why would you want to turn a blind eye to that? That's ridiculous. Fire department, school department, teachers, first responders. This Medford City Council has an obligation, whether they like it or whether you don't like it. This is wrong what's going on in this city. And if you allow this to continue going on each and every day, and you allow these anonymous cowardly people to do what they're doing, we won't have a city anymore. Because the divisiveness will cause physical anxiety between people, and no one will ever get along. And you'll never see the right time of day. The city of Medford will no longer exist. And that's what we don't want. What you do want is inclusiveness. You want people to be able to sit and to talk. You have a difference of opinion? Okay, you discuss it. But you don't go and sneak around like in the middle of the night like a thief and you put something out there. Social media is public media. It's not private. It's so public it gives you an opportunity to respond, whether you're on Facebook, Instagram, or whatever you want to call it. Mr. President, I would respectfully request and hopefully that every member of this council takes its position, lets the entire city of Medford know what their positions are, because let me tell you something, this is an immediate election coming up, and it's gonna reflect badly on anyone who decides that they're afraid to take a position, because they're gonna wait for the decision from the criminal court to come back. Let me tell you something, if it was any one of you folks, and it was your name that was on there, you'd see you'd be acting a little bit different because you wouldn't want it to happen. It started in this building, it started over there, it came over here, and this council voted for it. And when you voted for it, you accepted the responsibility that went with it. Why should any citizen who had nothing to do with anything be held accountable for something they have no control over. I just don't know where to go. I am so upset with this right now, Mr. President. I cannot believe that this Medford City Council is toying with this as to whether to vote for it or not. It's as obvious and as clear as can be. Do your job, please. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Good evening, my name is Bob Penta, Zero Summit Road, former member of the Sarkis party. I would respectfully disagree with using the word concern. The fact of the matter is that an accident has already taken place. Tank has already been going down that road and coming up that road. You have MBTA buses telling you, you have a line from your own traffic consultant that tells you that a fire truck, if has to, can go on the opposite lane. You have no idea at what time of day or night that that might be happening. The whole idea, I believe, the impetus of the council president's resolution is to let this city administration know that this council is not supportive of this type of islands coming in here. You can call it part of the complete streets program, the $563,000 that the city got from the commonwealth. Where was the fire chief being consulted on that? Where was the city engineer being consulted? And all these proposed bump outs that are being planned right now, continuing down on High Street, going into the West Medford area, where's the consultation for that? Just go look at Sagamore Avenue and see the way they want to have that cutout coming out into the middle of High Street and then Boston Avenue over there. And then further down, right opposite the Brooks School, there's a gentleman who just did his driveway over and he's got a bump out in front of it. It doesn't make any sense at all. I would not change one word in the president's resolution, only for one reason. The city administration has to know that you do recognize that this is a safety problem here in the city of Medford. This isn't just for cars. This is for trucks. This is for ambulances. This is for other kinds of vehicles that are heavy duty going down there. And we're not talking about a good day, as the council just alluded to on Sunday at 9 o'clock in the morning. The gentleman, unfortunately, didn't see the island. Not only didn't see the island, he wrecked the whole bottom of the carriage of his car. What are you going to do in a snowstorm when it's dark out late at night and you have a big heavy tanker going down there? What are you going to do with a bicycle, a gentleman or a lady driving their bike down there, going in that little lane there, and you have an emergency vehicle trying to get by? You know, one thing I learned after many years of being on this council is one thing. If you know you see something that's wrong, why would you want to just smooth it over, use the word of concern as relates to telling the city administration, you're going to continue on with this complete streets program, this traffic calming issue, then the public safety is the priority. And right now it's quite obvious that it's not a priority. Correct me if I'm wrong, Council President, Fire Chief said, even though he can get by, he's only got a foot on either side. Is that what he said?
[Robert Penta]: I would believe that the impetus of the resolution, if you want to get to the concern that Mr. Isaac Beers has introduced, that would be something that they would once again look at to come back, okay, we'll redesign it. But you'd lose your impact by putting the city on notice that you've recognized, you've talked, this is four times in a month, you have discussed this issue and it's not going away. And the only way it's going to go away is if the city administration is aware of it and whoever their contact is with the state for the purposes of trying to make this correction, so be it. As of this Sunday, the fire chief, as of this Sunday, the fire chief still hasn't been informed. So he had to go out there and do his dry run. Well, how do you call that progress? How do you call that when somebody is supposed to sit down and let's talk about this traffic calming issue? How can it be traffic calming when you haven't even spoken to the public safety personnel who it's going to affect? You know, it isn't like you guys, young lady, are in a tough bind. It's a very simple resolution that the President has offered. as the mayor of this community and to your departments, we're putting you on notice because God forbid something happens and somebody gets killed, this council has put the city on notice. If not, God forbid something happens and you modify that resolution, you're all gonna be part of a lawsuit. And then you're gonna have to explain your way out of it. That's wrong and that shouldn't happen like that. I would suggest, Mr. President, that you do not accept the resolution to modify it. Just make it as a concern. It's not a concern. It's an issue. It's a public safety issue that demands its attention one way or the other. And if they don't want to resolve it, shame on them. At least the council's on record explaining the reason why. Thank you. Mr. President. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Robert Penta]: Just in response to Council max. Nobody's asking anything to be redesigned I don't think any of us have that expertise we're aware of that, but nobody came into the city and sat down with the public safety people, as it relates to all these locations that are being promulgated, and whether a review after four months I mean, after four weeks talking about this and there's still, there is still no communication with the public safety personnel of this city, which means either one or two things, either the city administration is not listening to the council, the city engineers not listening to the council. And you have a fire chief who's basically telling you, you might have a problem. You have a city traffic engineer turns around and tells you, well, if something happens, you can go to the opposite side of the street. Well, that in and of itself tells you right there, don't talk about public safety when you have a fire truck coming at you on the opposite side of the street, if an emergency exists, or if there's a snowstorm or whatever it might be. The whole idea I believe of the impotence of this whole resolution is to put the city on notice that you're not happy with the island there because it is, it has the potential to cause problems and if it's going to cause problems in an accident for which you've already had one it's already started. You know, keep us out of it. We should not be part of any lawsuit by any citizen, city of Medford or other city of Medford, because we told you this was going to happen. Maybe it might be wise, Mr. President, to invite the state in to sit down with the city council and review every one of these locations that they want to put in. How many accidents have taken place? This is the reason why we're putting it here. Where the bump boats are going and what's the reason for it? They made the determination. They don't live in the city of Medford. They're not the experts for the city of Medford. It's our city engineer and our public safety because if it's going to impede anything that they do on a daily basis, they should be primary before any decision is made. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, former member of the circus party. I'd like to read a three-page prepared commentary that I find and feel to be very important. It's a message from Memorial Day to Flag Day, and it's a commentary to our Medford residents. Memorial Day, why is my speakers off? Memorial Day was never intended as a celebration to remind us of the ugliness and the ravages of war, but rather to honor in some solemn observance, our men and women, their survivors, and our allied comrades who sacrificed their lives to protect our liberty and our freedoms here at home and around the world. Likewise, our Flag Day observance on June 14th is but an annual reminder of some 244 years ago when the Second Continental Congress, along with George Washington, took a break from their writing of the Articles of Confederation to establish a standard bearer to be the unifying symbol of our colonial fighting forces and for our freedom. As our fledgling nation was moving forward in its quest for its independence, that is how Old Glory was commissioned to be our American flag. From Memorial Day remembrances of lives given up to protect our America, to the flag day birth of old glory, both symbolizing the embodiment of our right of free speech, we are here today. But in the interim of many years, what has happened to our country, state, and local cities and towns nationwide, especially over the past 30 years in particular? When the politically correct crowd of progressives and liberals began complaining that our public displays of patriotism is offensive to others, and we have to back off such displays, and that we are a systematically racist country as well as a city, and that we need to practice cancel culture, wokeness, defund the police, teach systematic race theory, and being a white supremacist, and accept revisionary history as history's new truth, I take offense to such broad universal commentaries, especially by Washington politicians and self-serving proclaimed educators who have made their living by espousing race as their financial and social calling card for more than the past 20 years. With crime running at an all time high, illegal immigration crossing our borders, causing ongoing social welfare, educational, security, and uncontrollable medical problems, we have now become the victims of today's liberal and progressives agenda of inclusion without requirement or responsibility. Also, if God offends anyone, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because our good God is part of our American inheritance of religious freedoms secure from governmental intervention. And if our American stars and stripes offend you, or you do not like or believe in our Uncle Sam, and you don't have the tolerance for free speech, then you should seriously consider exporting yourself to another country. In conclusion, Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his or her opinion. But for those who complain, whine, or gripe, or dislike our American way of life, as well as our city of Medford way of life, don't let the door slam you as you leave, because you do have the right and the opportunity to leave. We are not a perfect society. but there is no other country that offers more freedoms than our America. So from a Memorial Day remembrance to a Flag Day observation, let not our freedom of thought, speech, and expression ever be challenged by some ideology that bears no fruit but hatred, division, and racism. Thank you and let our method never be a part of any such movement or agenda. I felt Mr. President and Councilors, I had to say that because after being at the Memorial Day service and listening to our veterans director emotionally present before our community that for which a veteran is all about. I feel as an American. I am a white Italian American. I'm proud of it. I am not a racist, and I don't intend to be a racist. I encompass anyone and everyone who wishes to express their opinion, and I would hope that our city of Medford does not go down any path that disrespects the fact of who we are as individuals. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penton, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass. I have some, Mr. President, this is our third time we've had this discussion on this high street project. at the corner of Woobin and Hastings Lane. And I'm a little bit disturbed and recognizing that Mr. Blake, who I've never met, I'm quite sure that he's proficient in what he does, but he makes a comment in his response to you by saying fire trucks may have to use the entire opposite lane to make the turns. And by doing that, Mr. President, what you are doing, you are exposing the city of Medford to a tremendous amount of liability. And if the city is going to go forward and leave that island there, then it should be part of the official record here that the Medford City Council does not support, but rather condones the fact that that island can now cause a potential hazard to the city of Medford's liability. We've spoken to MBTA buses, there's no mention in here on the extra long tankers that carry gas. The other day coming down high street toward the charter circle, there was a bicyclist there. And you know those trucks once they have that weight, they're moving. And he was people in the home because the bike was just taking his time going through that little pathway there. So all I can say is, It's there, it's in writing. And the city council now has enough, if you're really strong in this position, and I think you are, you have an affirmative position to make by way of a vote that the city of Medford, the Medford city council opposes that particular island that's put there because the acknowledgement from your own traffic commissioner says, The fire trucks might have to go on the complete opposite lane to make its turn. What about a car coming the opposite way? What about the bump out that's over there? What about the second island? What about the bump out that's in front of the house, in front of the man's driveway, in front of the Brooks School? It makes no sense at all. And go further down into West Method on the corner of High Street and Sagamore Ave. Look what they already have penciled out there. It's on to the middle of the street almost. These aren't traffic calming. These are traffic accidents just waiting to happen. And you've got to understand the route traffic and the type of traffic that's on those routes. I think you brought it up last week, Mr. President. A truck going up the hill, they've got to pick up the speed to get up the hill. Look at the buses. What are you going to do? And right there at that intersection, there's a bump out there, which makes further no sense. So I don't know, Mr. Blake. Like I said, I've never met you and I don't know you. But I don't know how you can put in writing that a firetruck can go in the opposite lane to make its turn if it has to because of an emergency. You are now indicating that the city is exposing itself to a liability. And if that's what the state is going to be doing throughout the rest of the city, with these locations, with these prompts, causing problems with side streets because of buses, and cars cannot be going down there. What are we getting all this money for the state for if the city has no input into providing common sense use of the money? It's a damn shame. that we have to be discussing, you folks have to be discussing something that common sense tells you by just going there and looking at it. And you can paint and stripe the streets all you want with your yellow lines, you're not gonna get rid of those islands. And you're not going to get rid of the fact that coming up or going down in a winter's day storm, and if there's ice in the road, and if there's an emergency that has to take place, somebody is gonna get killed there. And you already have it now in writing. Your traffic supervisor has now told you in writing that a fire truck can go on the opposite lane if he can't make the turn. What does that tell you? What does that tell you about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts coming in here trying to tell the city of Metro, we know what's best for your streets. Tell them to take their money back and mind their business and let the city of Metro to its engineering department and through citizen input, take each section one at a time to realize what it is. It's all right for somebody to come in here and tell you what to do, but it isn't all right for you to tell them, possibly you maybe made a mistake. You haven't thought this out correctly or possibly. Mr. President, you're the president of this council, the six of you, you make seven. I would strongly, I strongly advise and suggest that some one of you, if not all of you put a resolution on indicating that you do not, you are against, and you don't accept the fact that that island in the middle of High Street, Reuben, Hastings Lane, serves in the best interest of the city of Medford. If anything, it does not serve in the best interest. And you have the letter from your own traffic supervisor who says the same thing, traffic consultant, excuse me.
[Robert Penta]: Good evening, name and address of the record, please. My name is Bob Penta, former member of the Saugus body. And I would be remiss not to come up here because as a prior member of the Smith City Council, I think it was only on three separate occasions that I had the honor of recognizing a young gentleman who became an Eagle Scout. Tonight, it's a distinct pleasure because in today's day and age, you don't even hear of the term of an Eagle Scout. You don't hear about the dedication that a young man would put into doing something positive, not only for the community, but for himself, recognizing he needs to be a success for the future because that's what this is all about. being self-made and going forward, being a graduate of the vocational school, that's great. Going into the electrical department, that's great. Being an electrician, that's great. But the one thing that everyone seems to be missing today about youngsters, whether they're male or females, is the fact that they have this self-worth of wanting to do something that benefits the community. And just by looking at him and looking at the six years that it took him and his family that's here, it's a proud moment. And not only is it a proud moment, it speaks well for the city of Medford. You don't hear too much about scouts today in the news. If anything, you may hear some more negative than positive. But this gentleman represents the positive part of what our city is all about. It represents why Medford is what it is, because they have the ingredients, the intelligence, and the drive of a good, young, honest man who wants to make not only his life better, but our city of Medford better. So like I said, I would be remiss not to come up here and say that because I think this is a distinct honor, not only for this gentleman, but also for the city of Medford. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass, former member of the Saugus Party. Last week, we had an interesting conversation that you started, Mr. President, regarding this little bit of an island that supposedly has found its way at the corner of Woburn and High Street and Hastings Lane. I spent some time during this past week, once again, speaking to bus drivers, members of our fire department, as it relates to the question that I believe the council asked, and I don't think any of you ever got the answer. Whose idea was it to authorize, to put that file in there, in the middle of the street? And if you can just anticipate as bus drivers do, and as a fire truck would do, in an emergency, snowstorm, whatever it might be, just take one of those big, tankers to deliver gas. And in the wintertime, if in fact they happen to be coming down the street and there's some ice or whatever it might be, what about the bike people where the bike lane no longer exists anymore and it's not to be found? And if they ever decide to put that bike lane in the middle of the street in between the two islands that are there, not the single one, the two islands there, you've got a real serious problem. So my question to you, Mr. President, is the city engineers still online?
[Robert Penta]: Is he still online? Can we ask the question? Um, the traffic engineer is not online. What about the city engineer? I'm quite sure an engineering plan has to take place to put that in. Unfortunately, he's not online. So with that being said, Mr. President, they continue to keep going on and doing work. If you just take a look at the idea, if in case there's an emergency and a fire truck has to make it down that street and make that left-handed turn in a snowstorm, you have a problem just facing you. You've got a bump out coming out there on the corner of Woolman and High Street. And it's just, how do you allow things like this to happen? I'm not saying the council. I would hope that the council would make a concerted effort to have the city stop that process and actually go out there and look at it, okay? That path coming down on the corner of Hastings, you've seen it, we've talked about this. That thing is so narrow, it's an accident waiting to happen. And is that what the city has to do, wait for the accident to happen. Correct it before that even happens, and the island should be as a matter of fact they're keeping both islands there. Whoever comes up with bad enough going down high street toward West Midland right near opposite the Brooks School, there's a bumper right in front of somebody's house. It makes no sense. Who comes up with these ideas? I mean, it would be nice if you want to talk about public safety. That's okay. It would be nice to maybe have the council think about it or have them involved with it. And I don't know if these are state people. I don't know if these are city contractors or if this is the city itself that's doing it. But between the bump outs and that section right there, right there on the corner of High Street, Hastings Lane and Rubin Street, that is a disaster waiting to happen. And I would hope this council takes an aggressive action and holds the city accountable and not continue further with that and get rid of that island. It just makes no sense at all. You'd have to be a complete moron not to understand coming down High Street, that road is so narrow, Just think of it. Both ways, both ways, Mr. President. Both ways. And it's a shame that none of you have gotten an answer back and you asked for that a week ago. Public safety and not even an answer.
[Robert Penta]: And you've got the bumper right over there as well.
[Robert Penta]: I'm picking up one other point that Council Marks alluded to, because apparently there's been no updating as to the streets, as the sidewalks being a little bit wider in the bike lane. So since none of that has taken place, and you have people coming down High Street in that bike lane, they're going to traverse right into that middle of maybe 8 to 10 feet wide.
[Robert Penta]: I would hope one of you on this council would make a motion to just put a stop in that project to fully have a complete public safety review.
[Robert Penta]: It's up and it can also be taken down.
[Robert Penta]: All right. I thank you for listening. I know you've seen it, we've had this discussion. And again, I would something, hopefully, you know, things are made to be corrected. That's why there's a racist on pencils. And that's why sometimes having something like this really be taken a look at in the interest of public safety. I think it makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, former member of the Saugus body. During this past week, I've had two conversations with two separate bus drivers from the MBTA. And their question is, cause I can't answer it. So since you do have the city engineer online, they think this is a complete hasty comment. Safety has it as Councilor Caraviello and a few of you alluded to, to having this island that sticks out on the corner of High Street and Woburn. So since we have the city engineer, could you please answer the question, whose idea was to put that island there? And did that island come in as an afterthought to this construction project? Because if that's the case, then I would strongly suggest that you folks recommend that that be removed before someone gets killed here. Can we ask the question, please, to the city engineer?
[Robert Penta]: But with that being said, Mr. President, going back to what Councilor Marks and others have alluded to, the bike lane and the taking a property coming up high street and then getting to that intersection going down the hill, that seems to be have bypassed whatever was supposed to be done. And you're asking for something now that this council has already voted on and there's been a change. I get the impression that this council has not been advised of these changes and the bike route. and the island that went there, because it appears that that island, I mean, you're talking about safety. Let's talk about the traffic safety before the, you already have a crosswalk right there at the corner of Hastings Lane going across. And the island comes out a little bit more, it comes over in the area that's pushed out where, in front of the other island that's already there, that's gonna be gone. But you have to take into consideration in the wintertime, buses coming down the street, heavy duty trucks, ambulances that have to get there. You're looking at a serious, vehicular emergency situation that's going to happen there. So I would strongly suggest that that island can be removed. It should be removed.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Mr. President, I'm Bob Pento, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass. Rick just jogged my mind. The city has in its Department of Public Works, anytime a street is opened by a public utility, there is a bond that they have to place. I believe it's gone from five to $10,000. I think what really needs to be checked, if you wanna get into this review as Rick suggested, and he's absolutely right, have those bonds been taken out? Is the city sitting on any kind of money in its legal department or the Department of Public Works? Because one of the big complaints before when the streets were being dug up by utilities, They weren't being put back in the way they were or made better than what they were. And many streets are like that in the city, national grids coming in, they've done that on numerous occasions. So as a result of that, I think it's something that you probably should look into. Have they filed anything by way of a bond with the city as it relates to this? And more importantly, when you talk about the residents not getting their fair share out of this whole thing, Councilor Marx is right. Because if in that agreement, in that purchase and whatever you want to call it, that agreement between the city and Eversource, it keeps going on. And as we know, and I'll ask Councilor Knight, Vice President Knight, if you look at all those additions that they've had since 2015, I guarantee you that the personnel that started this aren't the same personnel that's there right now. And if that's the case, that's where the city is losing out. So that's why you need it hard and fast right up front when the contract is signed, Once again, what are they putting up? Are they putting up a million or two million? Whatever the contingency might be, but you have it right now. You have it already built into the Department of Public Works. When the public utility comes into the city, they have to place a bond. And if they don't place the bond, they don't get their money back as it relates to the work that they've done. And there has to be what they call a performance bond. And that's the term, performance bond. And if that's not in the contract and they are digging up the street and Eversource is in fact utility, then shame on the city. But if you do have it, then maybe that $10,000 ought to be increased to a million or two because of the magnitude and the scope of the project. So thank you, Rick Orlando, you jog my memory.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass, former member of the Saugus party. My recollection of Harrell goes back to the many times, not only him being a police officer, but the many times he stayed involved in his community. He used to come to these council meetings. on numerous occasions. And if he had an opinion to make, he would make it. And he would tell you right to your face what he thought of you. That's the same way he acted when he was a police officer. If he made an infraction of the law, you were guilty of doing it. And then if he wanted to give you a break, that would be a separate story. But the interesting part about Harold is I think he represents what a lot of people try to do to a police officer today. They try to make them look like a bad person. They're not out there for the community. That's the worst message you can send out there right now. Harold McGillivray was a policeman's policeman. And he represents every single policeman that puts that uniform on every day, puts that gun, puts that badge, and goes out there to defend the people of the community that they're in, whether it's city, county, state, or whatever it might be. I would hope that the people of Medford not only appreciate the fact that Harold McGillivray and the family and his two sons, who are also police officers in the city, are going to have their father's name be put on the plaque that represents what law enforcement is in this country. They're there to help and defend the people, and that's what it should be about. not to debunk them, but to defend them. And it's a shame that anyone tries to do anything to take away from the integrity of what a police officer is. And to Mr. Harold McGillivray, I thank him very much because I enjoyed him and he was a good supporter of mine. And because of that, I support him as well. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road. I'm at the NASS, former member of the Sawyer-Gasparti. I want to, at the outset, I'd like to thank former Councilor Doherty for coming forward because her points of vote are very cogent because Memorial Day is right around the corner. It's probably the most sacred of all our veterans holidays during the course of the year. And for this city to go forward and look for an exemption to eliminate veterans in a police exam preference says an awful lot of things as it relates to where are we going? You know, where are we going as a community and as elected officials? You know the real sad part about this? This is gonna be the 30th year in Washington, D.C. that the veterans have had their annual motorcycle parade. And it's the first time that it's being canceled. It's being canceled because allegedly of COVID. But on the same day, BLM is having their parade and cannabis is having their event on the same day, same times as the schedule for the AMVETS 30th anniversary motorcycle parade. There's a little bit of a disconnect here and maybe of a political, where do we go and who is in support of who and whatever it might be. I'll tell you my experience about my free speech being infringed upon. There's a group in Method called Method Mass Politics. The issue was the Christopher Columbus School. Now I expressed my opinion on that page, like I've done on many pages here on the city of Medford. I've been called every conceivable thing that you can think of on that page. on that group by members in that group and leaving no expert is out. Just use your imagination. That's free speech. And if they want to say it, and if they're not going to be scolded because of being the appropriateness of their language, then so be it. But I shouldn't be chastised or anyone else be chastised for going on that page or any other page and expressing your opinion. Just like Ms. D'Antonio said, just like Councilor Doherty said. And when you are on a board and a commission of this community, common sense dictates. Because that's what you're here for, to listen to both sides of whatever the issue might be. Common sense dictates. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working here in the city. You know what I resent the most? I resent the most when people say, I'm white, I was born privileged, and I have a spoon in my mouth, and I can take advantage of anything, or I have taken advantage of it. When I look at all of you, you're all white, okay? You work for what you got nothing's been handed down to you. And I resent the fact that anyone would turn around and tell me that I'm a racist because I'm white. I've been privileged because I'm white because nobody knows my life. Nobody knows my background, how I got to where I am. And just because I served in government for 39 years, which is the greatest honor I've ever had, outside of being married and having children. No one can take away that feeling of serving the people but you serve the people not to denigrate the people, you serve them to build them up. And when you start to tell little kids today in school, that you've got to be ashamed whether you're white, black, blue or brown, that's wrong. Don't do that to a little kid in our public school education. I'm gonna switch gears real quick. The city of Medford has just been, I've read in patch today, city of Medford is getting $37,500,000. So if the city of Medford is getting $37,500,000, as Councilor Marks alluded to earlier on this evening, I guess the better question is, you guys have got a budget coming up. So if you have a budget coming up, why should you discuss a budget when you're anticipating under the American Recovery Act, this $37 million, you're gonna get it all at once, you're gonna get it over a year, how are you going to get it? You people should have a committee of the whole meeting with the mayor present to tell you how this money is going to be disseminated. In 2007 and 2009, when this country had its economic problems, the monies that were given out back then couldn't compete against the needs that the communities have. Well, now it's a little bit different. We're getting $37 million. It's a tremendous amount of money. But you got to look at some of the things that can be used for. And to me, the first question is, it's looming right around the corner from all of you in 2029, you've got an approximately $30 million unfunded pension liability that no one still talks about. Who's gonna pay for that? How's it gonna be paid? Is it gonna be included in this money that you're going to be getting? These are questions you really need to ask. Also, it talks about paying premium pay for the people who did work during the COVID-19. Well, how are you going to disseminate that? Is it going to be first responders? Is it going to be fire? Is it going to be police? Who's it going to be? I think you really need to sit down and have this conversation. Let me ask you, have you people have been notified already that you're getting $37 million or did you just read about it in the paper? You know, Mr. President?
[Robert Penta]: You have not received it, but it's okay for transparency, for the patch to have it, but the council not to have it. My suggestion strongly to folks, all of you, whether you're sitting here or the two that are sitting home, that you sit down with the mayor and her staff to discuss what that $37,500,000 is all about. Point of information, Mr. President?
[Robert Penta]: Through the chair, Mr. President, it also indicates that you can get premium pay for essential workers and you can offer additional support. And you can also, the money can also go into the educational park and the educational park for which a lot of these kids have gone through, they have suffered over the past year for emotional disabilities that kids have been able to suffer. and we won't get it to the people. We'll just leave it like that. There is money there. It's broken down. There's six categories. I'm not gonna go through all six of them. I'm just saying, thank you, Council Vice President Knight, but I think you really need to sit down. And before you take one vote on this budget coming up, you should know exactly how and when that money's coming in and what it can be used for. And just as a third point, let's go back to the money that they wanna use to take the $500,000 out of that retained earnings account. We are well beyond the 10 year, 10 to 12 year minimum. We're into almost the 15th year. We have batteries. Batteries are not calculating properly. And that's going to reflect on people's bills. And that's going to be, it was 795 abatements.
[Robert Penta]: No, no. No, listen, wait a minute. We're talking about money. We're coming close to our 10 minutes. I'm sorry, Mr. President. It does talk about money that can be used for infrastructure and water and sewer and water and sewer.
[Robert Penta]: And water and soil. This is public participation. It's my right to say my free speech, and it's my time to say what I want to say, Mr. President. Okay, that's the problem. Don't shut somebody off if they're making a point.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Mr. President, with all due respect to the unfunded liability, if you look at the budget for the last four years, it's not been funded. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Good evening. Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road. I'm a member of the Society of Sprite. I want to go back to the December of 2002. And at that point in time, there was a gentleman by the name of Donald Ouellette, who became the city engineer here in the city of Medford. And one of the reasons why he became the new city engineer is because he came from the community of Air Mass, where he instituted a new water metering program. At the time, Paul Guia was our director of public works. And in December of 2002, Mr. Roulette came on board. In January 20th of 2003, Councilor Marks and myself at the time were interviewed by the local newspaper for the purposes of the concerns that were out in the neighborhood regarding the water meter and the bills that were going on. And at that point in time, information came forward that for the past three years, prior to 2003, there were over 709 abatements that were issued by the city of Medford because of faulty water meters. Mr. Roulette, when he came in, indicated that the city of Medford's water meters at that time were no more, they should be no more than 10 years of age. They were 17 years old at the time. So that began the crusade, so to speak, of figuring out how are we going to change these water meters? Should we change these water meters? And when are we going to do it? At the time, there was over 15,000 households that had water meters that needed to be changed, as well as 150 large capacity commercial district people, which represented 50% of the water consumption and the use at that time. Now, in August of 2003, the concerns kept multiplying on the council from residents complaining about their tax bills. And October 23rd, in a very rare moment by former Mayor McGlynn, he acknowledged at a public meeting that it was his fault that the meters were not changed. And the reason is the concern wasn't as bad as it was. And he told the Water and Soil Commission at that point in time that blame me, that was his quote, blame me because they just didn't want to get into the financial obligation of getting into the water meters, not realizing how serious everything was. And that's okay. because that got itself corrected after that. Then on February 17 of 2004, Mayor McGlynn presented before the city council a prelude, a prelude so to speak as to what the water meter sewer count should look like and what do we need to do here to go in the city of Medford. But what he did and what he proposed, which was kind of interesting, he proposed to finance $18,000 have the city council vote for $18,000 to do a preliminary review on X amount of homes and X amount of businesses in the city, just to see how bad these water meters were in commercial meters. And what they found out was an atrocious, the decision or the results were atrocious, because what came out of all of that, where these meters were running much slower, and as a result of them running much slower, the city was losing a tremendous amount of revenue. So in October of 2004, straight down October 19th, the city council voted the appropriation for $4.2 million to put new water meters here in the city of Medford. And subsequent to that, the chase goes on. At that point in time, and that's back in 2003, at the end of 2003, the city of Medford was losing on a daily basis 189 million gallons of water a day, not getting billed, and their leakage was 113 million gallons a day. Those two numbers, and I would hope somebody in the council would pick up on that and make a request as to what our leakage is and loss of revenue from then it is now. The new water meters that came in, once again, had a 10 year lifespan and the meters on this new meeting system, they had batteries in their battery life, according to their own information that they passed up as a 10 year life. We've well exceeded a 10 year life on these batteries. I believe most recently there have been some concerns with people who have gotten their bills and their bills have been higher or lower than expected than what they received in the past. I really think as the concern is for parking in the city, the concern should equally be as where are we going? You're sitting on over $5 million in your water and sewer enterprise account. There needs to be some addressing to this. When is it going to take place? And if it's, if in fact, they're accurate in their information that they submitted and they gave us at the time when the council voted on it. I think council Max was the only one on the council at the time when we voted on this, something really needs to be done because you're gonna find yourself right back to where you were before. If in fact, 10 years is the mandate as their brochure says. So with that being said, I would hope somewhere along the line, what a 10 year battery and a 10 year life of the meter something needs to be looked at because we're going to find ourselves right back into the same problem that we were when they were 17 years of age and you brought in a new person. Second comment, Mr. President, I think it was three weeks ago when I appeared before here, when they were talking about the 5G situation, I said at that point in time that I believed, I believed, and it's my mistake, I misquoted myself, I believe that that time that one of the people who happens to be the director of public, what's her name? Public health at that point in time had voted for some of the passing and not for passing some of them. Sort of like split down the middle. I want to thank council Max. I want to compliment him because of his institution of pushing forward the folks that had their place, not have that 5G go in front of their house. at their last meeting, I think that sets the tempo for people to stand up and say, hey, you can fight the government and you can push them back if you have to. They've set the standard now. And people out there, if you don't want that 5G in front of your house, now's your time to complain because they've already set the trademark. And the council, I believe the vote was four to nothing on that particular issue. Two last comments, and they go like this, Mr. President. The two gentlemen that you just talked about, Tom Kianciano and Bob McGovern, I think the underlying issue there to their lives are that they were born and bred in Medford. True Medford family folks. Something that's very hard to understand today for people who just move in here, who think that even though they've been here for 10 to 15 years, they know Medford like somebody in their family who's lived here their whole life, who's been well respected within the community. They both happen to have a Wellington background. And they both happen to have a big family background, something that's hard to find today and to be respected for and to. So with that being said, I congratulate you for bringing the issue of dedicating the meeting on their behalf. And I think it's a true honor. I think also would be a true honor for this council. You're getting ready to deal with your budget. It's coming up pretty soon. This is a big issue as far as I'm concerned. If I was running for office right now, I would be running to find out where are and is the money for these meters. Do they have to be replaced? When are they going to be replaced? And how and where is the money going to be found? Are they going to take it out of the Water and Sewer Enterprise account or what have you? This is serious money and this is serious community money. And let me just leave you with one last thought, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you a question. because I look forward to every Tuesday night. You started this about three or four weeks ago. I don't hear any more from the director of public health on an update as to what's going on. And is there a reason for that?
[Robert Penta]: But if I remember correctly, the one week she couldn't come, she gave you a written synopsis. I haven't heard, I haven't heard anything like that. because people look forward to that. So I would just hope maybe, you know, that gets itself reinstituted. But as far as just getting back real quick on the water meters and the whole idea of the meters, it's going to turn out to be a big issue. It's going to be a financial concern for this community. And I'm quite sure when council Marks and myself at that point in time in 2003, we viewed 709 abatements having been filed because the meters were not cooperating correctly. And thankfully, Mayor McGlynn finally understood. And that's the reason why he put the appropriation in there. You don't want to get yourself into that position again right now, Mr. President. I don't think it will serve you any good. So I have all the records here of everything that took place, how we got to where we got at that point in time. So I would hope that the council does not find themselves in that same position again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You're welcome.
[Robert Penta]: Thanks. Mr. President, just one quick, Council Marks and Council Falco are both correct. The software that the city was supposed to purchase would cost anywhere between 100 and 115,000 at the time. And they figured that the reason that they would save the money on that is just think about all the abatements that you would not have to service, the people that would have to leave work or whatever it might be to come to a hearing. And sometimes if they didn't even win on their abatement process, they'd have to take that to the district go over and some of them, but Councilor Falco is absolutely right. The way the program was sold is you were going to have an abatement. You were going to have a program with a software. And if any house spiked irregularly, they would contact the taxpayer. It should not be the taxpayer contacting the city. And I think that's the key. That was the key as Councilor Markswell alluded to and Councilor Falco. And it's just, you know, when you say out of sight out of mind, but that's not right either. It's the biggest, other than doing a public works street or a sidewalk, it's the biggest financial obligation that the city has to its taxpayers as it relates to make sure that the water and sewer system works properly. And if it's not working properly and there is something wrong with the infrastructure below the street, below the sidewalk, how's the taxpayer gonna know? When in fact you're collecting, you're raising the taxes each and every year, you're raising the rates each and every year, You supposedly have this system and you're still telling the taxpayer, you've got to call city hall to find out what's going on. That doesn't make any sense. So I think you get your work cut off.
[Robert Penta]: The mic isn't. Bob Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that this is an ongoing thing, and I want to compliment Councilor Marks because speaking throughout the community, he has taken the charge on this particular issue, not to be for or against, but just to bring the awareness and to have some understanding of a communication. As I said before, this is a $5 billion G5 undertaking by Verizon. And some two years ago, when they first came into the city and had a discussion on this, they allegedly stated there was 143 locations or 143 polls that they had identified here in the city of Medford as to where they were gonna go. Now, these poles are all owned by National Grid and on National Grid's poles, you have fire, you have police, you have alarm systems. They're all pole renters and they pay National Grid to be on those poles. And by paying National Grid to be on those poles, National Grid is now receiving a financial inducement, so to speak. In return, that inducement doesn't find itself anywhere back to the rate payers of National Grid, but all Verizon is doing is getting more and more profit. And they're not spending $5 billion just for the sake of having $5 billion to spend, because the subscribers to Verizon plans are gonna pay for that in the long run. There's been no explanation as between 4G to 5G, whether there's anything medically or substantially different, that could possibly hurt somebody because of the medical portions of that. So the question then becomes, and alluding back to council Marx's comment, if you have the lady who is a board of health director, who sits on this board of four, which makes no sense at all, but who sits on this board of four, you've had 11 votes so far. And of those 11 votes, six of them have been against and five of them had been for. Now, I would strongly suggest that you would ask, some one of you folks, ask a question of why the people voted the way they did. Because if you understood last week, there was two young ladies here from a certain part of Medford who was concerned about a poll being in front of their house and the poll being in front of their house, not wanting it there, not knowing what the 5G could admit. So of the five that got approved as compared to the six that didn't get approved, Do the six have an argument against the five or does the five have an argument against the six? Are we going to play what kind of game is this going to turn out to be? Who gets it and who doesn't get it? It's not right. But the most important thing that I think is missing here that the mayor of this community, having this committee being sent up should have made some kind of an agreement with Verizon as to what the city of Medford is going to get in return for having Verizon come into this city and go from 4G to 5G, because the only one right now that's going to be making all the money up front is going to be National Grid on the poles. And Verizon in the long run will get this, whether it goes to 5G, 6G, 7G, who knows, that's not the point. The fact of the matter is they're here, they were planning for it as of two years ago, whether it's 143 poles or 143 locations, that seems to be the issue. So if you're going to have this meeting, this meeting, however this meeting is going to be sent up, what's the logic? What's the reasoning behind approval and disapproval? And if the director of public health voted against it, and even if it was because she felt that it wasn't right for the city, then it's not right for the city all the time, not just part of the time. And those people that voted for it, as compared to the six times they didn't vote for it, well, what was their logic to it? And I think it's very important that if they're going to make a decision, and you said there's 11 requirements on there, then those 11 requirements have to be met by all applicants that come, all 42 applicants. So if that's being said, there's no logic, there's no rhyme or reason right now to the 11 decisions that have been made thus far, six for, six against, and five for. How do you justify that? How do you explain to the city that you have this committee of ongoing people with no experts on there That doesn't make any sense at all. And when the taxpayers can ask that question, you have this subcommittee that's not even odd number, it's even. and you're being restricted according to FCC that you can't vote because of any medical concerns, but you have your own director of public health on the committee and she votes against it. Well, what's her logic for voting against it? What are all the other members who voted against it? What was their logic? And what was the logic of the five that got approved? That's important to know. because you're going to play playing this game with 40 somewhat applications. Some get it, some don't. Some streets get it, some don't. One house has it, another one doesn't. And what are you going to do? Wind up having a lawsuit between people in the city saying, hey, how can you give it to one and not another? I didn't want it there, but you let it be there. That's a good suggestion you came up with, Councilor Marks, because if somebody wants to come and put a poll in a particular area, then maybe they should come in advance, say this is where we'd like to do it, and get a find out, let's find out if people are for it or against it. But the one thing you forgot to mention on whether it's Burlington or Cambridge, they've got a committee, they've got a committee that's uniform, either it's for or against, it's not split. So you're dealing with a subcommittee or whatever you want to call this committee, that's split, you have no professionals, No medical experts, you definitely don't have any technical experts. And with that being said, how can anybody trust that whether 5G is better than 4G, medically or otherwise, it doesn't exist. But this city is allowing a multi-billion dollar corporation to come in and right now, nobody knows if the city of Medford is getting anything. Nobody knows if this mayor has made any kind of an agreement with Verizon to come in here and do it. And the only ones that are gonna get rich in the long run is going to be rising in the long run and national grid up front, and your rates aren't going to go down. So what have you accomplished? Or better yet, you've allowed somebody to come in. This is great. You should have this meeting with that subcommittee, with the mayor. with the legal counsel that you have, and you should bring in a medical and you should bring in a legal expert. Doesn't make any difference if FCC rules and regulations say you can't vote on that. You have a determination because if the person that's on the committee is medically entitled with the knowledge to know that the 5Gs will not work in behalf of the city. You can't pick and choose what part of the city you want it to go in. It either is or it isn't. Your technical person will say either it is or it isn't. You can't go from 4G to 5G. Where's your expert to tell you what's the difference between the two? That hasn't even come out. Oh, I'm sorry. That hasn't even come out. These are important questions. So they've already voted on 11 applications. It doesn't make any sense. You can't run a professional business on something such as this and then be left out in the cold. And here are seven of you trying to ask questions. You have one city council who took the bull by the horns and the people appreciate that. And I appreciate that. And I think all seven of you appreciate it. But the fact of the matter is one simple question. Who's running the show here, Verizon? You don't know, they seem to be running the show. Is it National Grid? Because it's their poll. They're allowing to go up there. They're allowing renters to go up there. You don't have any verification from anybody in the city, from the mayor down, where that transparency is, I don't know. It needs to come out, it needs to be found. And if this continues to go on like this, and you folks know me, and that four member committee just keeps going on, and they make those approvals, Well, then shame on the people of Medford for electing the administration that has allowed this to happen. You city council have at least taken your position. But there's a transparency issue here that needs to come forward. And it has yet to come forward. And because of that, somebody is going to have to pay the price for that. And hopefully, the 5G doesn't go into neighborhoods where people subsequently medically find out that there was something wrong. You don't want to find yourself into like a Johnson and Johnson situation that just came up now with the federal government because people now have a concern. There's been some bad reactions to it. Does that mean that they're all bad? No, it doesn't mean that they're all that they're bad, but you've got plenty of time to test this thing out. If they've been here two years ago, since 2019 and saying that we're going to have 143 locations, and this is now 2021, something is wrong. If there's been no situation, no communication, I would respectfully ask that one of you ask the city administration, the mayor's office, what, if anything, is the city of Medford going to get, or is the city of Medford getting, by allowing Verizon to come in and put 5G on these poles? It's a money matter, follow the money. It's all about money, as we all know. $5 billion is not chump change. It's a huge investment nationwide. And when T-Mobile can rent off the same pole that Verizon is putting up, you know, they're all making money. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I would like to, if the young lady felt insulted, I apologize. But that's the marketing that Verizon does when they go out there. They go to the lowest socioeconomic areas because that's the ones that they feel that they can move into first. That's what I said.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, I'm picking up on your resolution. that took place in 2016, because at that time it was the second year. And I believe along with you and Councilor Knight and then Councilor Brianna Longo, there was some concerns with Park Method and their distribution of how the revenue was going to be coming in. Therefore, as a result of that, what we needed to go to, as I indicated back then, was to go to the contract. And in the contract on page five, there is two specific sections. It basically includes that states 20 days after the end of each month, a monthly report would be submitted to the city of Medford as it relates to a whole host of issues relative to the inventory of monies taken in and what's going out and what the fees and everything were. Also, there's an inclusion in there that the operator, meaning Park Method, would agree to submit on an annual basis the gross revenue and the operating expenses So on an annual basis, so rather than having you go and get all the monthly things, I'm requesting that the council puts a resolution forward, making that request as it relates to their annual revenue, relative to the fact that this is what took place. For example, you would have net city parking revenue, that's annual appeals, the annual appeal, dismissal, forgiveness, annual resident visitor parking permits, business permits, commuter permits, annual parking citations. And then we get to the issue on an annual basis of the $50,000 annually that would go to the commercial districts here in the city of Medford. Now that was something that came up by Mayor McGlynn in, I believe, October of 2014. And as a result of that, that became a bone of consternation between the Medford Chamber of Commerce and the business people, and as well as the issue on the city council relative toward the business districts not getting X amount of dollars. Therefore, as a result of that, what took place was that in October of that year, the city at that time through Mayor McGlynn, and then Park Medford came to a final resolution before January of 2015, and 15. And in 2015, that $50,000 for each square was then included as part of the agreement between Park Method and the City of Method. And in their brochure, they note specifically that $250,000 annually will be subject to the appropriation for district improvements. Now, I don't know where that money is, if it's ever gone there. Some people say it's gone out once. Some people say maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. I don't know, I can't answer that. That's the reason why I'm asking for this breakdown and how the money was being expended. Next, we have the issue relative toward $2 million a year is what Park Method said that they would bring in annually to the city of Medford. So if we look at that $2 million per year, And in the contract, there was an inclusion that anything over $1,250,000 annually, the city would increase from its annual 35% net revenues to 83%. The question then becomes where, and if in fact, has Park Method submitted that type of information to the city of Metro? I don't know. None of us know. And again, once again, that's the reason why I'm here asking you folks to do this. So then let's go to the issue that basically talks about, I think it was in October during a city council strike that award six committee candidates on October of 2019. Then council Longo addressed the community at that point in time as it related to the method parking program. Quote, this is what she said, as to parking enforcement, it is broken. If elected, I will end the contract that expires during the next mayoral term. I will go back to the committee recommendations of 2009 to implement in-house enforcement and replace the kiosks with meters. I will provide free parking for our seniors. The city will benefit by keeping 100% of the gross revenue for our city services and schools. We currently see only 35% of the revenues. Now, that's a tough point right there. 35% of the revenues, because we really don't know because you've never received the public documentation back. You, Mr. President, have asked three times. Resolutions go back and suggest that and prove that. So where do we go from there? That's the question of why I think you really need to know how much money has come in. How has park method delivered as they're supposed to occur, so into the contract and the city of Medford, how they made an accounting for it. It's public information, it needs to be made public. So the question then becomes, if in fact the contract has been adhered to, and if in fact revenues have exceeded that for which the 35% formula has taken place. But the question then becomes, if it hasn't taken place, then where are those revenues? There's also a report that's out that you can go on Google and it's by the Method Parking Commission. And they have a report that goes out there that basically says, through their Google webpage, that on an annual basis, the city of Medford is, if you add up their numbers, that the city of Medford has only collected approximately $436,000 per year. That's number one. Number two, the statistics that the city has in the city of Medford allegedly will substantiate that we're only getting 35% rather than the 83%, which would indicate we haven't exceeded that for which you would get the $1.3 million annual money that they collected. But according to Park Medford, when they first came in, they said that their annual revenue would be in excess of $2 million. So $2 million over a period of 20 years, or even over a period of eight years, would give you $16 million. We're nowhere, we're nowhere near that type of money. So I would strongly suggest that if this be the case, what really needs to be addressed is as follows. We have the 2009 report to which Council Marks served on there with the then former Chief of Police Sacco and a whole list of other folks who made up an extensive and an exhaustive report. as to how much they went to other communities, they checked it out, they saw how the revenues could come in and where it should go in here for the city of Medford. The question then becomes Mr. President, if elected means she has been elected. So since the mayor has now been elected, the question then becomes the 35%. We really need to get these numbers to find out, are we in the 35% or are we above the 35%? And lastly, just let me say this, and this is really the perplexing question. If in fact we follow what the mayor Then city council said in October of 2019, to follow that formula of this report, why then do we have another new committee report of people? Is the mayor going to change plans, change direction, not follow the 2009 report? I think you people really need to know that. And if people are sitting on that committee and it's gonna be a waste of time because you're just gonna follow the exhausted committee report of 2009, that needs to be relegated out there. You know, this is a lot of money. And if we're only looking at $436,000 a year as compared to a lot more than that, because we haven't gotten to the $2 million mark per year, you need to know that. And you really need to have a discussion. And it was you then Councilor, Mr. President and Councilor Knight and Councilor Marks and Councilor Brianna Longo-Cunningham had serious questions with Park Method over this. You indicated, Mr. President, that this is year eight. This is years eight, nine, and 10 are the years for negotiation. And they're taking them one year at a time. Well, if they're taking them one year at a time, and the mayor said, and when she ran for mayor, that she was going back and she was going to get rid of Park Method, then the plan ought to be that Park Method's going to go. There should be no negotiation to extend anything here.
[Robert Penta]: I believe this is the committee. I may have the wrong terminology. This is the committee to discuss parking in the city of Medford.
[Robert Penta]: So then the question that I asked the council and to you, Mr. President, if the mayor indicated she was going to look at the 2009, she was going to adhere to that report, then the traffic, this new committee that's been put together, are they discussing this report to add or subtract? Is the mayor not going to support this? Are she going to entertain another type of situation? Because this is very conflicting.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if you're going to be on one year renewals in years eight, nine, and 10, give you the option to bow out. And you've had plenty of time to realize coming into your option year that something should be taking place. So are we going to, as a community, take three years in a row as option years and work at it one at a time? I mean, you know.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I'd like to answer that question. A constant night brings up a good point that three years when it first came up. was nixed by then city solicitor Mark Romney. He said it would not serve in the best financial interest of the city of Medford. That bumped up the contract to 10 years, but given years eight, nine, and 10, the flexibility, whether you'd want to renegotiate, get out or whatever it might be. I'm only concerned over the fact that you, Mr. President, dating back at least three times going back to 2016, coming forward with council resolution have asked for these numbers. Senior citizens have been waiting to park for nothing for free, because that's what was alleged. Same comment was made in Inauguration Day, same comment was made in 2009. So if we're not going to follow this report of 2009, which is very extensive, and it wasn't just for the city of Medford, you can correct me Councilor Marks, you went to other cities and towns, you saw how they derived their revenue through meters and their timing, and whether they had resident parking, commuter parking, this and that. If that is not going to really be entertained, I just think that this parking commission, Councilor Scott Bell, it's just a waste of time. We either follow something or not. Are you going to change it? And I think the mayor has an obligation to tell you and the taxpayers of this community, whether in fact we're going forward. Why would you want to go into two more years of one year contracts trying to figure out what you're going to do? You should know by now. Resolutions dating back to 2016 and 17 with her name and many councilors names on there. Question, just as councilor Knight has indicated, the veracity of this contract. I mean, how is it going to work with the city of Medford? Approximately $2 million in uncollected money is still outstanding again. This is on the Google page of the Medford Parking Commission.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor President, I'm going to disagree with you, because when this council issue came up before the council, it started in May of 2014. And it ran on for a few months. While the mayor and some of the councilors had a difference of opinion, It did go on, there was some public interaction. And if this mayor is going to entertain a new contract without having the council interaction and public awareness and public input, that's bad. This is really bad because that's not what you call transparency.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, one quick thing.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Marks, you talked about Everett, talked about Revere, talked about Somerville, you talked about Boston, Brookline, Malden, and Everett. A thorough report from the hiring of a clerk to the amount of people that walked the streets and the monies that were collected. You're not gonna get more of a thorough report than that. And this new commission, for whatever the reason is, it's out there and why the mayor is doing it, And nobody knows, but that question ought to be asked. If you made the commitment in 2019 to do with this one, why are you going in a different direction? Thank you. Mr. President, if I could. Council member.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Pentez, Zero Summit Road, Method Nest. And I think what I have on the agenda is a discussion of Method's pay to park program. And I believe you gave me the catalyst to do this, Mr. Caraviello, Council President, because for some years you've asked for a report and we really haven't gotten a report. I don't know if you can hear me on this. Is this coming through?
[Robert Penta]: You can hear me, okay. Okay, I'd like to go back to, as a quick side note, to September of 2009, when then Mayor McGlynn had a commission set up as it relates to how was parking going to be addressed in the city because it was a revenue item here in the city. At that point in time, Councilor Marks served on that committee And one of their recommendations was to possibly look into having a civilian parking commission in the city. Now that was in 2009. And it didn't take place until I believe it started in May of 2014, when then Mayor McGlynn decided we were going to do something about parking here in the city of Medford. And as a result of that, from the months of May through the months of December of 2014, we went through an arduous task of reviewing how and what packing was going to be here in the city of Medford. So what I'm asking for is that a complete breakdown from inception, starting from calendar year 2015, right up to date, be brought forward, and I'm going to pass out something for all you councillors at the end, that we get so not only the U.S. councillors, but we as citizens have an idea of just how much money that's coming in. Asking for a complete itemized detail is found in the contract that was signed by the city of Medford. And at that point in time, the public parking point, I believe has been resold. And it states on page five on section six on the gross revenue, it says within 20 days after the end of each month, the operator shall provide to the city a statement showing all revenue, including details of citation revenue, meter revenue, permit revenue, and other revenues. And this statement must include a copy of the monthly statement from the separate bank accounts utilized by the operator for the payments and received by the city of Medford. So I'm really not asking for anything other than what should be in this building right now. But the only thing that this building has been able to afford was in the calendar year 2015 and the calendar year 2016, the first report that the then city council asked for. And subsequent to that, nothing has come forward. I believe you have asked three times, Mr. President for a report, an itemized report for which the contract says they were obligated to do. So we're not asking for anything that's outrageous. It's in this building somewhere, somehow. Now, another thing you need to remember is they said, they meaning Republic at the time, they said that the revenues coming into the city of Medford would be approximately $2 million per year. So right now we're into the end of the seventh year. So that would be approximately $14 million thereabouts to be accounted for according to their terms as it relates to what the revenues would be. But if you go on the Medford Parking Commission, they have a Google page here from the city of Medford and they extrapolated from Park Medford, a list of outstanding monies that have owned this old, the city of Medford since 2015. In 2015, still owed, if I'm reading it correctly, it's $339,449. In 2016, it's $368,140. In 2017, it's $375,611. 2018, it's $351,470. 2019, it's $339,449. $148 and past year 2020 was $163,875. Again, if I'm reading this correctly, but I'm standing here tonight to be corrected if I'm wrong. But from reading what Park Method has submitted and what the Method Parking Commission is saying, that's $1,937,693. That's outstanding. That's still owed here to the city of Medford.
[Robert Penta]: He's a random.
[Robert Penta]: These amounts have yet to be accounted for as being satisfied.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm just telling you with the traffic commission, parking commission, excuse me, it's put on their webpage. But again, as I said, I stand here to be corrected. Plus the fact, plus the fact I believe the $2 million per year that was indicated was part of what park, I mean, Republic Parking said on October, 2014. So if we look and if these numbers are true, there's a little bit of a problem there, why they haven't been collected upon. But therefore, if we're getting $2 million a year for the last seven years, that's $14 million. years eight, nine, and 10, I believe are they're renegotiating yet. So I really don't know if the city's renegotiating. I know they have a new traffic commission, a group of people looking at where you should go and how you're going. And I think you guys and Ms. Morell, you should be up to date as it relates to, you know, what the city is doing with that. Another thing is there is, and I believe- Mr. President. It was an October- What information council members?
[Robert Penta]: Being aware of the problem. So if in fact these numbers are any way correct, that's $1,937,000 takes back to 2015. there's something wrong with the city not being able to get that money, separate issue. Taking that one step forward, in October of 2014, for those of you that might remember, there was the argument of the five squares, Medford Square being one, would get on an annual basis $50,000. And that was a ball of contention, especially here in the city of Medford, Chamber of Commerce, and then Mayor Mike McGlynn. But toward the end of the year, I believe it was in December of 2014, there was an agreement reached There was an agreement reached with Park Method as it relates to, they now, they would be willing to submit $250,000 would be earmarked. $250,000 would be earmarked on an annual basis, 50,000 for each square. They put that in their folder, in their folder that they passed out, which specifically states that $250,000 annually be subject to appropriation for the district improvement. That's the five districts here in the city of Metro. I know it's been some conversation with the chamber, and I know it's been asked a couple of times, but if that'd be the case, that $50,000 a year going forward for four of the last five years would be approximately $200,000 each square that they haven't seen. Again, the accounting of the money, this goes back to like last week on the water money, on the fees, there has to be an accounting where it's going, how it's being spent, I don't know. So if you take that, put that all together, Mr. President, Mr. Messenger, could you please pass this up? I'm asking on this particular issue here. I think it's important to know that while you might be having a commission or a committee to be looking at the parking revenues, there doesn't seem to be anything going forward because it states on page six, I believe, of the contract that this has to be a renegotiating year with the people that we have in the city right now, years eight, nine, and 10, is the city in fact in a negotiation with the parking company?
[Robert Penta]: You're on a one year contract. Yes. So for example, if we're on a one year contract, which is year eight, which we're on right now, it's possible at any point in time, this contract ends at the end of this year.
[Robert Penta]: So it's up to the administration that that be the case. I would thank Mr. President if in fact that the two million dollars was the estimated amount that we would be getting on an annual basis and we're looking at 1.9 million plus and monies that are owed. Something's not jiving here because those monies whether they're making the two million dollars a year or not How do you let each and every year, how do you let that just continue to escalate and escalate and escalate? I don't know. It's unfair to the people who pay every single day to use the meters. And it's unfair as to the contract as it's written. So it's either a lack of enforcement or I'm reading these numbers wrong, or there's something wrong on the adding and subtracting of how this money's being spent. What you have here, what I gave you comes right out of the contract. The contract is even more specific and more definitive as to what you're looking for. That, as it's written, tells you basically how much money is coming in and where's the majority of it going. The key point to all of this is whether you stay with the company you have now or you go with a new company, you have an in-house, something has to be considered as it relates to outstanding liabilities. And you can't run $1,900,000 in an ongoing liability that started from day one. It just doesn't make any sense. So I would hope that somebody would make a resolution and ask for an annual breakdown of Park Method. I mean, what the contract says does for the city.
[Robert Penta]: Say it again.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's what I'm asking.
[Robert Penta]: Nobody's going to do it? What are you asking for? What I gave you right there is a sample of what's on page six, section, I believe.
[Robert Penta]: For five years, since inception, from 2015, coming forward, how you got to your revenues, how did you get to your receipts, how did you get to your expenses? You've only done it twice.
[Robert Penta]: Say it again.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road. I don't know if you can hear me.
[Robert Penta]: No, can you hear it?
[Robert Penta]: Back in May of 2017, what was presented here before the city of Medford was a new, what they call a base, rate of 861 per household. And then the different charge would be for the commercial district folks here in the city of Medford. And then one of the arguments was that it would raise $1 million a year. That was approximately 4% of what the city's budget was at that point in time required for the water and sewer services in the city of Medford. Subsequent to that, it's gone on for the last three years. now coming into its fourth fiscal year. And I believe a response that was sent back to the city, you folks, pursuant to a request from one of your colleagues, was a breakdown of how much money each and every one of the last three fiscal years amounted to. Inclusive of that amount, again, was the term of $1 million to be used per year, but they never reached the $1 million per year. What was reached was $2,585,362.66 as compared to the $3 million that was allegedly stated that the city would gain. That's a difference of $414,637. So where do we go with that? Where we go with that, the argument was that that would be used to supplement water and sewer for whatever needs might be if something were to come up also to subsidize the water and sewer department in case of something that's anticipated. In the letter that came back, it indicated here that the universal connectivity fee is an infrastructure recovery charge to be hooked into and maintained in the water and sewer system. The fixed base connectivity fee is estimated at $1 million per year to help stabilize revenues in this place. That response also indicated that that money goes to your water and sewer account. There is no breakdown. There is no breakdown to the charges, commercial or residential. There is no breakdown also as to how and where that money has been spent. And there is no program that is set up presently that tells you what that money can be used for. So right now, all it's done has been included into your water and sewer account. One of the misnomers to this whole project, when sold back in 2017, was in case there is a, in case, that's the word, in case there is a deficit in either the water or sewer account. In the years 2016 and 17, there were deficits on the sewer side, not the water side. But each and every year, when the water and sewer budget is estimated, it's estimated on what the work is going to be here in the city of Medford, and also, The water and the sewer rates that you get from the MWRA, those rates come in ahead of time, not after a budget is made and set. That's another misnomer as it relates to the full program. So approximately right now, you're sitting on $2,585,000 of base rate fees or charges, whatever the term you want to use, that has come from the Mr. and Mrs. Metro taxpayer has been put into the general revenues of your water and sewer account. That ladies and gentlemen is not the proper accounting practices and procedures because in your own water and sewer account, you have to have it broken down. You have it broken down by employees. You have it broken down by cost of material. You have it broken down by the named individuals in the trucks and everything else that goes along with it. My suggestion to you folks would be simply this. You can't put a fee on somebody or a charge without knowing what you're charging them for. It's not fair. If that's the case, you should have just raised the water and sewer account by the approximate 4% that you think it was going to do to offset it. So if you're sitting on a surplus of approximately $7 million or thereabouts in your water and sewer enterprise account, and you're sitting on approximately having already raised $2.5 million, but you still don't know how it was spent, where it was gonna go, Where is the projected projects that are supposed to come? It doesn't make any sense because right now, what it's saying is it's a water and sewage charge. It was to services in case something were to happen. The original proposal back in 2017 was the charge for the water meeting. And that was the charge that was going to be placed on each and every residential person. So we know right now that that charge every single time, once it comes out, is not for the meter. But unfortunately, for accounting purposes, because you can't figure it out, in this city, in the accounting department, there is nothing to be found that'll tell you how and where that money was spent. But you can find it in water and sewer, in their particular budgets, independently separated. My suggestion would be to you, that you have a budget coming up this year. I would hope that maybe somebody would make a request and ask the question, because it doesn't make any sense that the response that came back from the finance director, we don't keep an accounting. Well, if you don't keep an accounting, how do you keep an accounting of residential and commercial meters that you have and what you're going to be charged? How can you allege that you're going to be taking in a million dollars a year when you haven't even got to that figure? Something needs to be said as it relates to these type of budgetary items. Seven weeks ago, I came in here and I think I explained something like seven items. I'm going to go through them all one at a time, not tonight, Mr. President. I will go through them all one at a time. Because good accounting procedures tells you what comes in has got to go out and how does it go out. You've got situations here that you really don't know why should you be charging these people to supplement or augment a water and sewer account that's presently sitting in millions of dollars. You have yet to be told what the cost is going to be for an anticipated construction sidewalk, street reconstruction might be because of water and sewer. So if you keep taking in these monies from Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, you're overcharging them. You're overcharging them each and every year on this base rate, the speed, whatever it might be. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Well, while that may be true, there's also, you talk about general accounting practices. General accounting practices does state that if you are going to put a budgetary item on a budget, as you councilors get each and every year, the question needs to be asked, if I'm going to just put $100 million, so to speak, and put it into a line item, and there's no accounting of the money, other than the fact I just put it into an account, what's the purpose of that? So you're right, it's an administrative prerogative, but when it came up in May of 2017, it was contentiously argued at this Medford City Council as to why we need this new fee. And at that point in time, the argument was for the purposes of the meters, for the accounting of the meters. Now it's going into the general revenue, and now we're being told that there is no delineation, there's no explanation, there's no accounting of how that money's being spent. So if that's the case, And as Councilors, if there's no explanation of how it's being spent, before you used to have the accounting firm of Melanson and Heath, you don't have them anymore. You have them for like 15 years out of New Hampshire. You have a new accounting company that comes in here, they're supposed to do an annual audit. That question ought to come up. Because if you remember correctly, if you looked at the Melanson and Heath audits, that was one of their concerns on the MWRA, especially in our water and sewer accounts, if you go back and read them, the accounting and the prioritizing how the money is spent. This account, or this money, Councilor Knight, there's no accounting with the money. It just goes into a general revenue.
[Robert Penta]: As watchdogs of the city's money, over and beyond the administration, the administration can make a proposal. The bottom line is here with the council. You either vote it up or you vote it down. And if you're going to vote it up or you're going to vote it down, The question is, what are you voting on? And if something comes to your attention to be questioned as to why and how, this is where it's going to take place in the Medford City Council Chambers.
[Robert Penta]: Then I would respectfully suggest, if we follow that train of thought, I would respectfully suggest a freedom of information request to the city auditor, asking the city auditor. As to why, Mr. President, why there is no accounting. When you get the money from the MWRA ahead of time, before a budget is made, there's an accounting of how that money is going to be spent. You have money.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Councilor Biss. I believe, Mr. President, a Freedom of Information Act can come from anybody. And if the council does not get it as you got it from the response from the finance person, then you would go to that next group. Because again, if you follow what Councilor Neider said, if allegedly it comes from the Water and Soil Commission, it's their call, maybe their call to implement it. But it's your call to decide how and where, if it's going to be spent. And you guys can ask for an accounting of how the money is being spent. That's it.
[Robert Penta]: You're more than happy to answer the questions because it's the finances of our community and you can't keep tagging on to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer and now not having an answer or an explanation.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, just on that matter, just to go back and reflect, Demita's had a lifespan of 10 to 12 years. I don't know if it's 13 to 15. But that's a perfect example, a perfect example of when you have a budget that's coming up from the Department of Public Works, having a projection, for example, on new water meters, that dollar amount in anticipation needs to be in there. And while it's into the proposed budget that you folks deliberate over, it's likewise the same type of money that can be deliberated over the base fee for which goes in there. You back then, Council March, talked about the retained earnings, but the retained earnings, has to be something that's certified and qualified by the Department of Revenue and subsequently voted upon by the city council. So taking all of that into consideration, you're dealing with a multi-million dollar surplus right now in your water and sewer account, and you also have inclusive of that multi-million dollar, you're talking about two and a half million dollars right now that's been collected. So how does that fit into either retained earnings or the water and sewer balance Is it off by two and a half minute because this is a new dollar amount in there?
[Robert Penta]: And in 2016, Mr. President, the deficit was 467,000. And in 2017, it was 427,000. That was on the SOAR account, but that was offset on the opposite side. Council March is talking about because of the retained earnings of the surplus that was in the water and sewer. All I'm saying, all I'm saying is this account, if it's included in your water and sewer account, it should be accounted for and how it's spent or anticipated to be spent, just like any project that's going to be done in the forthcoming year. And there was also a dollar amount contained in the budget for unanticipated expenses. You may have a street that just blows open, a major line that blows open, I don't know, but the money is there. And lastly, let me just say this, Mr. President, each and every year, I don't know, coming into this year, each and every year, there's been approximately a million dollars in surplus that's left over from the prior year's budget. So each and every year for the last maybe 10 to 12 years, there's been approximately a million dollars, and that money, which is left over, once it's certified by the Department of Revenue, it's leftover money, can be used for any unanticipated debt deficit that takes place in the city. But we don't have to do it because you've got surpluses, in the water and sewer enterprise.
[Robert Penta]: You're welcome.
[Robert Penta]: You're welcome.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: Do you have to leave the mask on or can I take it off?
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Thank you, Councilor Marksley. I appreciate it. I don't know if you can hear me, if it makes it any clearer. What Councilor Marksley has alluded to has brought me into this issue of public accounting as to what took place as it related to this connectivity fee, that's what it was called. So it was implemented in August of 2017, and for the last three years, it has brought in in excess of $3 million to the city of Medford. And having that at $3 million and not knowing how and what it's been used for, and if it was going to be an adjunct to the water and sewer system here in the city of Medford, then so be it. We always get in advance from the MWRA their projected assessment as to what the city is going to be charged for water and sewer charges. And that is built in your annual budget each and every year. And each and every year since then, the projection that this could be possibly used for a deficit has never happened because we're still dealing with the surplus. So I think what Councilman Marks is alluding to is the fact that, you know, if you've collected $3 million, what have you used it for, number one? What do you have projected for its use? What is the cost for it? And more importantly, if it is separate from water and sewer, so be it. As we know that you can't take the money from water and sewer because that's considered to be retained earnings. And the only way you can get through retained earnings is to the Department of Revenue to get a waiver and 90% of the time that they will give it to you. But this is something that has led me after the resolution went on, if you can just bear with me, to other things that unfortunately the council and the public have not been apprised of and brought forward. This base fee charge at a minimum of $51.66 annually, that's on the house side. I don't know what the commercial side would be. But if in fact it's bringing in approximately a million dollars a year, so be it. If you look at your most recent tax bill here in the city of Medford, which is for the third quarter, they implemented a new system with a new vendor. And the new vendor has really got this bill basically messed up. It's going to be changed because they made a big mistake on it, especially when it gets to the tax itself and it talks about your CPA tax. If you think about what's going on, and if you think about the taxes here that are going on here in the city of Medford, what can we do to some degree to help the Medford taxpayer as to what's going on and everything that's going on? So what I would like to just introduce to you is something for you to think about. When you look at your water and sewer tax.
[Robert Penta]: OK. If you can look at your water and sewer bill, and if you can look at your tax bill, I'd like to introduce something for the council entertainers. It's called a deadline discount program. And a deadline and discount program, which is implemented in a lot of states and a lot of counties, that the month that you get the bill, your tax bill, for example, you get your tax bill in November, and I believe it's due February 1st. The next one is February 1st. But if you pay it on the month that you receive it, there's a 4% discount on your bill. The next month, which would be January, there would be a 3% discount. And the city in itself would be getting its money quicker. And at the same time, the taxpayer would be getting a break as it relates to that. Same thing as it relates to your water and sewer bill. If you get your water and sewer bill, it's usually six or seven weeks out before you pay it. And the month that you get it, or the month before, you get a 4% discount if you pay for it ahead of time. It's a thought, but it does work because it gets the city money quicker before you get it quicker. Pinellas County in Florida, one of many counties, have implemented that and they've shown a marketable increase, a marketable increase. Another thing, Mr. President, when we talk about the city's unfunded liability, for which this council, I can go back to 2014, Resolution 214725 was offered by myself. And that particular resolution asked that on an annual basis, the city of Metra take out of its free cash a minimum of $500,000 toward then in fund liability of $29 million. I have no idea what the unfunded liability is. And I don't think this council has any idea of what the balance is and how much each and every year has been taken out of the budget for the purposes of getting to that unfunded liability, which has to be paid by 2029. Another thing for which the taxpayers and the council should be aware of waste management. And I don't know if you guys are aware of it, but in March of 2014, then Mayor McGlynn signed an extension, a three-year extension to the waste management contract in the City of Medford. And that three-year extension went as follows. For the first year, the City of Medford would get $300,000 in cash. The second year, they would get $100,000 more. That's $400,000 from 2014 going forward. But the catch to the whole thing was as follows. The amendment was, if you remember correctly, for those who did serve back then, recycling was an issue here in the city of Medford. And at that point in time, when the contract was signed, we were at 11%. At some point in time, the city worked itself up to a 29% inventory of recycling. But as a result of the city signing off on a three-year extension, what took place there was that the city of Medford allowed waste management, allowed waste management to increase our cost of recycling on an annual basis projected at $85 per ton, and then it would set itself on an annual basis increase, according to the city of Boston, beginning on July 1st, 2015. That's almost six months, that's almost a good year after the contract was signed. And as a result of that, each and every year, the city of Medford has been being charged more for recycling than they had been according to the original agreement. So for $300,000, $400,000 that the city got paid up front, the cost of recycling has gone forward. And once this contract ends in the year 2023, yeah 2023, all the recycling bins, all the recycling bins that the people have in this city will come under the control of the city of Medford. They'll own it and not waste management. Another thing that I believe, Mr. President, needs to really be discussed is the CPA. Once again, taxpayers on an annual basis are at a cost of approximately $103, according to your household, in the value of your home. Now, the CPA, as we all know, five years are up. Any time after five years, according to the law, as it's written, that question can go back on the ballot. And I would strongly suggest that this council put that question back on the ballot. Because when it was first elected in 2015, 1,200 people did not vote on the question because it was on the backside of the ballot, and they didn't know that the question was there to be asked. $103, think about that, annually for CPA. Then you think about the $51 and the connectivity fee, and you put that together with maybe the discounts on paying for your taxes, it would be a great help to the city of Medford and to the taxpayers. Also, Mr. President, Cable costs. Our cable bills from the residents of this community keep going up each and every year. They just went up again. But they also have a 5% franchise fee in that cable bill. You folks have not got an update on what that increase has brought to the city of Medford and where that money has gone, at least for the last four or five years. And I know that's something that Councilor Marks had brought up before. Then we get to the parking issues, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: This presented itself, Mr. President, onto other issues which could be beneficial to the taxpayers, and it would be a public accounting so people could become aware of it. Councilor Penta?
[Robert Penta]: Well, we're almost done. Do you mind if I can just figure it out? Because it's unfortunate. You know something? You're supposed to seize the moment as the moment is. And we're talking about the people of our community, what they have to pay. Also, at the same time, if we can offer them a benefit, and at the same time, the City gets a benefit. It's a matter of being creative and looking at what you have. Parking information. You, Mr. President, you have asked on numerous occasions, numerous occasions for a report on how many tickets have been issued, how many have been abated, how much money has been collected, and how much has been given to the City of Medford. Excuse me, none of you can do that because it's never been presented. And what about the $50,000 that was supposed to go to each and every square here in the City of Medford? It's not there. The accounting for the squares hasn't come under any control as to what we're doing. And lastly, Mr. President, if we all remember at the inaugural, we were told that seniors in this city would not have to pay any more to park in the city of Medford. That still hasn't come to fruition. That's unfair, because you can't make a promise like that and not keep it, because that's what people look at, what your responsibilities are. I say this tonight, Mr. President, as I told you before, taxes pay for what makes this city run. And at the same time, the city has a responsibility back. But if it can be a two hand, shaken hands compromise, why not? Discounts to your water and sewer bill, discount to your cable bills, finding out where that money went. And let's get back to the original thing. The connectivity fee that was supposed to be helpful here to the city of Medford, you've never had a report where it's going, how much it's brought in, what projects, if anything, and how much it's gonna cost. And why should that be considered an adjunct to the Water and Sewer Commission money, when in fact, if you can't project your budget in the future, Like you're supposed to, and you get your water and sewer estimate ahead of time from the MWRA. We should not be thinking about a deficit when, again, you're just taking more money from the taxpayer without giving them the reason why you took it. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions, but I would hope that one of you, someone, even would get into the idea of showing and having some kind of a discount in advance for people who pay their taxes and for people who pay their water and sewer bills. It's out there, it's been a proven fact, and it does work. And it'd be a great handshake between taxpayers and the city. Thank you, Councilor Paeta. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions.
[Robert Penta]: Okay.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. President, before you call the roll, one quick thing as a notation on the tax bills that come out. You'll notice it says police, fire, and library. It says 10, 25, 30, whatever it might be. Whoever checks that, when those bills come out every quarter, I think it would be informative to have next to each one of those items how much money has been donated so far. Because that would give either an incentive or not for somebody to make a contribution. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: On the bill. Okay, under each item it'll tell you, they can put in parentheses, that would designate how much money.
[Robert Penta]: Right.
[Robert Penta]: Summit Road. Mr. President, I want to go back to something that I had said earlier. I would like the council to entertain what they call a deadline and discount program. This would relate itself to your water bills and also to your taxes. And as I said before, it is well practiced in some states and some cities and towns where On the month that you receive, for example, your tax bill, if you pay it that month, you get a 4% discount. If you pay it the next month before the bill is due, you get a 3% discount. Or you wait till the very last day and pay it like a lot of people do. Same thing with the water bills. The water bills doesn't have as much of a leeway time between the tax bills when they come in. But in the month that you receive the bill, it's usually halfway through the month. If you pay it that month, it's a 4% discount. I think it works well because it's a handshake between the cities and the taxpayers. And if the taxpayer is looking for a little bit of a break, there it is right there. If you pay your bill ahead of time, you get a discount. And at the same time, the city gets its money to use at a quicker rate for whatever purpose it has. I think it works. I think it makes sense. And there's no loss to either side. I think it's a benefit to either side. And at the same time, What you're doing is you're telling the taxpayers, you're basically thinking out for them the best way you can, and you're thinking out for the city the best way you can, because you're giving us the money quicker than we would have gotten if we had to wait almost eight weeks for you to pay your tax bill. So I would hope someone on the council would entertain it, present it before a committee of the whole for the purposes of discussing it, and moving forward with it. It works. It works in other cities. It works in other states and other cities and towns. And as I told you earlier, it's just a way of saying to the taxpayers, we're hearing what you're saying. Everybody's got these problems today. We want to help you out. And the second thing on the citizen participation, I just don't understand why tax seniors have to pay that once a year $25 tax to park in the city when we were told in January inauguration that the seniors would be able to park for nothing in the city of Medford. That still hasn't happened yet. I don't know why. It's a promise that should have been kept, that needs to be kept, and it's just, once again, it's, I don't know. I don't know how the city's operating lately, but all I can tell you is this. You've got to look for creative ways to keep the people's interest, and at the same time, to keep your own interest. And what I presented here tonight, I think, is a pretty good handshake with the taxpayers and with the city of Medford as well, Mr. President. Be more than happy. When we talk about money here in the city of Medford, you talk about how the city is going to function. And the city can only function when the taxpayers are willing to pay. And sometimes people become delinquent in paying. And if they become delinquent, they can't pay it because they don't have it. And if those people that do have it want to relinquish some of their money quicker, and get a discount for doing it, it helps the city because they get the money quicker. And the last thing I want to say, Mr. President, I think it really needs to entertain itself that the CPA, which is now five years has come and gone, should be looked at about presenting itself on the ballot this November coming in 2021 for the purposes of whether you're going to use it again and re-up it and what have you, because that's what the law says. I'm not advocating for it or against it. What I'm advocating is that the five years are up. The sunset legislation is now in effect. And if you don't do nothing, it's just going to stay there. 1,200 people in 2015 did not vote on that question because it was on the opposite side of the ballot. They weren't aware it was there. So we really have no idea. whether it would have passed or it didn't pass. This time, I think it would be incumbent if the question goes on the ballot, it's there, and the taxpayers make their decision. That's what it's about, the taxpayers' use of their money. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Councilor Penta. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Relative to Councilor Bears' comment, it doesn't make any difference whether it's in-state or out-of-state. It's how a city sets its tax rate and how it makes its collections. All I'm making reference to the fact that it works in other states. It's out there. I believe there's a few cities and towns in Massachusetts. It's not my call. It's only an offering to be made. And if it works, as Councilor Marks has alluded to, how can it not work if you're getting your money quicker and you're having a discount paying it ahead of time? That's all I'm saying. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Good evening, my name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, and a former member of the August body. I come here tonight To make some comments on issues that I feel are important as it relates to this upcoming budget, from what I understand this administration, and I know the Chief of Staff is here, he can reflect upon the fact that you guys and Lady are going to get an early budget this year, earlier than normal. If that's true, I don't know. Is it true? So he says we hope so. With that being said, and with two new Councilors on the board, I would just like to reflect upon a couple of things as it relates to what really has not been addressed for the past few months. First of all, going back to last year at some point in time regarding the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, we never got a report back from the auditor's office as it relates to the outpatient surgical offices that are going to be housed in the old Lawrence Memorial Hospital as part of an addendum to the 16,000 square foot building that the Lawrence Memorial Hospital is going to have their surgical center at. And with that being said, again, it's just out there floating around not knowing what's going to happen because they haven't made a decision. Second of all, it's the taxing of the nonprofit funeral portion of the operation at the Gaffey Funeral Home, which houses the Islamic Cultural Center here in Medford. And where they're going to be running a funeral business out of that center, once again, it presents itself as a for-profit business within the non-profit structure itself. Again, no answers come back on that as of yet. And these are issues that I think need to be discussed and resolved before or at least during your budget. Also, let's go back to something that Councilor Caraviello, when he first came on to the Council, talked about, the disrepair of the schools. At that point in time, Councilor Caraviello indicated during his first term, it was $1.2 million of school repairs. We're now in excess of $1.5 million of school repairs, and we're getting ourselves right into the same position, I shouldn't say ourselves, the city is getting itself into this position of why we had to build new schools in the first place. If the upkeep is not going to be taking place, there is something wrong with that. The building of a new police station, contained within the building of the new police station, it's 5,000 square feet less than what was asked for. There is no police firing range that is for qualification. But more importantly, the sad part about the whole thing, no police vehicle is going to be able to be housed internally. They're all going to be outside. And by doing that, all you're doing is leaving all your public service vehicles open to the elements. So if there's a snowstorm or whatever it might be, every police officer's gonna have to go out there and take the snow off it. And you try to explain that to the people of this community and you tell them that you're spending close to $20 million for a new police station, but you have no place to house or at least care for your police cruisers. A very important issue that seems to be lost in the weeds is the, at present, if not more, a $29 million unfunded pension liability that needs to be paid by 2029. That is yet to be discussed. Also, what needs to be addressed right now also is a citywide It's called the Citywide Home Water Meter Battery Replacement Program. Now for those of you that have a house and you know when you get your water and sewer bill, the system was put in well over 10 years ago with meters that were only good for 10 years. The 10 years have come and gone, that's a cost factor and that's a replacement that needs to take place. We still have yet to receive a cost projection for a new fire station as to where it will be, when it will be, and what it will cost. There is no projections out there. And still outstanding is the new training tower that was promised it would be built before the old one was taken down. Well, the old one has been taken down, and now nothing has been put up. And in fact, it does affect, in the city of Medford, your home insurance rates. There's no financial outline as to how the city's annual free cash should be prioritized. For the new councils coming on board, for the last few many years, it's almost a million dollars each and every year the city of Medford has left over, it just goes into free cash. So that presents itself with one or two arguments. Number one, the budget is either not accurate, or number two, that million dollars is maybe not correct when the budget is being voted upon at the time. So therefore, To me, it makes very good sense because a lot of cities and towns do this. You folks pass a budget in May or June, let's call it June, that should be the time you set your tax rate, not six months later. So if you do that, you're working on an actual annual budget that reflects upon that vote that took place in June that represents itself to each and every dollar itemized. Also, a public works five-year projection program that covers our streets, our sidewalks, our tree stumps, our equipment, our water repairs issues, and cemetery, as well as all personnel that's gonna be needed to address that. That would be a great program to have because number one, we're already understaffed and we're hiring immediately just two more people to work in the highway department that just basically on a daily basis is so understaffed and on demand. Lastly, for the purposes of at least this portion of the discussion, two points. And I know Councilor Caraviello once again has asked for this and Councilor Marks, you've asked for this. You should get a five-year financial recap from Park Medford on all the receipts taken in and what has been given to the City of Medford. I guarantee none of you have received anything from Park Medford as it relates to that financial responsibility. And lastly, Councilor Marks, you brought this up, yet to be determined Where and for what reasons has the $500,000 from Tufts University been accounted for? You still don't know. We still don't know. Now moving over to the housing issue. And here's an issue right now that's in the forefront of everything as to what's going on. So let's just mention a few little things that are going on. Right now what we have on the books are 185 units that are coming online after Wendy's on Middlesex Ave. You have 300 plus units opposite the Wellington Station. You have a proposed 400 Chapter 40B units next to the Middlesex Courthouse on Mystic Valley Parkway. And looking at the smaller neighborhood issue that took place on Forest Street, where a private developer wanted to maximize a single-family residence to a multi-family use zone, that caused a tremendous amount of consultation not only to the neighborhood, but the Medford Historical Commission. Going back, you go to 61 Toro Street, where you had an old magnificent home over there for which Tufts University was involved. And they sort of like wanted to take advantage of the property. But through the neighborhood pushing back, that didn't take place. Right now, as of tomorrow night, you're going to have before the Board of Appeals, where the old Titan gas station is on Boston Avenue and Harvard Street, a condominium proposed development. And then you have rumored development of a new condos behind the Middlesex Avenue Mall. Once again, a rumored development of 30 plus condos on South Street. And a rumored Boston Avenue multi-housing development. Then, at the end of last summer, 500 multi-use development was proposed by Combined Properties of Malden. And after a large community opposition, led by then City Councilor and now Mayor, Lungo-Koehn, as well as Gene Nuzzo and Cheryl Rodriguez, the project was forced to be scrapped by the developer. Now, some six months later, This same company, Combined Properties, is now proposing a 37, 378 residential unit, and the application for approval is coming along under a Chapter 40B proposal, entirely different than what they originally had. The real wake-up call to this whole issue right now on housing here in the City of Medford should have taken place at 61 Locust Street. The massive development that is opposite Wegmans right now, which was originally scheduled for over 500 units, and they've culled it down to 345. Neighborhood protests pushed it back. But as in any big business development, what did they do? They went into the neighbors that were pushing back and they bought every single home over there for them to at least come back with $345,000 and still make the money that they're going to be made. As I said some years ago, and as I said during this past campaign, the City of Medford needs to embark on a moratorium. A moratorium on its zoning, and more importantly, a complete review of its zoning here in the City of Medford. And the reason why the moratorium would work is because our zoning has not been reviewed for a multitude of years. So you're saying to any proposed developer that comes in, I will propose this affordable housing, which is not the same as a Chapter 40B, because remember, affordable housing is something that's compensated in part or given great latitude by state laws, whereas a Chapter 40B is a private independent entity coming in there. So sure, they'll give you their affordable housing. but they'll back in the cost on the remaining units that are in the building. So how does that qualify and justify for an affordable housing process? I don't know. But also, you should be looking into what they call a growth management proposal. And the reason why I say that is because we have right here in our own city, a sister city, it's called Malden, Massachusetts. And in 2015, they put a question on the ballot, and their ballot question revolved around what you have been talking about, Councilor Falco, the Malden Hospital, what we're going to do with it. The second thing is the Community Preservation Act, what are we gonna do with that as far as open space? And their third question was the moratorium on high-density, multi-level development. It won by 71% of the vote, and they had a moratorium, proposal that passed and it went from January of 2016 to December of 2017. Now incorporated into that was the density of the immediate neighborhood taken into consideration, the height, the number of units, as well as the zoning exemptions that were being challenged. And as a result of that, they have now, I think if you go to them all, then you can be able to see, if you look at their development office, I don't know if they call it Office of Community Development, they do have a serious situation where they had developers just coming in all over the place. Medford has a serious problem in having a workable business community, a business development community. Approximately 10.2% of the business in this community is commercial. Who bears the rest of that brunt? It's the residential. And I know every time when you folks turn around and do your budget, you talk about a residential factor making it the highest or the lowest or whatever it might be, you're still putting the burden on the taxpayer who owns his residential home, and you're not taking the exemption for the out-of-state person. So, with that being said, and if we continue to go on this road, or this, how can you say, this road, so to speak, of not increasing our commercial base, all you're going to do is just going to be commercial, I mean, raising in the future your residential rate. Now, after what took place in Malden, and after what took place after that, we can switch ourselves over to the city of,
[Robert Penta]: You want somebody else to talk?
[Robert Penta]: OK, well, I'm on my last page. I'm on my last page.
[Robert Penta]: So after Malden, beside Malden, in 2015, the city of Revere, and again in 2018, put that question of a moratorium, high density, multi-use positions over there. And their situation over there revolved itself around large scale buildings, traffic, public safety, schools, and roads were going to be at issue. And the claims that Revere was not growing geographically, but rather becoming more dense without any economic development is just like what's going on right here in our city of Medford. And with that being said, that the challenge for affordable housing in Chapter 40B as we speak today, would be the luxury of using our at-present zoning laws and skirt around the real issue of reasonably priced housing and rental. There are two or three companies in the United States that take into effect low-moderate housing. Veterans middle-income people, but not high-end middle-income people, middle-income people, and that's a determination by a professional. We don't have that expertise over here, and I know on the ballot here tonight, on our agenda, there's a question regarding Chapter 40B, but if you really look at just Chapter 40B, and you realize that developer is not there to lose money, and he's putting housing in a densely populated area, you're violating all the reasoning of why a neighborhood should be a neighborhood. And as a result of that, moratoriums does not have to go on the ballot. A moratorium can be placed by this council, by this mayor, or jointly together. And recognizing the fact, and recognizing the fact, we are a city just as running, allowing housing to be any place and everywhere at any time. And because of that, that's not good. That's not healthy for the neighborhood. As I said before a long time ago, development for the sake of development isn't the best thing that can happen in this city. We have schools, we have public safety, we have public works. We have a whole host of issues that taxpayers have to increasingly pay for. And our best example of that is when they talked about stations landing, that they said at that point in time, that was going to lower our tax rate. Well, the tax rate has never gone down once since station landing. As a matter of fact, it just continuously goes up. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions, but I just think it's important to have brought this up, especially for our two new councils, but more importantly for all seven of you, because this administration and you as a new council needs to address issues that basically address these matters. They haven't been addressed, and they need to be addressed, and you just can't sit here and say, okay, we'll get to it someday, because someday has already come. So with that being said, Mr. President, Larry, could you, I made copies of my comments for all of your Councilors, so in case you missed anything. The part that I appreciated the most when I served on this board for 36 years was the fact that I was willing to hear opposite viewpoints. But when it comes to finances, two and two equals four. And when it comes to neighborhoods, the people who live in the neighborhood should come first. Not out-of-towners, not developers who want to come in there and make a whole bunch of money and then leave us. Perfect example is Lumineer on Locust Street. They built the building. They said they were going to stay there. They went to the Board of Appeals to get what they had to. And one year later, they sold off the building and made $62 million at the expense of the Medford taxpayer. So with that being said, Mr. President, I thank you for listening. And if there's any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.
[Robert Penta]: Can I ask a question?
[Robert Penta]: Name and address for the record. Robert Penta, 0 Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm really getting confused on this whole issue right now, because I thought.
[Robert Penta]: Let me just ask this. Let me ask just one question.
[Robert Penta]: And to me, this is where I would be going with it. I'm trying to understand, you're telling me that don't raise the value of land. And if you don't raise the value of land, you'll have a better neighborhood or a better atmosphere, so to speak. So with that being taken, taking place, what you're saying is that ignore zoning because zoning is a big reason why land values go up and if you are going to take out the free competitive spirit of Somebody buying a piece of property and doing what he wants by ignoring the zoning laws that absolutely exist at the present time whether it be for a chapter 40 B or affordable zoning that flies in the face of of what the petition is all about. And I think what Dr. Starello is basically trying to say, all you're doing is moving the debt from today till tomorrow, and when tomorrow comes, whether it's two today or 10 or 12 or 14, what are you dealing with? Somebody's gonna wind up paying for it, but in the meantime, it's a cost factor that's being reflected upon everyday taxpayer. So when somebody says that the value of land, don't put it on the value of land, That seems to be the intrinsic value of how developers seem to come into a community, see the value. They don't care about the location. They don't care about what the density is going to do with it. And it's your zoning that's gonna predicate the value of land and its use of land and neighborhoods. That's how I read what Councilor Morell just offered. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Barpenta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. So this is going to reflect back on some of the comments that I made a little bit earlier. First of all, the City of Medford is a member of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and they have individuals who are very professional in the housing portion of what we're talking about here right now. To go out and hire a private consultant that pushes and advocates for Chapter 40B, I don't think would be a very wise idea. Oh, against the 40B. I thought you said... I'm sorry. Well, you may not have to do that because if the Office of Community Development gets itself redesigned, hopefully you would have somebody up there who would understand what the process is. You have to understand something. There's a difference between Chapter 40B, which does come under a few Massachusetts housing management departments, as compared to affordable housing. Affordable housing is usually a private, But working with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who to some degree sets some standards up there as it relates to not only affordability, which has to be, but the permanent and perpetuity of having the the reduced cost unit, whether it be the rental or whether it be the housing. Chapter 40B is made for a private developer. He'll come in there and say in the city of Medford, well, you've got to get between, your income level has to be 80% of the medium income in the area that you're applying to put the housing in. And if that be the case, you know, we can do that or we'll put 100 units up. 25, 2025, whatever the number's gonna turn out to be, will be affordable, and we'll just raise the cost on the other end of the units. So what did you wind up getting? You really didn't complete anything. Me personally, my suggestion would be that the city goes into a complete moratorium on any and all development to take place, because you don't have anything right now. You have a Chapter 40B person who can come in, who just came in right now on Mystic Avenue, and will bypass your height restrictions and other zoning requirements because that's what 40B is allowed to do. If you read chapter 69 of chapter 49, excuse me, of chapter 40B, that's what they'll tell you. They can come in and they detour and they go around. And I know you guys, Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli, have talked about over the last two or three years, zoning. So maybe you should hire a zoning consultant right now to figure out how you bring up an update of a 40-year-old zoning that you have here in the city of Medford because every Chapter 40B that comes in here will bypass upstairs and they'll get around it. And that's the privilege that you have for being a Chapter 40B participant, okay? So if you want to have a Chapter 40B be participant that works with the city, then that's what you need. You need to have someone who goes into the neighborhood and sees where the project is going and how is it going to enhance. It's not gonna produce a density buster. That's what you don't want, and that's what's happening right now. Density busting all over the city, because private developers know how to do it. They're efficient at doing it, they make it sound good, and what do you have left? You have all these developments all over the place. schools, police, fire, public works, infrastructure, water and sewer. It's all affected by this, all affected by this. And while it might sound good that it looks good, that's what you're paying for in your taxes for which our commercial tax rate can't even handle because it's only a 10%. So the burden once again is right back onto the residential taxpayer. I think it's a great idea to get into the discussion. But if you read this case after case after case where cities and towns are so sorry that they went into Chapter 40B because it did not turn out to be what it was supposed to be. And the fastest way to correct a Chapter 40B problem is to make sure that your zoning speaks for what you want today and for tomorrow. It's the financial viability of what a community has to deal with as it relates to a Chapter 40B. Not affordable housing, it's a Chapter 40B. They're in two entirely different requirements. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if you go to the city of Somerville, they just went through it for a year and a half. They stopped, they had a moratorium as it relates to that type of development that took place over there because of what was taking place so fast.
[Robert Penta]: They did nothing for that period of time. as it relates to multi-use development.
[Robert Penta]: To the best of my, to moratorium, so that means you can't. Another point of information.
[Robert Penta]: One of the things that a Chapter 40B does tell you, if they go before a Board of Appeals, if the Board of Appeals feels, this is the term that they use, and it's not a friendly Chapter 40B, that's the term, friendly, they can shoot that down. Now, what determines to be friendly? It could be public health, it could be public safety. Those are the two biggest issues that you'd have going. Other than being in a residential neighborhood and making it high density, That's a subjective thought. That's all I can tell you. But if you are going to hire somebody, or Office of Community Development is going to employ somebody, consultant or otherwise, that's the first thing I would address, because you have such archaic laws, you can go to the Board of Appeals right now and come in and make a proposal, and you can't shoot it down, because YDB will allow you to do it. It's an interesting concept and the city of Medford really needs to address it because you've gone at a fever pitch over the past many years with all kinds of development and there's no checks and balances to it. 61 Locust Street is really the issue that should bring this all to a head. It should have brought it to a head then when they wanted to put 500 units there. Okay, and what did they do? The big developer went in there and bought out the neighborhood, bought out every single house in the neighborhood, and they reduced it to 345, which the Board of Appeals allowed, and it managed to put itself through.
[Robert Penta]: I believe that the reason, I believe Councilor, the reason why the city lost is because the neighborhood agreed to the reduction of $345,000 after they all got bought out. So our suit was completely moved at that point in time.
[Robert Penta]: But they felt it had zero standing, but also the then mayor at the time refused to give additional money to go forward with the case.
[Robert Penta]: You could have appealed.
[Robert Penta]: But I also believe, Mr. President, when you lost the issue on standing, it was a moot issue, because all the people, the residents, pushed back on the lawsuit, because they all got bought out. So the standing for which the council had was not being supported by the neighborhood, which initiated the lawsuit in the first place. And the council got originally $20,000 in the beginning to get the case going.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter. I reside at Zero Summit Road and a former member of this August party. You're probably asking why I haven't been here for the last two meetings, and I'll be quite candid with you. I believe it's just a done deal no matter what's going to happen, whether the emergency room is going to close or the ASC Center is going in. It seems to be it's going to go through. But what this council does have is a voice in the concerns that the determination of need does not have. I was asked by a couple of people, just as your position, how come you're always coming up here? You've got something to say. I mean, how are you going to prove it? Well, I'm going to go back, because I keep everything, as you know. I go back to 2012. It's a resolution offered by myself before the Medford City Council, 2012, asking about whether, in fact, the Lawrence Memorial Hospital is going to be up for sale or not. And subsequent to that meeting, we got a response back from Michael Sack, who appeared before the Medford City Council some time later. This was in March. I believe it was in September or October of that year. He indicated that Lawrence Memorial Hospital was financially blessed. We were going to see at least a minimum of $150 million worth of an infusion in the hospital. And it looked pretty good. But he did say, and I will give him credit, he did say, medicine is changing. And while medicine is changing, you need to be concerned. So at that point in time, what the concern was, it didn't go any further than that, other than coming here, giving us a response as to what have you. Now, the history of parking in the Lawrence Memorial Hospital goes back to 2000. and three in 2004. Once again, as a member of the council, I brought it to the attention of then Christine Candio and she was the executive vice president because at that point in time in the neighborhood, employees were parking all around Lawrence Ave, Summit Road, Crest Road, up and up over there at the lot of park. And she indicated at that point in time, what they were going to do in her letter dated September 16th, 2004, she said, pursuant to our conversation on Tuesday, September 16th, the services at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital have grown in the last few years. And she went on to say that on September 7th, we implemented a new employee parking policy, which includes 200 spaces of off-street employee and student parking shuttling. Now to get to this gentleman's point, I'm sorry, I don't know his name, But to get to this gentleman's point, relative to the parking, you're going to have a parking issue if they build 17,500 square feet of a standalone building and take away approximately 65 parking spaces. But we'll get to that a little bit later. Then we're going to go, as you can all remember, thanks to City Clerk, on November 27th of this past year, you got a detailed response back from, I believe her name was Norma Mann, after it took 87 days for the council's letter to reach to the Department of Health, but it states in the following, in their fourth paragraph, the Department of Need program cannot base its determination of a Department of Need application upon community concerns regarding parking, noise, and traffic. but any decision by the department on the application will not impact the rights of the city to enforce zoning or other bylaws to address these quality of life concerns. What I've heard here tonight are quality of life concerns that fall right within the confines of the Medford City Council. And you do have a position to speak up. And if the position by speaking up is enough to stop this from going forward, then bless you, because you're listening to what the concerns are of the neighborhood and what the people feel that you're getting paid for. And then if we go a little bit further, we go into... Wait a minute. No, that's not it. No. The MBTA. Now, there's nobody here from the MBTA that I'm aware of. What if they are? The rumor seems to be continuously running rampant that they want to run buses or strike that. The hospital is suggesting that buses run by the MBTA up to the Lawrence Memorial location because it's not a hospital anymore. Get rid of that word hospital after March 7th. As a result of that, you're going to be having buses and pollution and everything going through these neighborhoods for a for-profit business. Now, they never consider that for the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, when it was operating with an emergency room and 24-hour service and stays. Why? It's all about money, ladies and gentlemen, and we know that. And as Councilman Mox has alluded to, when you had $20 to $30 million sitting in your coffers in 2013, and it all of a sudden disappeared because you intentionally, intentionally made the Lawrence Memorial Hospital emergency room decline to transfer everything over to the Melrose-Wakefield, that's what happened. And as a result of that, this is the position that we're in right now. Now, we go further to turn around and look at the zoning yet to be declared. A representative from the city solicitor's office, Mr. Rumley, rightfully made an indication as it relates to a memo that was sent out on October 10th of last year regarding what if this ASC does come forward. And at that point in time, the building department made an assumption or an assertion what would need to be happened. And Mr. Rumley was right when he turned around and says, since we don't have it, I can't make a decision. But I guess we're getting closer to wanting to make a decision because if that ASC is approved, for which it already tentatively has been approved, then if that's the case, you folks on this council need to ask that question immediately. Does or does not zoning need to be changed at this particular location? And now the city solicitor can rightfully make his determination because it's now a done deal. It's a past fact. Now let's go a little bit further. When you talk about the hospital's use, the deed that goes back from Mr. Daniel Lawrence. I don't know if anyone's had an opportunity to read it, but you have to read it. Then if you read all the six cardinals, they'll go with it. And then if you go into the history of Medford and you understand that at that point in time, there was, I believe, two other locations that did hospital type services. But this one was granted under the cardinals between one to six for a hospital to come forward in the city for the particular purpose and only intention of being a hospital. Now the question maybe one of you councilors should ask our city solicitor, since it was specific enough to say a hospital and it's no longer being used as a hospital, and I think we all understand that medical services change through the years, but by changing through the years you've gotten rid of the hospital use because the hospital name has to go. The emergency room is gone. Your 24-hour service is gone. And many, many of the services that are there are gone. It's going to be called an urgent care. I don't know what the name is that's going to precede urgent care. Maybe Lawrence Memorial Urgent Care. I don't know. But the fact of the matter is simply this. It's going to be a for-profit business running at the expense of the nonprofit business that was there that gave you a hospital, an emergency room, and 24-hour care. And this is what you're losing. And this is what you really need to take into consideration. This is now where the ball is in your court, not the state. This is your court. And this is how you can make that determination. And we look at this report that came out in March of 2018. It's voluminous. It's a report that was a combination of USA Today and the Kaiser Health Care News. And it was a combination of California, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida, Washington, DC, and Virginia. That's where these reporters came from and they did a nationwide review of ambulatory surgical centers. And from 2013 till now, 265 people have died, unfortunately, because of going there. Now, I'm not trying to put it down, but I just think you folks need to be aware of the fact. Because one of the main reasons are they're not properly staffed. Some of these doctors have taken liberties to do more than ambulatory surgery. Some of these patients have gone home quicker than they should have gone home. And they don't come under the same rules and regulations in the Medicare that a hospital does. And that is unbelievable when you read that. The checks and balances are not the same. If you read a hospital report, you'll realize what they have to account for. But if you read a Medicare report on ambulatory surgical centers, it's not the same. They don't even come close to what has to be reported. And in some states, you don't even have to report a death that comes out of an ambulatory surgical center. It's not in there. That's some of the things that you folks need to hold this company that wants to come into our city, you need to hold their feet to the fire and be accountable for every single thing that they do and every single doctor that comes in there and what they're going to perform and how they're going to perform and what is the backup. Let's get to you, Counsel Max. You brought it up last summer. You brought that question up last summer that this lady says, again, she's going to get back to you on. What's the backup for an emergency that needs to take place if an ambulance needs to be called, if the surgery goes wrong, or something happens? That's probably the most important part of this whole idea that this is going to cut costs. Sure it's going to cut costs, because if you read the report, a lot of the doctors that perform at these ambulatory surgical centers wind up getting these patients as their private patients. It's all about money, and that's great, because this is what America's all about. It's not about cows that don't know how to fluctuate. It's about democracy, and it talks about business. And what good business is all about is good medicine. And if you have good medicine and good business, you'll have a good, healthy person. But you have to be cognizant as to what's going on. This report took months. It's voluminous to read, but the parts that stand out are the necessity of knowing what this ambulatory surgeon, none of us, including myself, we're no surgeons, we're not doctors, we're not professionals. That's why you really need, before anything goes further, to put your heads together, read the report, read what's going on, ask all these type of questions. Parking is important. Of course it's important. The garage is important. But the most important thing is they took away your hospital to put a for-profit business in. That's the most important thing that you need to understand. Second to the last issue. We've heard the hospital folks come up here and say, oh yeah, they're going to be paying taxes because Shields is coming in. Well, that's really not true because the question is now going to be, the footprint of the hospital is now going to have an attachment to Shields, which is a for-profit business. Now, the urgent care section is not going to be part of the Lawrence Memorial Hospital because it doesn't exist anymore. So one or two things can come out as far as you're compromising or you're negotiating tactics. A, Shields pays full taxes, excuse me, as if. It was a commercial piece of property because it is commercially run. Second of all, if urgent care is going to be questioned as it relates to being nonprofit, well, then they ought to deal with the city in lieu of tax payment every three years to be reviewed. Because every one of those doctors in there are making money. They're private doctors now. They're working privately. They're not working for a hospital. Hospital no longer exists after March 7th of this year in the city of Medford. And let me just leave you with this last comment. And I appreciate the time. You had a young lady here that worked in the local newspaper. Her name was Miranda Wilson. She was going to write a story for which she did write a story that talked about the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, A, an auditing report on their executive salaries, and B, an auditing report on their expenses, profit and loss. When she submitted that to her editor, the editor said, no, no, no, because the pushback came from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. So, if you really think that this Medford newspaper is giving you the right information, think again. Maybe many of the employees are doing the right thing, but it's quite obvious that the people who are running the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, all these executives that are getting paid hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars during the course of a year, if they can control the newspaper to try to control the people that read the newspaper, that that's what's going into the newspaper, it's going to be the right thing for the city of Medford then we're all crazy. Okay. Please hold your ground. This is your time to hold your ground in behalf of the taxpayers of this community. I thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please. Robert M. Pentez, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., former member of this party. You know, the world is in a changing state of times right now, and I think what Councilman Marks has introduced is something that could be epidemic anywhere in this country, but it's not the first time. It's been here before. You know, you as Councilors, you have a 50 percent voice in the school department budget. And if you see something that's not taking place in their budget, for example, under school security, and here's a prime example of what school security is all about, this is the opportunity to do it. If the school committee knows that the city council is with them and trying to help them, that's a great leadership quality. And I don't think anybody in any municipal or state or federal capacity should sit back. If you've got something to say that revolves around security, Say it. That's what you're getting paid for. That's what the people expect from you. With that being said, Mr. President, not only do I think it's a good movement, I think it would be wise, as a suggestion being offered to the school committee, that they review their entire policy. And now, knowing that they're going to be having a new superintendent as of June or at the end of May or whatever it might be, if not sooner, whatever the situation might be, here's an opportunity to start to clean house on issues that are really of a concern. Maybe the gun clip said something. But the review of the policy is what it's all about. People in the building that nobody knows nothing about. And I think it's a good motion. And I would hope the council votes approval.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Pentez, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. The stress and anxiety of Clipgate, that's what I call it, Clipgate, has needlessly caused our city an embarrassed showing for collective management when they thought nobody was looking. Dating back to December 28th, when the ammo clip was first found, A cast of characters have become principal components to the investigation, starting with the cleaning company personnel who first found the clip. We have further parties of interest in the school custodian, Mr. Edwards, the principal at the McGlynn School, Mr. Belson, the school superintendent, the resource officer, Medford police officer, Riccati, Mr. McLaughlin, director of building and grounds, Mayor Burke, and school employees who brought this to the attention of Councilor Lungo-Koehn. When Councilor Lungo-Koehn notified the police on Thursday, December 15th, of this concern brought to her attention by school employees, the school building was swept on Tuesday, February 20th, according to news reports. Thankfully, Breanna Lungo-Koehn and Councilor Marks addressed this matter at their next council meeting with many concerned parents in attendance. This past Thursday, February 22nd, at the Karen Little Theater at Medford High School. Seven days after Breonna Lungelkorn notified police, the mayor called for a school committee meeting wherein hundreds of Medford citizens, teachers, and administrators attended to discuss the matter. When Mayor Burke, as chairperson of the school committee, first found out about this matter, and from whom and what did she do, she has yet to disclose that matter. While the February 22nd meeting revealed a lot of anger and displeasure as to what the Clipgate incident has caused, it also revealed shortcomings to questions asked. One glaring question, and yet to be answered, was, who was the we that decided not to share the info at the outset? The Medford Police, under the direction of Chief Sacco, is leading the in-house investigation regarding this incident, as he should. If the Medford police are good enough to investigate a murder, stolen property, drug dealing, and other crimes within their daily jobs, they now don't need to be upstaged by the mayor and her hiring of her close, personal, and financially rewarding political friend, Martha Coakley. Mayor Burke, on her own, without any discussion, approval, or vote of record from the school committee, has hired her close personal friend, former Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has contributed $1,000 to Mayor Burke's campaign to do this independent personnel investigation because of this matter as it's reported in the news reports. This independent personnel investigation should have no ties nor relationships to any politicians in our cities. I ask, where is the transparency to this matter? Independent means just what it says. Free and devoid from any influence, guidance, or counsel of another or others, nor affiliated with or loyal to no one political party, organization, or voter. Both Mrs. Burke and Mrs. Coakley are both Democrats. This hiring of Martha Coakley by Mayor Burke is a sole source contract, a contract awarded without competitive bidding. It directs itself to cronyism, particularly in awarding jobs to friends or trusted colleagues in politics between politicians. This hiring also prevents presents, excuse me, a serious question as to whether Mayor Burke has violated the state ethics law on the chapter 62. Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 268A, wherein the law states if a conflict is apparent, or the appearance is a telling sign, then a violation of the law is readily at hand. A public employee may not act in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to think that she would show favor toward someone or that she can be improperly influenced. I stand here not to question the ability or the capability of Martha Coakley, but rather the concern of a state ethics conflict of interest, as well as to her individual unspecified cost from her very expensive downtown Boston law firm of Foley and Hogue. Mayor Burke's relationship with Martha Coakley has been long and financially rewarding. I find it interesting that Mayor Burke is now concerned with having an independent personnel investigation, but where is her outside independent audit of the school department if she is so concerned about righting the ship? I do not believe we need a very expensive, close, personal, and political friend of the mayor to address Medford's employee personnel policies. Medford is a good city with tons of good people in it. Let this incident be the thoughtful reminder that when the law is not followed and protocols are not in place, and when city leaders take it upon themselves to make decisions that fly in the face of potential safety and what the law says, then all involved, no matter who, as this case has demonstrated, shall be held accountable. For the truth only has one consequence. Let no cover-up be worse than the crime itself. I would like to conclude by making a correction to a statement I made last Thursday at the school committee meeting. At the conclusion of my commentary and in my haste, I misread what I meant to say, and it was as follows, what I meant to say. What happened in Florida was horrific, and hopefully we all have learned something here tonight. The people of Medford want action, and as city officials, you owe it to them. Now, with that being said, Mr. President, again, You folks have been through the whole issue of conflict of interest, whether it be your pay raises or jobs. This is a very serious matter. This hiring of Mrs. Coakley out of the Clear Blue Sky, while this incident is going on, I believe does not speak well for the police investigation. I don't think it speaks well for the Medford Police Department. They can handle their own investigation, and if it turns out to be something on one of their own, they will resolve it. If it's something that's resolved here in the building, an employee, it will be resolved internally. And if the need is to have an updated personnel policy that hasn't taken place since this mayor has come into being, well then so be it. But to hire someone who paid you, strike that, who gave you $1,000 in political contributions, smacks with the theory that this is directly a conflict of interest. And this is a sole source contract. There was no need for this. There was no need to go out with no competition, no bidding on this. This wasn't a serious emergency that needed to be done and nobody could be contacted. So I really think it needs to be reviewed. And I think the city solicitor needs to review it with you council. I would hope someone on the council would ask that question. Why did the mayor go ahead and do it? The mayor hasn't even notified you fellas and you yet that she's hired Mrs. Coakley for this particular purpose. to do this investigation. I don't know how much she charges. People say she charges $500 an hour. Well, how many hours is she going to go for and how long is this going to go on for? The taxpayers of this community need to know that. And this issue of her being hired should not be disguised because of this ammo gate that's going on here in the city of Medford. They are two separate issues. And the mayor needs to respond and answer that question. Was she part of the we that made the decision not to disclose the information, dating back as early as December 28th and bringing it up to February 15th when Councilor Longo-Curran brought this to everybody's attention because of people bringing it to her attention. You know, if you remember closely what the Chief said when the question was asked of him about the picture with the clip with the gun, because I was the one that asked him, where did you get that picture, Chief? And he says he got it. from the Director of Buildings and Grounds, Mr. McLaughlin. So I gave you seven people in the beginning that start this whole thing going that have to be interviewed. Possibly every single elected official probably should be interviewed and asked a question, because maybe some of you know. Maybe some of you have been told something. I don't know. But you know something? It's a very serious incident. Last Thursday night, up at that high school, there were so many people that were so impassioned as to what they were saying that sometimes it just looked like it might have or it could have gotten out of hand. But logic and common sense and calmness has to take place. We all know now that there is an issue out there. We all know that allegedly it was thrown away. We don't know if it was thrown away, if it was misplaced, somebody took it, somebody got rid of it, I don't know. The police report, the police investigation will prove that. But while all that's going on, to hire another paid outside consultant, because that person is a political personal friend of the mayor, My God, come on, folks. I mean, there's got to be some checks and balances here. It can't. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and smells like a duck, it probably is. Chapter 268A, that's what it says. You can't give the appearance. And this definitely not only gives the You've got the $1,000. You've got the contributions. And she's not only contributed to this mayor, she's contributed to other mayors and other people in this city. You can't do that. That's not being independent. That's saying pay to play. And if that's what's going to go on here, then shame on this city and shame on elected officials for allowing this to happen. And I would hope Mrs. Coakley would give a second thought about this and say, well, while it was nice to be asked, I think it would be better for the city of Medford to find someone who has absolutely no connections if they really want to do an independent policy. You folks are all part of the Mass. Municipal Association. They have a huge department in there to review personnel purposes. You pay. You're a paying member on an annual basis. You should have gone to them first. But to turn around in this situation and disguise it because of what happened with the ammo clip and go out there and hire a Methodist lawyer from one of the most expensive law firms in Boston, and you don't even know what it's going to cost you, it makes no sense at all. I would hope one of you somewhere along here puts a request in to have a report as to how and why she was hired, how much is she getting, and if, in fact, this is a conflict of interest.
[Robert Penta]: You're welcome.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Let me address the record, please. Zero Summit Road, Barpenta. Number one, As outlined in the local press and in the Boston news media, she was hired, Martha Coakley was hired by the mayor. This vote never took place, it was never presented before the school committee.
[Robert Penta]: Well, wait a minute, I'm just telling you, if you can check it out, it was never presented before the, it was never presented.
[Robert Penta]: It was never presented, Rick, before the school committee. There's no official vote.
[Robert Penta]: If it's hearsay, never mind. Can I ask you to amend the resolution that reads, well, maybe you don't like it. You can leave if you're bored. Maybe you can ask the question that You're concerned about the ethics of it because of the fact of the financial contributions she has made to the mayor, and that in and of itself presents a conflict of interest. The appearance of a conflict of interest, that's what 268A says. That's what we're asking for.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Mr. President, just as a point of reference, on February 23rd it was written in the Boston Herald and where the mayor is quoted as saying that Martha Coakley is now an employee being hired.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., former member of the circus party. You know, a city that forgets about its history won't have any history. And at the rate we're going in the city right now, the way developers have this opportunity to come in here, seize a piece of property, build upon it, and then take off and make a profit on it. perfect example is Luminaires on Locust Street. Puts the building up, he's there a year, sells it for $61 million, and he's gone. But we're talking about something right now is the history of our city. And while Councilman Uncle Kern brings up this issue, whether it be 18 to 24 months, for which I would prefer 24, think of it like this. Within the past three years, you folks in a concentrated area of South Street, Toro Ave, and Walnut Street have seen historical pieces of property And trees, if you're a lover of trees, and trees be demolished by out of towners, outsiders. People are only here to do one thing and that's to make a profit on the piece of property and beg upon the people to maybe sell their property, make a big profit and leave town so they can take over, make some money and they can leave. It's not right. We heard one of your Councilors indicate that the last time you people submitted a report in October, It went from October to January, and then it got lost somewhere in translation. That, in and of itself, is the telltale sign of what this city administration thinks about preserving its history, preserving the history of neighborhoods. And speaking about neighborhoods, when you lose zoning in your neighborhoods, whether it's for an historical purpose or what have you, you've lost the character of your neighborhood. South Boston, if you've been following this for the last two weeks, is a perfect example where the residents have gotten together on the development of a gentleman who wants to come in there and take over a piece of property that's perfectly zoned for what he wants to do, but the neighbors are opposed to it because it doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. The state representative from that area, Michael Flaherty, has proposed a piece of legislation, and I believe he's doing it tomorrow morning. He's proposing a piece of legislation that the character of the neighborhood has to be kept in line for that for which is there. It cannot be made to look anything different or obnoxious or something that's not satisfying to the public or to the people in that neighborhood. You know, we're not going to be here in a few years, because however God decides to take us, and when he decides to take us, so be it. But you guys and girl, you have an opportunity here to make the legacy of this community continue to go forward in a positive way. If the city administration doesn't want to have the same eye on the prize, then you people should have it, and the zoning should be changed, and the 24 months should be changed, because you tell you know, If a developer comes in here and finds out that he might have to wait 24 months to get that piece of property zoned or done for whatever he needs to do, he might think one of two things. Number one, I'm going to work with the people or I'm getting out of here because I don't want to deal with it. And you know something? That's probably the best thing because he's not the real person that should be here for the city. And isn't it interesting that all the people that are coming into the city are out-of-towners? You've got to thank the people who took up the charge on Locust Street to bring it to court, to challenge the developer for which finally found itself before your body and you folks likewise challenged the developer. The neighborhood that took on the Salem Street, the Breakpro project. The neighborhood people had to bring it together, not the city administration. I don't know of any more black eyes that this city administration needs to get to find out what its history is all about. But you certainly are making history by destroying pieces of property that have not only historical value, they have a family and a personal and a community value. Do the right thing tonight, ladies and gentlemen. Vote for the 24 months, because within that 24 months, you can bargain or they can bargain with you. But at least the people of this community will know that as an elected official, at least you folks, as a city councilor, are doing the right thing on behalf of the taxpayers of this community. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address for the record, please. Robert Penter, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass, former member of this board. The part that's kind of ironic about this is your projected rates this year for your water and sewer are being reduced by approximately 2.77%. So if the Water and Sewer Commission has given you a 2.77 projected rate decrease for combined water and sewer, And as you said, Councilor Marks, if they're sitting on $8.5 million in a surplus, why would they now want to go out and hit you with a connectivity fee on a quarterly basis? And if you check any cities and towns, most of them that have a connectivity fee, it's a one-time fee, and that's it. And it's at the discretion of the Director of Public Works or the Town Administrator, if you are a present homeowner, landowner, and you need to be reconnected, There is no charge. It would be for a brand new person coming in, building a house, first time around, $50, one-time fee, usually anyone.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you for interrupting me, Councilor Dello Russo. I appreciate that. Is there anything else you want to do before I finish? Would you smile on your face? You know, let me tell you something. You know, when somebody's speaking up here, I don't need to be interrupted rudely. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And that's the problem when people view something like this on the council floor and they watch it on television, that doesn't bode very well for you folks sitting here. Mr. President. I just think it's a shame.
[Robert Penta]: The point of order is talking about how this council is going to react. with the rate increase of a connectivity fee that you're going to be putting on the taxpayers if it comes to be presented before you. I don't think you need to wait until May 2nd. I think your vote should take place here tonight, that you're not going to approve it, and you're not going to be supportive of it. When you have an $8.5 million, Mr. President, you have an $8.5 million surplus, and you have a projected rate decrease in your water and sewer rate. Now you go out and explain that to the right pair of this community.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute. Please answer me. Explain to me or anyone on the... How do you have a rate decrease when you want to charge a new increase? You have the CPA. It will be explained on May 2nd. You have the CPA. You have the CPA as a corollary tax. On May 2nd. I understand that. You have a corollary tax, the CPA. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not even going to meet it, not even match it. I did not... You should not be charging the taxpayers that money. It was voted on by the citizens of the... And the citizens and you guys can make a representative... You can... We have order here. You know what the order was when you and Councilor Dello Russo ran around when the people were talking? We're talking about the water. You know something, Mr. President? You know, trying to keep order with some folks who were just intentionally... They have no sense of respect. We're talking about the water. They have no respect for people at the podium. I understand that, Mr. President, but I do have the podium right now and I have an opportunity to say what I want to say. Okay, and I'm sticking to the subject matter. And the subject matter is the water, okay? And I'm saying to you as president of this council, your message back to the Water and Soil Commission should be, we are not going to be any supportive of it. When Councilmarks gets the minutes of that meeting and they find out how and why they want to keep taxing the people of this community, it's you folks. Your election is coming up this year. You guys are going to be paying for it.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address of the record, please. Robert Pentezero, Summit Road, Medford, Mass. Number one, I would be opposed to this bill if I was sitting on that side of the rail because, number one, I think this is an infringement upon the free enterprise system. The Board of Health has a job to do. They go out there, they review the product of the restaurant or whatever it might be. That's their job. And for them to start taking an arbitrary and capricious action by placing an A, B, or C on the type of business that's taking place, who are they? They don't frequent that business. And I think it would lead a very, it would skew. the public to go into a certain direction to say one business might be better than another. You know, this is just as bad as municipal aggregation. You're asking city government to get involved in people's lives, their personal lives, and in this situation, their personal life is a point of no business.
[Robert Penta]: When they go and do their job, and they review a restaurant, and they get a certificate on there that says it's been approved, whether it's a milk license, a common virtues license, or any kind of food product license, that's the city or the town telling you that that place has passed the test. They don't need to have a rating system. When you start getting into a rating system, well, maybe we should have departments come down here and rate you guys and girls on the performance of your jobs, okay? You're really crossing over the line on something like this. You have a department that does its job, and its job is to go out there and to ensure that the food product in the business is safe, it's good to eat, And so be it. And now if you're gonna start putting a rating system on it, I think you're really crossing over the line. You know, people spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to go into a food business. And if that person upstairs, man or female, who happens to work for the health department, just doesn't, They might pass the test, but they may not like the person. You're getting into a personality conflict. How many times have you folks gotten phone calls from people that have a business because they don't like a department head that comes in there and gives them a hard time? And it's a personality conflict. It's got nothing to do with the business. I would strongly suggest that this does not go forward and you leave it just the way it is as a private sector business person coming to the city and applying for their license. However it is, they go there, they do their job, but their business takes care of itself. Their product sold to the public will take care of itself. We don't need any city administration telling a business person that owns a restaurant how they should be rated by this city.
[Robert Penta]: Aye.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address for the record, please. My name is Robert Pentez, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a former member of the Saugus Party. I can appreciate what Councilor Lungelkorn is going to because apparently, I think folks, as I was speaking to them today, were led to believe it was going to be next Tuesday evening. And here we are, we have nobody here from the fire department or the police department. But if you go back and look at your capital improvement plan that was offered by the mayor, there's quite a few locations and suggestions in here that raised itself well over two and a half million dollars as to where and how this is going to be funded as it relates to the fire station and into the police station part of it. You know, a lot of people don't even realize what just took place on the 14th of March the day of the storm, the unfortunate circumstance down the fire department and the police department, their generator went out. Their backup generator to be supportive of their police operations, their telecommunications, their communications back and forth. From what I understand and I believe it to be true, one if not maybe two of the doors of the fire department couldn't even be open because they had no electricity. And their backup generator, which apparently wasn't serviced like it should have been serviced, was out for a couple of days and they had to wait for a pot, and that's all because of what took place with the storm. You really have a whole host of issues here. You talk about a $2 billion seismic study for that. None of you have gone through the reading of the over 690 pages of the $110,000 report that was written in January, submitted in January of 2013. You're going to be having here a little later this evening, because I see the superintendent here, and you're going to be having a discussion on something that relates to the high school in multi-millions of dollars. And you really need to ask the same question. You're going to have a seismic erratic study for that piece of property up there, too. You know, I think it's unfair to the Medford taxpayer. Just like you folks, I am a taxpayer here in the city. The building was built in 1962. Same thing with the high school, honor about in that same year of category. And they're looking for a major, major overhaul, if not reconstruction or additions to whatever it might be. But the question really needs to be asked. It's obvious that maintenance has not taken place in these buildings. You, Councilor Caraviello, if you remember correctly, I think it was your first term, the beginning of your first term, you indicated that the all new schools at that point in time, which are 11 years old, was a million point one in arrears for fixtures. And now it's still well in excess of a million, if not a million two, whatever it might be, 15 years later. And you don't want to get caught into the same trap that you got caught in before to buy and fix new schools, whether you go from 12 to three or whatever the amount was. You built new schools because the old ones weren't maintained. And you're going to be looking at the same argument that's going to be presenting itself as it relates to the high school later on this evening. But this is too important of an issue. You're talking about at the outset $22 million, $2 million for the alleged, I don't know where that dollar amount came from because I don't think any of you can answer how she came up with $2 million, and $20 million to pay for the station. And as you heard here a couple of weeks ago when you had the director of finance up here, they're talking about 2022 before anything might be eligible for expiration of bonds that would be needed to pay for this. So I think in all fairness, as Councilor Lungo-Koehn has alluded to, there's no reason to jump into this thing tonight. You've waited a long period of time. You haven't even satisfied the argument of where the training center would go and the fire department. And if we remember correctly, I think it was When the first reading took place, because the fire department were here in mass numbers, the mayor decided to include them in any future development as to where they might go. To this date, the police department or its union have yet to be involved. And you folks have yet to be involved in any type of involvement with this thing. And it just doesn't make sense. It's not good political sense. It's absolutely not good financial sense. You know, you have over $28 million in the deficit in your pension system. You have an application, as you're well aware of, Mr. President, before the Massachusetts Library Association for $20 million. And if that comes through, the city of Medford pays 40% of that. And you're looking at probably approximately over the next two or three years, if in fact the high school goes forward and gets its application approved with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, $25 million there of taxpayers' money. You're looking at a fire station and a police station. Can you please tell me who's going to pay for this? This is nothing more than a leading to Proposition 2.5 override. And if you look at your sister city of Somerville, With all the development that has taken place over there, they have still raised their taxes on two, a single two and three family homes, which goes to prove and tell you that development for the sake of development is not always in the best interest of this community or any community. You really need to look at the long-term approach. And the long-term approach right now would say, one more week, I don't think, is going to make a big thing. And you know, you're people all talking about transparency and being fluid and having this conversation with the mayor. Well, where is there all a branch extended to you to sit down and discuss and talk with you about this? It's not there. It's not there. And what you're doing is the bottom line. And what you're doing, you're just accelerating the use and the argument to have more people run for this city council and to run for mayor of this community. Because people are sick and tired and fed, and fed up of being told about all these expenses and not being a part of it, not being included. And the council, likewise, not including them in the process. You're not talking about $100,000. You're talking about $22 million right now. $2 million for the study, $20 million allegedly for the station. None of you can explain how it's going to be paid. None of you can explain how she got to the $2 million seismographic study. You don't even know if an RFQ went out, whatever it might be. I think the move is wrong tonight if you vote for this. That sends the wrong message. And it's definitely, definitely not taxpayer. People are police department friendly. Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address of the record, please. Robert Penter, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., former member of this board. With all due respect to the superintendent, I appreciate the fact that he was here. Knowing that in January that the application is out there, And knowing that the school committee met, I believe, a week before February 6th, it really doesn't give much time, whether it be for the school committee or even before the city council. You know, and this is something I believe, Mr. President, that you should have been advised of in a joint meeting between the school committee and the city council. While the council may have a lot of priorities and financial obligations to meet, that should be not an excuse or a red herring to say that's the reason why they didn't sit down or bring this out sooner. It's not right, it's not fair, it doesn't make any sense. The job is here to deal with everything that this city involves you with. Finances, education, whatever it might be. And if you have to meet more than one night a week, wow, what a shame that would be. Maybe if you met three or four times a week and you made the mayor become involved in all of this and make you to become involved with this, you'd have a better handle on what's going on. Mr. Superintendent, you state on your document that you are submitting, you state, the school which is structurally unsound or otherwise in a condition seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of school children where no alternatives exist. You go on further to state that the renovation that took place in 2013 regarding the science labs for which the Medford City Council discussed on more than one night, I believe it was four times, and as a result of that, part of that was because of recertification with the Commonwealth of Mass. And further, the fact of the matter is that the building has not since then been renovated to meet ADA compliance standards and fire code standards that are needed to be current. Now, how can our city allow that building right now not to go forward and have those requirements met? That should be something that the school committee addresses on an annual basis. That's an everyday thing. You're talking about the safety of the children in the school. You indicate at that point in time, you indicate that the fire code would be approximately $1,200,000 to do an upgrade on that. You also indicated that there is no way to close off the sections of the building. to prevent citizens to enter restricted areas during non-school hours. You can go back to 1991, when I was sitting up there as president of the council, and that was an issue that was presented to us as it relates to out-of-towners coming to Medford High School that were not certified to be there. And in 2012, it was Councilman Marks who brought up the issue regarding the community schools on people coming in and out of the buildings. And now you're talking about maybe having a program that cuts down the entrances, where and how you can get in? You can walk up to that high school right now at any point in time, after hours, and walk into that building, and there's nobody there to check you in or to check you out. It's totally unfair. It's not right. I can appreciate the fact that you might want to do all of these things now, but I beg the question, where has the school committee been on each and every one of these budgets, on each and every one of these years, especially on ADA compliance, especially on fire code compliance? That's the thing that's necessary each and every day, that a child goes to school. That's what you pay your taxes for. That's what a parent believes their elected officials are doing. They're making sure and ensuring that their children are protected when they go to school each and every day. Mr. Belson further stated, with all due respect, that in next year's budget he's going to put a dollar amount in there for school renovations or school upgradings, whatever it might be. We've been talking about this thing for years. The new school building program had a 5% annual charge that the city was supposed to put in each and every one of those new buildings to maintain themselves. And now, Councilor Caraviello, Mr. President, it's well over a million dollars. The buildings are less than, they're going on 14 to 15 years. We're right back to where you were in the beginning as the reason why you had to build new schools, because the maintenance didn't take place. Granted, Medford High School is a big school. It's a big school to take place. But you've got three roofs, three brand new roofs on that building, and now you're looking at a fourth one. The question then becomes, is the quality of the work not right? Are we not checking out to make sure that the quality of the work is not right? Are we just paying to have something done? Another part that I really think that needs to take place to be discussed is the fact that, you know, this is such an important issue because this isn't a million dollars or two million dollars. This is well in excess of your $10 million, Councilor Marks. The school committee should be here sitting with you And you, Mr. President, I would hope you would call for a joint meeting between the school committee to consider as you go forward on this particular project. You people got hit with this cold turkey tonight. You should have been called ahead of time to have a committee of the whole meeting to discuss it. It's before the bodies, before the public here tonight. And to shut off debate on millions of dollars being discussed is wrong.
[Robert Penta]: And if that be the case, that's a dollar amount attached to it. Because the application before the school building assistance program, no matter what they allow, is going to have a dollar amount attached to it. That dollar amount has to be paid for by the city as to what portion of it they're going to accept, if not all of it or part of it. It's a dollar amount. You should never shut off anybody, colleague or citizen, at the podium. This is the only place you have an opportunity. Nobody was shut off. I just said you should not shut off anyone. There was an attempt to end debate. Nobody was shut off. I said there was an attempt to end debate, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Robert's Rules of Order also allows Public participation, Mr. President. Public participation is allowed. I don't want to hear it again. What is that, a threat?
[Robert Penta]: This is a public forum, and I have a right to say what I want. Thank you very much. Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Mr. President, Mr. Belson also alluded to the fact that, and he's probably right in part, but he says we need to be partners with the state. We need to be partners between and amongst ourselves, council, school committee people, to get the best of ideas that need to go forward. I can appreciate the fact that he wants to submit something now and you can't change it because the form is there, but it's been hanging around since January of this year. That's the sad part, since January of this year. School committee allegedly only met once, if I understand that correctly. And if that be the case to discuss it, they probably didn't have the same opportunities, and I don't know. Maybe the superintendent presented what he thought the priorities might be. I don't know. None of us know, because we haven't had that opportunity. That's why not having joint meetings with our other legislative body hurts the process that's before you. It hurts the idea that you can get a better idea as to why and how it's going on. You get a better idea what the cost is going to be. You can get a better idea what the priorities are going to be. As the gentleman just came up here, Mr. McAuliffe, as he relates to the fact of how he has to run his business and what he has to plan for. No matter what the outcome is of this, whether they give you $1 million, $5 million, or $6 million, worthy, worthy of work to be done. You still have no priority program as it relates to any comprehensive financial program as to where this city is going. Police, fire, retirement board that needs to be paid. The deficit as it relates to the retirement fund, $28 million that the city has. Again, nobody wants to discuss that and how you're going to go forward with that. And more importantly, a fire and police department. Does that mean now fire and police are going to be separated? Or is it not going to be separated? You haven't even gotten a final answer as it relates to the police department going forward. If they take down the station over there for the training tower for the fire department, and you're going to go to a regional location, that's going to put the fire department at issue for backup, because they're going to have to send their truck and their men to that regional location. A public safety issue.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Mr. President, the Medford Public Schools as in the commentary from the superintendent, would like to meet with state and local governments as it relates to current code, including fire doors, fire alarms, sprinkler systems, and safety conditions. All things that right now are in potential violation are, if not in violation, as we presently speak. After the new, I believe we all can remember, after the new science labs were built, there was a major problem for almost a year where a fire person had to be up at the high school because the fire system, the fire alarm system didn't work as it related to something happened, whether through the electrical department or what have you. Then, if I understand this correctly, in Mr. Belson's commentary, And I agree with you 100%. You said any decision regarding the specific projects and the financial commitments would be developed over time and after multiple meetings within city government and at the state level. Well, at least he's got the ability to understand and recognize that city government officials need to sit down and discuss it, much more than the person who calls herself the mayor of this community. This is a big issue, whether you want to realize it or not. The building is 50 years old. You're talking about the same fire and police station that's down there right now. Maintenance didn't take place in the building. Now, a lot of these things are maintenance driven, whether they be fire, whether they be the windows, whether they be the boiler or what have you, the asbestos. It's a big building. I think it's four and a half miles long, Mr. Superintendent. 550,000 square feet, whatever it might be. It was built at a time to be a college campus type of a school. But that's not the point. You're getting a lot of this all at once. Maybe, to some degree, maybe, whether it's the cafeteria or whatever the auditorium is that they... Maybe if you just stuck to the real desperate needs that the building has on a slow annual basis, you can look at these other things and put them into the budget. Let me just remind you, and I'll just leave you with this last thought. Just look at the city of Somerville. Look at all the development that's taken place over there. All the development. Okay? Many, many more jobs, and their taxes keep on going up. You don't have that opportunity here in the city of Medford, because if we're going to follow the mainstream of Somerville and taxing the citizens of this community to pay for bond indebtedness that you can't afford, and as Council Marks and others have alluded to, you're going to get yourself into a Proposition 2.5 override, it'll lose. Everyone behind this council, I guarantee you, will lose if you'll be supportive of that, if you're serving at that point in time. You need to plan ahead. And when you plan ahead, you'll be able to address these issues. These have been long overdue. This is a shame. Prior school committees ought to hang their head in embarrassment for allowing this to go this long. And so should the city of Medford, because that's been their downfall, letting their buildings run into a demise situation year in and year out. And now you're going to pay the price for it.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please. Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., former member of this board. I understand the resolution is adopted, but the question I would have is that why would you want to charge somebody a connection fee, because right now you pay from your house to the middle of the street. So now you're saying that you connect to the city's lines for water and sewer, for which the city charges you for inflow and outflow of the water going through. We have over $8.5 million in a surplus account that they can't figure out how and where it should be spent as it relates to infrastructure and water-sewer lines. Now, if you want to talk about doing that for a commercial piece of property, that's one thing, because they're digging up the street, and there's a linkage fee that's attached to it as it relates to it. But on single-family homes, two-family homes, or whatever it might be, you're already charging the homeowners, already paying for that hookup from the middle of the street to the house. So I think what you need is probably a further clarification. as it relates to where it's going on that. And I think this begs the question, where are you going with your $8.5 million in the surplus account? Where's the infrastructure? Where's the LNI that's taking place in the city? Where are the projects that have been sitting there that need to be addressed? Before you start charging another fee, possibly, to the taxpayer in this community, I mean, you've got a CPA tax. that the state isn't even going to give you a dime back, because they have no money to give it back to you. So you're technically putting another tax on the Medford resident taxpayer in this community, and they're getting nothing back for it. But you are charging them, and you don't even have a program set aside for what it's going to be used for. You've got almost $8.5 million in water and sewer. You've got close to $9 million in your free cash account. And then you're talking about building all these new buildings that need to be built, that nothing can take place until after 2022, going into 2023 to free up the bonds. So what are you going to do? Start taking from your free cash? Or are you going to do an override of two and a half with the taxpayers? Or are you going to start laying off people? You just spent $14.4 million to build a new Department of Public Works building. You don't have enough men to do it, to work it on a daily basis. The problem that I see, and it's just my opinion, that you folks have got no relationship with this mayor. You absolutely have nothing to do with her on anything in this city. She just uses you for whatever she wants, when she wants. Listen, if this is going to be cohesive and a working relationship, you people need to put your foot down. It only takes four of you. Four of you have enough intestinal fortitude to tell the city administration enough is enough. Because I'll tell you right now, you folks keep going in this direction, your election this November is going to have a different audience out there and behind this rail, because people are fed up with the fact that they're paying for something, they're not getting it, there's no cooperation, there's no fluidness, there's no transparency, and there's no honesty coming out of this building. Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., former member of the Saugus party. I don't have any problems with the requests that are being made, but my problem is in the process that's being presented here to you this evening. What seems to be unfamiliar is the fact that this present administration talked about this issue of inclusion and being a part of what's taking place. You have the police, the forestry, the engineering department, the cemetery, the highway, and the fire department. Six departments that you folks, during budgetary time, have heard all of these concerns that are being presented here tonight. And as a matter of fact, it goes back to the times when I served in this body where some of these issues were there. This money is coming out of free cash. And because it's coming out of free cash, which was asked for before, you folks were told, or we were told, as well as you folks were told, at some point in time, we can't use it because it might have an effect upon the bond rating here in the city of Medford. Now, all of a sudden, it's coming out as a $1,100,000 transfer of money. And tomorrow night, Madam Mayor is going to be making her presentation for the State of the City's Address. My concern would be if there are more things that are going to be coming that's going to have a cost impact upon not only free cash or maybe even bonding, I think before this vote takes place, I think it probably should be laid on the table for one week, as Councilor Lungo-Koehn rightly did some weeks ago on the request of the $900,000 to have some transfer of money from the Water and Sewer Account to pay for the remediation of the West Medford parking lot. Now, you folks have your own rules. and it's rule number 20, section number four, which states that any finance paper appearing on the council agenda for the first time shall be automatically laid on the table for one week when such action is requested by any councilor. I would think it would be wise by this city council, I'm not saying for you to not vote for it or vote for it, I think it would be wise to lay it on the table for a week and just see what's going to be presented tomorrow night in the state of the city's address. You folks, unfortunately, have been kept not in the loop. Everything that's being presented here has nothing to do with you folks. You folks have never met with all the department heads to go through their wish lists. That was something that was discussed during this past election, and it still hasn't taken place. A magnificence of $1 million here tonight, and the mayor's representative is not here. That doesn't speak well. One information council tonight. I believe the mayor has four representatives here this evening. The mayor's liaison to the City Council is not here tonight. Department heads might be here, but they're not the ones that bring the message back. You know, when you go back and you look at some of these things and you say to yourself, the chief of police just thought through saying six cruises, six new, six regular cars and six cars that are going to be unmarked. I think this council in the past has asked for each and every year, Chief, you can correct me, for a minimum of two new cars each and every year in the budget. This should have been, you folks should have been dealing with this within the past year, if not more. And you're not. Why? My opinion, and it's election year. And you're getting all this confronted in front of you. You're gonna be getting sidewalks, you're gonna be getting streets, all done. But where was this money not being used during this past year? During a year which people had to suffer to go through this. Why should the fire department have to wait? on their turnaround gear that they were promised not only last year but the year before. And now all of a sudden it's found in a free cash supplement when it could have been at the same time taken out of free cash. It could have been taken out as of January 1st with the new administration. The politics behind this is quite obvious. But even more to the politics of it is tomorrow night. My suggestion would be to wait until tomorrow night, see what this address is all about. And if the address has inclusions of other transfers of money or monies that have to go out for the purposes of being bonded, I think you really need to have a discussion. And you, Mr. President, you know, amongst this council, there's $210,000 a year paid in salaries. The executive office, the mayor only gets paid $140,000 a year. So there's more power strength here by what you are getting paid than what that corner office is getting. And you should put that to use. And if four of you get together and saying, hey, before we start expending these monies, just right off the hat, Councilor Marks, you've asked for two years in a row for a truck division within the police department. Nowhere is that found here, and nowhere is it found in the capital improvement plan. Think about it, in today's day and age, you're talking about email now being in the fire department. I don't even know if they have email in the police department, but if the fire department is now getting email, and they're supposed to be technologically up to snuff here. We should have the gentleman who runs your computer system down here, and he should be questioned as to what are the problems, and what is the technology needed within this city of Medford, whether it be the fire department, school department, or the city. You haven't had that conversation. There's a wishlist that goes out every single year. The wishlist is never even addressed. You just got through, Mr. President, talking about the scanner to the OCD, I mean, excuse me, the engineering office asked for. It's a simple little request that could have come right out of free cash last year, two years ago. As a matter of fact, when the lady was there and she made her presentation before the council, she showed you emails that were sent, emails that were sent. that the administration wouldn't do it. So what's being obvious is the fact that you're being asked to do something tonight. To me, it looks like you're being squirreled into a corner, that if you don't vote for it, you're bad, and you're not doing what you've all been asking for. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is you have one more night to wait and see. I don't see this as being such an emergency that it needs to be voted on tonight. Your own council rule says the same thing. Lay it on the table for one week, and if it comes out to be the same when you want to vote for it, go right ahead. But tomorrow night, if the State of the Union address is going to have something that has another financial impact within this community, whether it's coming off of your free cash or a bond or whatever it might be, don't you think you owe it to yourselves as legislative representatives and to the people of this community to wait and see? You've waited all this time. Pieces have been taken out of a capital improvement program. All of a sudden, things that you've been asking for just coincidentally happens to be in your agenda tonight. Well, I don't think that's right. And I think all seven of you should have been brought in to fold, whether you agree with the mayor or you don't agree with the mayor, whether she agrees with you or not. This is an important issue, many important issues here. This isn't $10,000 or $15,000. This is a million dollars. And the remaining balance of $8,600,000 is still there to be played with. And you have no idea what she's going to do with that. That's up to you folks. And if you folks can't put the mayor together and force that lady to sit down and talk with you, to turn around and say, hey, you may be picking out things that you need, but that's not what this council sees and hears from Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer in the city of Medford. I just respectfully state to you, follow your own council rules. Hopefully one of you will lay it on the table for one week, see what comes out tomorrow night, and recognize the fact that whatever your issues might be, they're addressed before this. You know, you have a capital improvement program here. There's a lot of things in this capital improvement program that also relates back to the fire department, the police department, some of them are in the school department, and what have you. It would be nice to know Whether a new police department is going to end the offering for tomorrow night, there's $2 million in there to figure out where they're going to put it, draw it, and all of that. If you have sat down and talked with her or her people, no. And I think you should. It's the most pressing issue, the biggest, most pressing issue here financially for the city of Medford, and no discussion on it. But you're getting over $1 million worth of transfers being asked for tonight. Again, I repeat. I am not against any of these transfers. What I'm against is the process, how it's being presented, and the opportunity you have to make sure that before you vote for this, you see the complete and total picture, which I believe will be presented tomorrow evening. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta zero summit road, Medford mass, former member of this body. And if I was sitting on this side of the rail tonight, I'd be making the same proposal that I want to say to it this evening. I've been following this story now for a few days, and it's been evident over the last three days in the Boston Herald. There's a story regarding a young man. His name is DJ Simons. He's a Boston police officer, 28 years old. He is the unsung hero. He is the forgotten man in the Boston Marathon story. And what I would like to propose and ask you as Medford City Councilors to do on behalf of our city, knowing that we have that great monument out there for the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden, that represents our city, who recognizes in times of tragedy, we do stand to the occasion. We put our political principles aside, and we do unify amongst ourselves. This gentleman, 28 years old, was hit by a bomb, pipe bomb, four days after the incident that took place at the Boston Marathon. He was one of the first officers on the scene. And as a result of that, he received a head injury. And he died subsequently one year later. And as a result of that, His mother, Roxanne Simons, and father, who lived down in the Cape, were never notified of this story called Patriots Day. They called up the producers, Peter Berg, Mark Wahlberg, and they have yet to receive a response. Fellow Boston police officers are aware of what took place. A state representative up on Beacon Hill named Tim Whelan made an application to the, um, the board of the directors and the film director, uh, for, uh, Patriot's day and asked them if they would consider doing a post script somehow of putting it in there. Never got a response back. The part that was hurting and disturbing according to Mrs. Simons is the fact that when they can't at the end of the movie, the postscripts of the movie had the four pitches and the four names of the folks that we have in our peace garden. But Mr. Simon's name was, was not there. This gentleman is 28 years old. He's a college graduate. And subsequently, on graduating college, he went to the Boston Police School to become a Boston police officer. He was originally stationed in Brighton, Mass. But he was more of wanting to be not a Boston police officer who hands out tickets. He wanted to get into the inner city youth, and that's where he did. He went into the inner city youth where the problems were, and he loved it. He was a good police officer, loved by many policemen, and loved by his community. He unfortunately has not even received any kind of recognition throughout this whole program called Patriot's Day, which is a great movie if you want to look at it like that. And as they do say, sometimes there are some errors and there's some slips to get through. But they were notified well in advance, and they're still notified as of now, that maybe to have him recognized as being an unsung hero who died, unfortunately, one year after the tragedy. He was one of the first people, one of the first people of Boston police responders to Watertown Mass on the night of that incident. Mr. President, all my council colleagues, you folks do many resolutions for many people, whether they are for sports, whether they are for someone who might have passed away, whatever it might be. But for the family of this police officer, I think it would be outstanding that this Medford City Council recognizes the fact that this gentleman, DJ Simons, who didn't get recognized, is recognized by the city of Medford, its city government. For the gentleman did give his life. He did respond and he was there. And for his parents not to have any recognition to that at all, it's just not right. And I don't think it's fair. So I ask of you, seven of you collectively, for one of you to offer the resolution, or if jointly, to send a note of condolences and of appreciation and of thanks to the Simons family, thanking them for their sons. efforts as a result of the Boston Marathon. And maybe there is something, somehow, some way, a plaque of postscript can find its way to that Peace Garden as well here in the city of Medford to let the entire world, to let the entire people know and to let the Simons family know that the city of Medford will not forget and they're most appreciative of what their son did. So I offer, I ask one of you to come forward and do that. Mayor Marty Walsh of Boston, as of today's paper, has he himself has taken it upon himself to seek out through the producers and the directors of that show who have refused, I shouldn't say refused, who have yet to respond back to him to have him included. What the reason is, nobody knows. But it's a known fact, it is a known fact that that gentleman died in the line of duty protecting the citizens, doing his job as a police officer in behalf of the citizens of this commonwealth and the citizens of Boston and for the people who participated in that Boston Marathon.
[Robert Penta]: Please state your name and address for the record. Robert Pence is zero summit road. Method mast. Uh, just to jump onto what council Caraviello has alluded to. Are you at a gentleman up here about six months ago complaining about he drove down the street, not only did he break his spring, but it was a full tank of gas. I mean, oil, God forbid that that oil didn't go. The city has now been put on notice. This is the second time. You're doing streets all over there. You just got through doing Governor's Avenue from top to bottom on one side. You've been doing other streets in the city. Here is a commercial street that is just begging for an accident to happen. And unfortunately, it's probably going to cause the city a major lawsuit. So as Councilor Caraviello has alluded to, I think it's something that needs to take place immediately before an accident does happen. And if that does happen, then you'd have OSHA and everybody else down here. So, you know, once informed, shame on you. Twice informed, look out because that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. And I don't think you'd really wanna have something like that right now. Thank you very much.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Petter, a former member of this council. When I was reviewing the offering by Councilor Knight this evening, my question, I think, presents itself in a different direction. I mean, we've spent over $14.5 million for a brand new building. It's obvious that certain departments are understaffed. And this may be a good way to look at actually what is going on in the highway department as it relates to men, the equipment that they have, and everything that's going on. And the fact that if this is going to be, I think, is your intent to create another department? Is that what you said, Councilor Knight? stand alone. I don't know if that's a contractual obligation that has to be negotiated through the union. I mean, it presents itself with a whole bunch of issues, but the best part of the issue I think is this, that I think the council really needs to take a look and see as to what's going on over there, the highway department or the public works building. I mean, I don't really know if you have a director or not. He was on a three months on trial basis. It ended in March. I don't know if they're still advertising for a new director's position. But I think it would be beneficial if he was here tonight to discuss the matter.
[Robert Penta]: Is that public knowledge that he's been? I mean, are you councillors aware of the fact that he's been appointed? Pardon me? Well, this is the problem of not getting information out there. I mean, some councillors know, some don't. I, as a public person, don't know. And I try to stay on top of what's going on here in the city. But more importantly, just getting back to this issue in particular, my suggestion would be, and if I was on your side of the rail, I would suggest that if we're going to be looking at this, maybe we should be looking at all the departments. And if this, in fact, is a union type of job, and this is contractual, I believe the membership themselves have to vote on this as well. So while it sounds good, I just think it needs to be researched, and I think it's the best time to look at the whole offering in the Department of Public Works.
[Robert Penta]: Welcome. Good evening. Please state your name and address. My name is Bob Penta, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass. I'm a member of the cyclist body. You know, one of the things that I think is a concerning point is while the meeting might be held tomorrow night, it's not really being held where the public can actually see it and view it. There are a lot of people who might like to come. and just can't do it. That's number one. We don't have any public access, so that's another two points against us. But more importantly, I think some of these proposed changes and discussions that take place stand to be corrected, go back to 2004 and then 2008. And for them to be sitting in the committee for a long period of time such as that with no intent to either add or subtract to them or eliminate them, In the being brought up now you know is of a question. You have some concerns in here relative toward open public forums and public participation. And if you read it the way it's being written unless the words are going to be changed someone's going to have to come. at six o'clock at night if they want to talk on the subject matter before the council, and then if they want to talk... Point of clarification, Mr. President, and this is why I'd rather not have this conversation now, because the paper still hasn't been presented.
[Robert Penta]: Right, and that's why we're going to discuss this all tomorrow. But, Mr. President, with all due respect, If this is the report that came out, an eight-page report, okay, and it's Councilor Longo-Curran and it's Councilor Marksley's alluded to, it would have been nice to have it highlighted. It did take some time to go review it. Then why not discuss this right now? What's being, what's wrong with, we're talking about highlights. That's all we're talking about. And these are important points for people to maybe want to come tomorrow night and understand what's going on.
[Robert Penta]: But I believe, Mr. President, this was came out of committee in August. This is now October. So there was a few months lag in between. And now you're asking your honorable body to review this in a matter of a few days. Eight pages, very small, minuscule print. But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is this involves the taxpayers of this community.
[Robert Penta]: We're going to discuss this paper. No, that's not true. I don't think it's the Committee of the Whole. It's been referred to a Committee of the Whole. And since you're referring something to the Committee of the Whole, are you telling me that all seven of you? are going to be afraid to discuss it before tomorrow night, to let the taxpayers know some of the issues that are on the agenda, Mr. President, that they might want to come.
[Robert Penta]: It's on your agenda for tomorrow night.
[Robert Penta]: That's the issue at point, Mr. President. There are some very salient points here that operate against the taxpayer coming to this podium when they would like to speak on a subject matter more than once. Also suspension of the rules as an issue more than once. And we can go through this if you want to, page by page. That's not my intent. My intent is to talk about some highlights that directly affect any taxpayer in this audience to come up here and have an opportunity to speak like right now, which a new rules is promulgated. They will not, if it's voted upon by this body, you won't be able to do it.
[Robert Penta]: Well, my remarks that I would like to wrap up, Mr. President, is the fact that on tomorrow night you're going to be discussing things that are going to restrict council. I mean, citizen participation at this podium on more than one occasion. It's done three deliberate If the council so votes, there's going to be three opportunities where a citizens will not be able to do what's taking place here right now, coming up and speaking on something, whether it's on the agenda or suspension of the rules. And then the craziness of saying that the craziness of saying that is not wrap it up, please. And the craziness of saying. that if one Councilor chastises another one, he has to be scolded by whoever the president is, and apologize, and he won't be able to speak until the apology takes place. What are we talking about here? This is child's play. This is going to be discussed in the Committee of the Whole, sir. Well, these are part of the rules that are being promulgated. Thank you very much.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Just a quick point of clarification. It's not on the city's website. And for the folks who have found out today, it was a citizen taxpayer who put it on a Facebook page, and that's how people became aware of it, because they couldn't get the gut of what this whole thing was about on the city's webpage. Thank you, sir.
[Robert Penta]: Hope to see you all there.
[Robert Penta]: Good evening. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Robert Penta. I live at zero summit road, former member of the Sargas party. Uh, let's take a reflect back on what council car viola just indicated. Uh, having served on the council with your folks before it was on a couple of occasions that he pressed for the issue regarding a report forthcoming forthcoming forthcoming regarding this. The last one that I seem to have that's available is dated December 4th of 2015, with a breakdown which does not include December of last year. And it's a little bit perplexing as it relates to, number one, the citations that were appealed, which were something like 3,054 year-to-date, and the citations that were dismissed, which was 1,375. So almost 45 percent of the citations that were issued up until November of last year were dismissed. but then you go to the issue regarding strike that hearings and year to date there was 240 hearings and of those year to date hearings, I think 88 of them were dismissed. The issue I think revolves around a whole host of contingencies on with this new pay to park, you can use your phone and what have you. Since there is a new owner out there, I have seen certain problems that have existed personally. Yale Street parking lot, people in the lot after six o'clock at night. giving out tickets. Other parts of the city, the new people that have come on board with this new company, and I don't know who they are because you guys don't have a contract, you should have a copy of the contract as amended, should indicate that these folks should be aware as to what they're doing. Also, the fact that you can't go out there, these folks are supposed to be identified with a tag on them, with a face on their ID card, so to speak, and not something that's hidden behind their jacket or what have you. and I think. The other thing, and it's a concern, it's a bone of contention that I've had since day one, we were told during the last mayoral campaign by this mayor that seniors would be able to park for nothing. What you have now is if a senior wants to park in the city, that senior has to pay $25 to have the opportunity to park for nothing. They get a card or whatever it might be, and they can't transfer it to another car, because if you're a senior, and you happen to be 65, that's what they use for a standard, and 62 is social security age, So why it's 65 to be a senior, I don't know. But if you get this little placard or whatever it might be, or sticker, you can't transfer it to another car. So if you're a senior driving in the city and your car is either broken down and you wanna use another car, because you are a senior, you should be able to do it. So the requirement doesn't go to the senior, apparently it goes to the car and you're stuck to that particular car. I think that really needs to be reviewed and looked upon. But more importantly, I just think the statistical analysis should be forthcoming You folks had asked for a monthly basis. The last time you got it was eight months into the, nine months into the year. It just doesn't seem right. My suggestion would be to have you have the new people, just like you had a Republic when they first come in, have them come and appear before the council. Air your differences with them. Let them explain to you. Let them explain to the public what the changes might be. You know, it's kind of hard, you know, when people call up and they ask, you know, what can we do? How do we make this thing better? Lady comes to city hall. thinking that she can pay her ticket here. She can't. And while she's here trying to pay the ticket, she's outside and she's getting a ticket on her car. And she's coming in here thinking this is the way you're supposed to pay the ticket. You go down the street to go to pay the ticket. And then, oh, too bad, you can't. You've got a ticket. You stayed here too long. There's a whole host of issues that are still surrounding this whole thing. They're into the neighborhoods, where resident parking takes place, and late at night. These things are just multiplying, and nothing seems to be getting better. And if you speak to some of the business people in the square, in all the squares, they'll basically tell you that there are more spots open now than there were before. That's great, but their business isn't getting any much better than it was before. If anything, it's getting less. So the only reprieve that was really given during this past year is when the mayor was in, Mayor McGlynn was here, And I guess he worked out a deal with Republic at that time, during the holidays, from November 4th to, I believe, January 3rd, that on the weekends, you didn't have to pay to use the meters. But that seems to be something that's not being worked out right now by this company. I don't know what they're going to do for the holidays this year. It's a new company. They're new in town. But I strongly suggest that you have them before you, rather than having these piecemeal approaches of people with concerns and complaints, because you really need to take a look at the contract. You really need to know what they're doing in this community. And Councilor Lungo-Koehn is right, asking for that because I think the time is near. Your holidays are right around the corner. Any questions? Be more than happy to answer them. Thank you. Nice to see you all smiling tonight. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Pentez, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a member of the Saugus body. You know, during this past campaign for the mayor's office, the term that the president and mayor used was partners in progress. And partners in progress doesn't seem to be the staple that took place during this particular budgetary season. As Councilor Lungo-Koehn has alluded to, if you only got three minutes of the mayor and the initial presentation of a budget, and then you had to fend for yourself after the fact. And I think one of the comments, and I don't know what councilor made it, that many, many questions were asked more this year than ever before. This probably is a result of the answers worth forthcoming. That's why you ask so many questions. But a few of the things that I'd like to highlight, and this particular budget starts going back to a year ago, when this former budget was being presented by Louise Miller. The question was asked of her twice, and it was by myself, when Mr. Scarpelli, Council Counsel Scott Scarpelli is sitting, would you present the budget in the same way it has been presented? And she said no. And we went through the idea of presenting the budget that had a wish list of a cost analysis of each and every department had bringing forth that for which they wanted. Now you didn't get it this year. And unfortunately, why? I don't know, because you have the same mayor who was the former budget director who relinquished that position to give it to Louise mill, who presented the budget, who indicated to you at that point in time that you would be getting hopefully a budget that would handle the request of the council that you didn't get. But I guess we're talking about old school and it just didn't come to fruition. So some of the things that I would be concerned about if I was still sitting on your side would be a new police station, something that you, Councilor De La Ruza, alluded to some three to four years ago as the number one priority of the Medford City Council, a brand new police station for the police officers of this city and for the safety and the concern of the citizens of this community. Absolutely no discussion about it. It was a bone of contention during this past campaign. President's administration says it would be a minimum of seven years out. And we all know right now what's going on in that police station. You know, it's rat infested. It has mold in it. It has police officers that are sick. And it just cannot accommodate the everyday needs of a modern society, a police department. You know, just a little real quick, when you talked about the box lunches for the workers on Election Day, it's interesting where the mayor found the money to have the mayor's office done completely over. But we can't find the money to take care, unfortunately, the people. who work on a daily basis, once a year or twice a year, depending on the primary and the final elections that take place. You know, I think it's a service, minimal as it might be, that they deserve something having. I haven't heard anybody talk about the fact that, I know there's approximately $20,000 in the budget that the mayor is required to put in, and she has to pay the entire cost of what you folks have hired an outside attorney to bring the 61 Locust Street issue to bear in hand, but nobody's talked about which has been on the council agenda for many years, of looking at a new fire station on Riverside Avenue and possibly looking at a satellite fire station that sits on the opposite side of Wellington Station, where the station landing is, where the new development of 200 more units are going up, which are right opposite the Wellington Station, plus the whole commercial industrial area over there. And I think that's something that really needs to be addressed, over and beyond the fact that if you look at your budget, In this year's budget, your fire department overtime money was there. But once again, on the annual basis, on the police department side, their overtime money wasn't there. It has to be transferred each and every year. Now that's a serious question to ask, because they range anywhere from $400,000 to $600,000 a year in overtime, where the fire department has their money in overtime built right in. Why that happens in the police department, I don't know. But if you want a true and accurate accounting of what overtime costs, or projected overtime costs, that money should be definitive right in there. Also, you built a new $14.1 million Department of Public Works building. It's understaffed, and you don't have the right equipment to do all the jobs that are necessary on a daily basis. Right now, you're dealing with an interim temporary supervisor, a director of the building over there. I just don't know where it's going. And a lot of this click it, fix it idea of what are being asked to be fixed, are being mocked off as being completed, and they haven't even been addressed, they haven't even been resolved. And why these things are being resolved through the Department of Public Works, I don't know. If somebody's making a mistake or it's an error, for whatever it might be. Also, you talked about, Councilman Marks, you also alluded to the fact that $400,000 from the water and sewer on the school department and the city side is basically borne by the taxpayers of this community. You know, it's an interesting analysis because many years ago, when we were talking about the new INI that was coming in, and we were doing High Street, and the MWRA was in here putting in new water lines, especially at the intersection of Governor's Avenue and High Street, there was a project cost in that particular area of quite a few dollars. I forget the exact amount, so I won't lead it to it. But part of the mitigation that took place as a result of that is they had to do High Street, I believe from Medford Square, a little bit past CVS, to do that street over as part of the mitigation for the cost of putting these two things in there, relining the street and making the connections right there. As a matter of fact, I think it was right out in front of Carlings where the sewer just fell into the ground. And I think a lady got hurt, and that was precipitous of what took place. But the $400,000 is just a drop in the bucket to the $8.5 million that's presently sitting and the water and sewer account, you know, and what major projects do you have lined up where those monies can be expended? I mean, I didn't hear it, I didn't see it. I think last week there was a conversation with some folks on looking at cities and, I mean, streets to be done, and I believe Evans Street was one of them that they were talking about, and I believe the comment was that we'll be getting to the water and sewer portion of it, but we probably won't get to the paving of it until next week. I just hope that this council is not getting buffaloed and to passing a budget that's not taking an understanding into what streets are going to be done. And then all of a sudden next year, in election year, all these streets decided to get done. And a major cost is going to come out. And maybe this is what this whole capital improvement program is going to be all about. I don't know. But it's not fair for the people who have been waiting year in and year out, waiting for their street to be done, waiting for their manholes on their street to be fixed, waiting for their sidewalks to be taken care of, waiting for their tree stumps to be removed. And the number that you were given a few weeks ago is absolutely wrong. There's many more than two to three to 400 tree stumps that are out there that need to be corrected and taken care of. You also, um, and in the last election, we talked about the CPA, whether you were for it or against it. And here you are in June, almost seven months later, and there's still no definitive program. There is still nothing out there to tell the people what that money is going to be used for and when it's going to be used. And if you look at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, they don't even know if they're going to be able to fund it this year, because they're behind on revenues and revenue projections that they had anticipated coming in. So the people of this community have to have an understanding. If you voted for the CPA for the 1.5%, I believe that's what they voted for, as the override on your taxes, over and beyond your taxes, which to me is an end run of Proposition 2.5, but that's nearly over there, you're still going to be funding the whole thing on your own. And you're not going to be getting that for which you thought the match was going to be from the state, because they just don't have the money. And unfortunately, you're stuck with it for five years. But I think I believe that it's in Councilor Knight's committee that you're working on, the ad hoc committee, and waiting to make a finality of where it's going to go. And hopefully, the recommendation will come out, and people will have an opportunity to discuss it, and you can get a feeling of where you're going to be going. There's been absolutely no upgrading. On the antiquated cable casting of this council chamber, what transmits over cable television, whether it be Comcast or Verizon. Verizon seems to have a better signal going out rather than Comcast. This building hasn't been touched for well over 30 years, and I would suggest that you do it. And then you have an excess of the cable access money, an excess of $550,000 just sitting there. And it's never been done, and it's never been done to be used to correct this particular building over here. There's a whole bunch of things that you folks have been getting into. One of the things I want to compliment the council on, and you took the bull by the horns for the last couple of weeks, is the Locust Street project. That's 61 Locust Street, 490 unit project on Locust Street. I compliment you publicly because it really is an issue that is disturbing to the neighborhood and it'll destroy the entire fabric, not only of the Wellington neighborhood, it has an immediate impact on the entire city of Medford, if in fact that were to come to fruition. Without going through all the particulars and all the facts that are relegated to it, I thank you for taking that position and voting seven to nothing. Very rare do you get seven to nothing vote on something like this, but you did the right thing on this particular- You have one minute, sir. Pardon me?
[Robert Penta]: You did the right thing as it relates to this particular subject matter. I just want to conclude probably by saying that I would hope you have a new budget director coming on board. has been here for a long time. I happen to like Anne, and I think she does a good job, and I think she's a very honest person. But I think she was put in a very tough situation as it relates to presenting not only the budget before you folks, but before the Medford City Council and city government. So I thank you for your efforts, Anne. But more importantly, I would just hope this council gets its act together by demanding from this mayor that before any budget comes forward, before any capital improvement comes forward, she sits down with you personally, not an emissary, When in fact, she did have a representative who was supposed to be your council emissary. She's not here tonight. They're never here. Unfortunately, you have to do this on your own and vote on it on your own. So once again, I thank you for listening to my comments and at the same time. Thank you. I just want to thank you. Okay. Without calling you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter, I live at Zero Summit Road, former member of the Sarkis party. I want to thank Mr. Reid for coming forward here, because I think he's bringing to the attention of our public the fact that our streets and the needs of our streets, whether they be sidewalks, whether they be curbings, whether they be the underground infrastructure, is in a desperate need of, how can you say, a revisiting. You folks haven't seen this, and not to digress, but I will digress, going back to last year during the campaign, this was a big issue. People in this community are very concerned about their streets, the potholes in their streets. The people are not getting any response back. I mean, the city now signs on to this quote, unquote, complete streets program. Do a street. Get a street done. Don't get it to the point that it is right now that people are coming up here. And I know there's going to be another gentleman that's going to come up here and he's going to talk about a street that the city owns that they haven't done that was part of a $14.4 million project. And it just doesn't make any sense. You know, the council has asked, and you, acting president Marks, you would ask for an annual monthly go along to see where the budget's going. And I think last year Louise Miller said, she said it twice, right here at this podium, she would have never presented the budget the way it's been, as it's been in the past. and she would put your wish list in there, and she would show the cost and where and how it would go. Well, I think you folks do have an obligation as city councilors, because I know I accepted it when I sat on that side of the rail, to have monthly meetings. So have meetings with your department heads to find out exactly what's going on. The rumor around this building that the city engineer, she's on a six-month to a one-year review for her job performance. True or false or indifferent, I don't know, but that's the rumor running around the building. But whether it's a rumor or not, the fact of the matter is this. The streets in this city are in desperate need of not only repair, but a review. The public works department. Their short chains would help, but at the same time, their direction is not being geared into the purpose of what it's there for. What's the most important thing that's affecting this community right now on a daily basis? All of a sudden, they just got through painting the stripes, the crosswalks and the stripes. School is out and the stripes are done. This should have been done when school was in. Prime time of the year. It used to be done twice a year. It used to cost $60,000 a year when Mayor McGlynn was here. Now he's only been out a year. $60,000 a year. paint the crosswalks and the stripes, okay? Twice a year, it's a public safety issue, why not? But look at your streets, look at your sidewalks, look at your curbing. Mr. Reed brought, I think, some excellent points forward. not to sit here and advocate for him to be an employee of the city, but he did work for this city, and he did do a good job, and he did bring these attentions to the engineering department, and we're still talking about him. After the fact, still talking about him. It's just symptomatic on how this entire administration operates. After the fact, no public acknowledgement, and this council, you know, I don't know what this mayor thinks of this council, but it's quite obvious. She doesn't have you in high regards at all, because you folks have absolutely no idea as to what's going on outside this building. You do the best you can. You read it in the newspaper. You talk amongst yourselves. But unfortunately, if this city keeps going in the direction it's going, it'll have no direction to go in. It's going to be out of control. And it is out of control right now. Locust Street is the best example of telling you what's happening in this community. An out-of-control situation. Just think of it. You folks had to go hire your own attorney to sue the Board of Appeals. and for which this mayor thought this was a great project here in the city. It's going to add a wonderful new neighborhood and we're excited about it. We are so excited about it, it's going to cost you hundreds and thousands of dollars because now the council is going to sue your board of appeals that your city solicitor has to defend. And the neighbors have to go out and get their lawyer for they have to pay for it because they're not going to get pushed around by city hall who never asked them to be part of it or to be included. It's like a bad street. If you don't fix it, it gets worse. Well, it's the public relations of this administration. It's worse now than it was when it started, and it's not getting any better. And I would hope that this Medford City Council puts its foot down and tells this mayor that before you do anything and go forward, we want to be a part of it, and our city streets, we want to be a part of it. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter. I live at zero summit road, former member of this August party. You know, we're not a city that's rising from the ashes. There hasn't been a catastrophe in this city, and we shouldn't be looked upon as a community that the Trojan horses come in, which is development. And development, just for the sake of development, doesn't mean it's always good for this community. When that decision was rendered this morning, I took all afternoon to review it, page by page, word by word. Fourteen pages of a hastily written decision because The board, I believe, did not want to hear what this Medford City Council wanted to do. And the city solicitor is absolutely right, because I've checked the cases and other cases that reflect upon the fact. You folks, you are the master of the zoning of this city of Medford, not the board of appeals, because that's what they are. People go to them on an appeal. But you folks, you write the zoning. The zoning begins and ends here, goes through whatever the process might be. So you have every right to not only appeal this decision, but to appeal it as loudly and as strongly as you can. On page five of the decision, the commentary says it completes the zoning, the industrial zoning, except for heightened use. Now, this is an industrial piece of property, which is allowed to have certain exemptions that you don't have. But the heightened use relegates itself to the multiple dwelling portion. We can go back to 1988. There was a company called Asano and White. They did a, I think it was a $70,000, $80,000 report here in the city of Medford as it reflects upon housing, development, traffic impact, and water and sewer. And the Wellington Glenwood area was one of the particular areas that they did it on. And Councilman Marks alluded to the fact on page eight, the topography of the land. The board says that a substantial part of the property, if it's not developed with multiple dwelling, In the ordinance, the industrial zone, in essence, will become inoperative because it'll just stay industrial and you can't do anything with it. I think there's one point that hasn't been said thus far, unless somebody else wants to say it later on. Don't forget, when these folks came on March 31st and before that, they didn't say no to the development. They were conciliatory. They said, reduce the size of the project, make it smaller if you can, and I think the people could live with it. But that didn't take place. If you read the decision regarding 7 Canal Street, the very last paragraph, as written by the board, basically says, and I read it, Mr. President. It's kind of interesting, that decision. It says the following, in conclusion, the board is hopeful that the developer will reconsider the size and scope of the proposed apartment building. There is much to commend the overall project in such close proximity to public transportation including the commuter rail. Now, in that decision, they talked about the abutters that showed up. In this 14-page decision, there's nothing about an abutter that showed up, nothing about the concerns that they had. All they talked about was the fact that this is going to be great for that particular area. April 27th of this year, Mayor Burke of this community said this is a great project to develop a new neighborhood in this part of town. We're excited about it. But where is the transparency, the open public meeting on zoning of this nature? Because you folks have never had a development this large smack you in the face. And since you've all been here, you've never had an audience like this who are so upset over the fact that they weren't a part of it. They're coming in after the fact. They should have been here before the fact, before this honorable body. You folks wrote the law, and you should be well aware of what's going on upstairs in that Board of Appeals. You know, in the decision, it's relegated to the terms. They state the following. We respect the fact that this zoning and site plan review fits the standards of this particular project. This is the wording of the zoning and the site plan review. The purpose of our zoning is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, and to lessen the danger from congestion and confusion. Site plan review states the following. The purpose of this article is to promote development, which is harmonious with surrounding areas and adequate consideration of abutting land owners. Well, we have abutting land owners here tonight. Where were their concerns is written in this document. It's nowhere to be found. And if it's nowhere to be found here, it's quite obvious that they didn't take it into consideration. And Councilman Marks, again, alluded to the fact that we relied on department head reports, and we relied on their reports. Kind of interesting, the folks that, Vanessa Hagan, who was the consultant they had for the traffic study, is the same one that they had for Canal Street. And that was only four stories high and for 30 units. This is 490 units high, 490 units and five stories high. Big difference. But let's get to the bottom line. What are you going to have here for the bottom line? Because it's the impact that's going to affect the neighborhood. This is what you're going to have. You're going to have coal. If everybody's online and all the developments are coming on board. You'll have Coles, you'll have Marshalls, you'll have Wegmans, you'll have Lumineer. They just sold their building after one year for $66.6 million. What makes you think these people may not do the same thing? Come in. Hi, Hawaii. See you later. Make a fast buck. Who pays for it? The neighborhood. Then you're going to have the skating rink over there. Then you're going to have the 490 units. Then you're going to have eight commercial businesses, three apartment buildings. And now let's take a ride down Locust Street and bang a left and go to Wellington Circle. You're going to have 200 more units of apartment housing going over there. And don't forget the casino when that opens up. You put this all together. And you take Little Locust Street, which is a two-way street, it's going to make no sense at all. If this administration had any brains, they would have called you into that office over there, sat down with you and said, what do you think, guys? This is what I think I'd like to see. Can we add or subtract to it and come up with a unified front? No, you have an administration that just goes on their own way and now you're here to pick up the slack. And what's the slack? You're going to have to take money and appeal it on behalf of the taxpayers. And I would expect you folks, do appeal it and do spend that money and send the message back to that office over there that you guys and gals are not patsies for someone else's administration when you're not even brought in and consulted. There is no transparency to what's going on in this city right now. And this is the perfect example when you look at a development such as this. This should never be happened without your consideration and consultation. You know, we get elected for one reason, or I got elected for one reason when I was on that side of the rail, to do the people's business. not to sit here and wonder what I'm supposed to do. If you're brand new, it's a learning process, then you better learn real quick. Because you know what you're dealing with? You're dealing with the taxpayers' money. You're dealing with their direction in how this city is supposed to go forward, whether it's on the school department side when you take that final vote, or whether it's on the city side when you're putting all your money together to find out in what direction are we going to be able to go. Now, you have a budget coming up right now. And in this particular budget, as the councilor, Mr. Rumley alluded to, you should make the request tonight to put a minimum of $50,000 in there. And I'm going to tell you the reason why. A few years ago, when I was on this city council, we had a decision to be made regarding Tufts University on a piece of land that they wanted to take and they wanted to use it. I think it was Foley, Holg, Elliott and Boston. I think it was a hundred thousand dollars would cost the city, but the city won its case. Okay. because the council was determined when they took that vote that we weren't going to get pushed around and we weren't going to have the Dover Amendment used against us because it was inappropriate at that particular time. I think it was 1991 or whatever it might be. But you've got to be realistic about this. You've got to move ASAP. Plus another thing, Mr. Rumley, you can correct me if I'm wrong. If you guys and girls are going to come on board and appeal this case, you can ask for an extension of time. Same thing that the visiting nurses did. I believe they got a six-month extension of time when the taxpayers decided or the abutters decided to appeal this particular case. In 1985, I made an offer of a resolution before this Method City Council. None of you were on it. That's why I'm still here, because I remember these things. I got a bag full of tricks. that tells me what to remember every single time, okay? I made a resolution to put a moratorium on building and construction in the city of Medford because at that point in time, you had high-rise condominiums going up with no rhyme and no reason. And if you didn't take a look and see where you wanted your city to go and the traffic impact it would have, the social impact, the educational impact.
[Robert Penta]: And the educational impact, you would have no idea where you're going. And then again in 2005, I filed the same resolution. Miffitt City Council in both times approved it, and both times the city administration did not want to embark upon it. You know, it sounds nice to say, if this development takes place, I think we're going to get, here it goes, we're going to get approximately $1.5 million in building permits. We're going to get approximately $2 million in linkage. We're going to get approximately $1.375,000 in tax money. You know, money just for the sake of money should not make this city drive itself. You know what should drive this community? The heart of every single person in here. How you can get along, how you can live together, how your streets can be compatible, how your schools, your churches, and your neighbors can be compatible. Not to have a group of people come in here tonight, frustrated over the fact this is after the fact, and now you're picking up the ball and going forward. This should not be. They should be coming here tonight congratulating you because you stopped it early on and it came before you at an appropriate time.
[Robert Penta]: I hope this is a warning, Mr. President, and all members of the council, that you go forward, hire the attorney, and I'm quite sure that you will win. Absolutely. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. On that question to Councilor Falco you just asked, I believe it would be discriminatory on the man's part because right now, as the city solicitor just alluded to, he's representing the Board of Appeals. Under normal circumstances, correct me if I'm wrong, you would be the legal counsel for the city council. With that being said, that leaves you without any legal representation. And you, by right and by law, are entitled to have legal representation. My suggestion would be that you would ask for $20,000, put it into the budget, and you could take it from there. Because I don't think you're going to get out of this thing any cheaper than that. You need a starting figure to start off with, and I would keep it at $20,000. And lastly, I just want to say, I want to thank you for continuously being so rude, Mr. Delarusso, because I really
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter. I live at zero summit road, Medford mass, a former member of this August body. Uh, to get to council night's question brought up at the council, at the, uh, appeals meeting. And that's an industrially zoned piece of property. Number one, and it's 490 units that are being asked over there. There are 11 variances that were being presented, 11 variances more than any other time. And I believe all 11 of them were asking for relief. And according to the preliminary decision, they've been granted. That's an awful lot of variances on a one single piece of property. I think folks really need to understand something, that that night on that, it was an extremely hard night. And the residents that were there, they waited all night long to make sure that their comments were made, while the developer took as much time as needed, and rightfully so, to present their position. But there were some comments that some folks still wanted to make. Unfortunately, at the very end, they weren't allowed to because I don't know if it was because of the time or for whatever the reasons might be. But there are two sites and sections of our own municipal laws that need to be reviewed. And that's Chapter 94, Section 1, which is our zoning ordinance, which says that the change cannot cause congestion or confusion. And also under our site plan review under Section 94, Section 33.1, excuse me, section 331, it states that the community, the neighborhood has to be taken into consideration. Is it compatible with the neighborhood as it relates to this? Now, just think of the traffic on the traffic issue alone. You're going to start off with the new Lumineers, which is 160 units. Then you have the ice skating rink. Then you have across the street, you have Coles and Marshalls. Then you're going to have the new Wegmans. Then you're going to have 490 units if that goes through, 7,000 square feet of office space. Then you're going to have, going down the street a little bit further, two office buildings, and I think there's six remaining commercial pieces of property. Take that and then go to Wellington Circle, where 200 more units of affordable housing are going to be taking place and coming on. Now just imagine in the middle of the day, 8, 9, 10, weekends, night times, whatever it might be, taking into consideration once the new casino comes in. You have Riverside Avenue, you have Locust Street, Mystic Valley Parkway, Harvard Street, and all the side streets that spin off of that. Do you realize how much traffic that that's going to cause? And for them to say it has no traffic input makes absolutely no sense at all. I would respectfully ask whoever made that request for next Tuesday night to ask how they made that determination of no traffic input. Because the developer himself acknowledged that on an annual basis, at a minimum of 1%, traffic will increase. And they acknowledged by their own development that traffic will increase in that particular area. But to get back to what you were talking about, smart growth, Councilor Falco. Some years ago, I made an offering regarding growth and development here in this community. for which we didn't have any review with the prior administration. We asked for a moratorium for which at that point in time the council was in favor of, but the city's administration never went forward with it. We have no development that takes place in any part of this city that can tell you it's going to work, whether it be smart or not, whether it be compatible or not. This development that's taking place down there off of Riverside Avenue in the Wellington area has an environmental impact. It has a community impact. It has a neighborhood impact. And when you look at the development that's taking place by this developer wanting 490 units and a full packed room of residents that were there, and you go back a month prior to, and you look at the 40 units to a four-story building in West Medford that didn't have anywhere near the amount of complete neighborhood support for not wanting the project, how can you say one gets supported and one doesn't? That doesn't fit well. It doesn't bode well. And I'm glad that the majority of almost every one of you councilors are on board for not only having the meeting, but to having open public dialogue. And Councilor Lungo-Koehn is correct. Some years ago when they were doing the 9th Street project, because it was such a large particular project, at that point in time the council asked, and the developer agreed, they came before the council, committee of the whole, and then before the council, and we had a complete community meeting on that. Talked about what units were going to be affordable, which ones weren't going to be affordable. I think it really needs to be understood, and I think Jeannie Martin, you said it right in the beginning, small-scale residential neighbors. Even if it's one person that's impacted, that's one too many. And when you get the administration, and this President Mayer and her administration, making the comment on April 27th, as reported in the paper, that this is a great place to develop a new neighborhood and we're excited about it. How can you be excited about it when the neighborhood itself wasn't even aware of it, didn't even have an opportunity to come and speak? Well, maybe the Board of Appeals offered their opportunity for the public hearing and never got here. You're right when you're saying that your zoning should be reviewed. It should be reviewed only because of the fact you don't want to keep going through things of this nature. This is a huge development. This isn't singular. This is coupled upon that for which is already there. And that for which is already there will totally decimate that particular neighborhood. This isn't even a three or a four-way road. This is a two-way road going in. And just imagine all the stores that I just mentioned, Coles, Marshall, Wegmans. Luminaires, the ice skating rink, 490 units, 7,000 square feet of office space, two apartment buildings, and seven other, you know, public, other commercial pieces of property at any one point in time, at any one day. What do you think's gonna happen? Councilman Marks is right when he talks about what the three new stores that opened up on Riverside Avenue, on any one given night or weekend, or especially on holidays or shopping. You need not only smart development, you need a stop and look to see where this city is going. Just development for the sake of development doesn't mean anything. If you want to have something that reaches the niche of every single person, whether it be senior citizen housing, whether it be more medical space, whether it be more space for your education, or whatever it might be, I don't know if it's going to take $250,000, but I know this, you would want a complete community interest. You know, we don't have to be like some of them. But we can beg, borrow, and steal like Somerville does in a smaller way in smaller sections of the city. And let us not forget one important thing. At that meeting last Tuesday night, the neighborhood was most conciliatory by saying it wasn't that they were against the project. It was way too large, didn't fit the neighborhood, and they were willing for something that would be much more reduced, that would be more compatible, and at least people could live with. That's all that they're looking for, something that they can live with, not something that's going to be thrown down their throat because they didn't have an opportunity for input, but more importantly, just because the city's going to garner approximately $2 million in taxes and approximately $1.6 million in linkage fees, this administration's looking at the money and they're cutting the beans as fast as they can. And who's going to pay for it? The neighborhood's going to pay for it. The people who have been there, who have taken care of their property for years. All the side streets off of Riverside Avenue. Try to get off of Harvard Street now in the morning, add this to the congestion, and wait until Wellington Circle takes place and the 200 units over there. Is everybody going to have a car? Absolutely not. But even if it's 10% more on that road, it's 10% more that it can't handle. We have a police department that's in desperate need of help. We have a school department. We don't know if it's getting maxed out because of these units. You have a fire department that's stretched. We don't even know because the administration won't let them do a trial run into Wellington Circle to make sure we have a satellite fire station or a police station there for which the prior administration looked into but never did anything about it. You have so many issues that are confronting you here, and to have the Board of Appeals just vote preliminarily to go forward and grant the easement, it's only going to satisfy those money-hungry developers coming in. Look at Lumineers. They're not even in there a year, and they sold out for $66.6 million. Think about it. Who's to say this company won't do the same thing? But there's one thing that you can't sell out, and that's the integrity and the brains of the people that live in the neighborhood, because they know what's right They know what's good for them, and they're paying their taxes, and I'm quite sure they don't want their taxes paid for something like this, which is going to absolutely make their neighborhood a deplorable place to live. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, Madam President, my name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass.
[Robert Penta]: My motion.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. I can appreciate the idea that Ms. Hunt and the Energy Office has brought before the council, but I don't think her tenure here has been long enough to understand what the citizens of our community have expected. We can digress and go back a few years and talk about Stations Landing. When Stations Landing was coming here into the city of Medford, people, or we were told, that that would be the new panacea of no new growth in this community or a stability in growth. And we've all seen what's happened since that point in time. The taxes have gone up each and every year while we've collected well in excess of a million and a half new dollars each and every year from there. Now, the next argument could possibly be the banks here in the City of Medford. The City of Medford goes out on a daily basis to get the best possible rate on interest rates for the money that they deposit. Is the City of Medford going to go out of its way now to tell the taxpayers of this community to go to a particular bank that they go to? And the more people that go to that bank, they're going to get a better interest rate? because we're getting a good interest rate, which is better than the bank that you're going to. Same thing with the insurance company. We have to buy our insurance. We go out and we get the best bid. The best bid will probably be less than the bid that you, Mr. and Mrs. Medford, possibly might be getting. I don't know. But Mr. Champ, you just brought up a very interesting point when you talked about water and sewer. You folks have in your budget right now in excess of a $400,000 deficit or a debt on the water and the suicide from the city and the school committee. Why isn't the city paying for that? But right now, they're so concerned about your electric bill, but they're not concerned about the $400,000 that every single taxpayer in this city is paying for because the school department in the city side won't account for their own water. And hopefully, you people will pass that when the budget comes. You know, you talk about the state legislature passing these laws, and I think you're right, Councilman Marks. I think they got this upside down. opting in rather than opting out. The best way a community or a city can operate, when they talk to their taxpayers, when they have better communication, but when they don't have good communication, and the only public forum that they have is this council, and the rail here at this council that they can come up and talk, then that's what the conversation should be about. You shouldn't be talking about taking a vote which mandates somebody that they have to join, and then they might have to figure out when, within 180 days, have to opt out. That's not the right way to go. And if we're going to expend municipal time through its employees on projects on behalf of every single taxpayer in this community, then why are you mandating it rather than making it voluntarily so you could show them this is a better way for you, Mr. and Mrs. Medford, to save money rather than be at the option of April or October to a $100,000 consultant who was going to be making money trying to tell the city of Medford who might, on a particular day, get the best possible rate, and who might not get that best possible rate during that period of time, but the consultant still makes his money. I don't think this is a good idea. I think there are more important things to do here in the city of Medford, and I would hope that this Medford City Council does not entertain this particular matter. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Pente. I live at Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a member of the Zagos Party. You know, this isn't the first time we're talking about police safety and security here within this community. I can remember Councilor De La Ruza when you first came on. I think one of the priorities in this council was the police department in a public safety building. And we're here so many years later after the fact under a new administration. If you really want to have public safety be a real major concern, a major issue here within this council, You have a budget. I think it was you, Councilor Falco, who said early on that you would like the budget process to be informed a little bit early. It's something that we've all asked about. Councilor Marks, you just alluded to having a wish list for which we don't have, we haven't seen. You are now coming into almost the end of May, and you have yet to have a budget presented before you. Surrounding cities and towns are already discussing it. If this council is really serious about public safety, they would hold the budget up, demand from the mayor, not only a time schedule, but the financial wherewithal to put a new police department together and to hire more police officers. And I think once that takes place, this administration knows that this Medford City Council is serious. And you're not just talking about it. You're not just referring to it. You mean business this time. We just had a very tragedy this past week with Officer Tarantino. His father was a Medford police officer. This isn't a matter of whether black lives matter, white lives matter. It's every life matters. And that's what people have to understand when they look at a police officer. They're there each and every single day, just like a fireman, in the public safety realm of this community, to take care of the people that they were, how can you say, that they were charged to do. And they don't do it asking for any recompense or any notoriety. It's their job. Well, let's give them a break this time. Councilman Marks, you alluded to $8 million sitting in free cash. City of Marlin, a perfect example. They got $8 million, and they also got $8 million in grants toward a new police station. We haven't even delved into this matter. You folks haven't even been called into a roundtable meeting with this administration to talk about this, not only as a priority, but as a necessary demand to keep our city safe. If we don't have folks like Ian Fratz or Jeanne Martin coming up, and sometimes they may say, hey, they're a pain in the neck. And you might even think that I'm a pain in the neck, but you know something? I don't mind being the pain in the neck, because this is my community, and I love it. I served on this board for 36 years, and I have yet to see the Medford Police Department get what they really need, not only in more men and a new building, but a sense of priority here in this community. And when I compare that and I look and see the nonsense that's going on in the school department, praising the superintendent for whatever he's doing, which can't even compare to what the Smithford Police Department and the Smithford Fire Department does on a daily basis protecting this community and every single one of us in this room, that to me should be the priority. And if you really want to be strong about it, you would hold this mayor, Mayor Stephanie Burke, hold her feet to the ground and do not move on that budget until you get your answer. for more policemen and a new police department. Be happy to answer any questions if anybody has them. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a member of the Sarkis party. And I'd just like to say, and I brought this up about two or three weeks ago, regarding the bubble. There's a bond council that wrote the bond proposal. If you think of this thing logically and you think it through, you're allowing a private for-profit business to come in and take advantage of a city's bond at the city's interest rate and for them to make a profit on city time, on city property. Well, if we're going to do that, are we opening up Pandora's box to the swimming pool? Are we opening up to the skating rink? Are we opening up to the new $14.5 million science labs that we have in the school? Anything that we've had a bond that can have an effect upon the people within this community, we are now saying, come on in, pay us for what you think you want to pay us, and we'll entertain it if not accept it. You know, Councilman Marks made an interesting comment a few weeks ago when we had this discussion as it relates to it. If they're putting so much time into the bubble, I wish they would put more time into the educational process. at the school. They put a lot of time into hiring 5,000 administrators at over $95,000 a piece. And as a matter of fact, one of them was one who was terminated from one school, but hired back up at the high school at $95,000. A lot of interest, a lot of input went into that. But when we look at this, you have a definitely, you have a legal question here. And I think this council voted, all seven of you voted to have a report back from the bond council. From the bond counsel who wrote this for the city of Medford, the legal question is, can the city of Medford rent or lease this piece of property to a private for-profit company and then charge back the city of Medford for its use of the same property that they have leased for a measly $75,000 a year? Because that's all they give in the city of Medford. And don't forget, if you're right, Councilor Marks, if it's a 10-year deal and the city gets the bond, It's not costing these people anything, because they will write this off on a tax write-off for 10 years for its use, especially if it's a for-profit business. And what are we going to get at the very end as a community? Whatever the repairs that are needed to take place are going to take place, and who's going to have to pay for the city? These are the type of questions that would be great ballot questions to put out there during a general election. Because if it's such a wonderful argument and a wonderful issue, the pros and cons of public hearings and meetings at city council and at school committee meetings would serve the purpose of whether the people want this or not. I think if I had a student up at the high school right now, I would be more concerned on the educational quality of where that student needs to go or would like to go rather than arguing over a bubble that might have some not only logistical, legal questions, but would have questions over the fact that what are we doing? Taxpayers' money. When we as members of the Medford City Council voted for the science labs, for the skating rink, for the swimming pool, and Edgeley Field. We were taking the taxpayers of Medford's money and the bond rating that we were getting at that particular time to purchase that piece of bond in behalf of the city of Medford. You're not doing that now because what you're doing is you're abdicating the responsibility of the bond responsibility by the city and you're allowing an outside for-profit business to come in here, take advantage of it, and pay the city a measly $75 an hour, $75,000 a year, while at the same time make thousands and hundreds and thousands of dollars over the life of the bubble. That's not good financing. That doesn't make good sense to me. And I think this needs a lot more attention to the fact that you need all the legal questions asked. And I think you really need to compare this with this upcoming budget in the school department. It makes a huge difference as it relates to where priorities are going. We just got through talking about public safety, policemen. We talked about a new police station. Well, you're talking now about a bubble. And before the bubble bursts on the city of Medford and you get stuck with a financial boondoggle, I think we need to say, let's slow down and let's really take a look and see what's going on, because that's what this is all about. It's your money. It's our money. It's the city's money. It's everybody's money. And if we're going to allow a private for-profit business to come in and take advantage of our community and our real estate to the detriment of our city, for a measly $75,000, then you're really selling yourself short, and you're selling the taxpayers short. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Pinter. I live at Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., a former member of your August body. I've attended both of those meetings and there is a major concern in the West Medford area as well as throughout the entire city of Medford. But these signs did have, in fact, an impact many years ago as it related to crime taking place, especially in the West Medford area and other parts. I think it's a beginning that needs to take place. There are 100 people strong. They have petitions walking the street. And the real need that needs to take place is this upcoming budget that you folks are going to have to deal with here on the city council. This administration has to step up to the plate. and recognize the fact that in the petition that's running around, they're asking for 10 additional street police officers over the next two years, whether they be bicycle files, fellas, gals, and whether they be motorcycle, walking patrolmen, patrol ladies, or just more people for visibility in the neighborhood. It's a desperate need. They're serious. They don't like their houses broken into. They don't like their cars hijacked. And they don't like to be held hostage in their own community. So when only 72 police officers On the patrol, in our city method right now, we need to increase that. We need to represent ourselves as being a community that is responding to the needs of the community, especially in the areas of public safety. And I believe it's in this city council and prior city councils that's always mandated that public safety was its number one issue. Thank you, sir.
[Robert Penta]: Please state your name and address for the record. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My name is Robert Penta, Xero, Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a member of this board. I thank Mr. Capucci for coming forward because his flavor on the subject matter is different than mine. Mine basically as history has a way of repeating itself. Regarding public access here in the city of Medford, we are at the repeating stage once again. Since early 2013 to date, we, the Comcast and Verizon cable subscribers, have been charged the monthly public access fee totaling some $500,000. And we, the subscribers, still have no public access station. What we heard from 2013 by the city administration was that the city will be asking for Channel 3 records, bank statements, meeting minutes, and an inventory accounting of the Channel 3 Public Access Corporation, because then at that point in time, Channel 3 Corporation was filing for dissolution of its Chapter 3 Corporation. Records of expenditures of gasoline, restaurants, retail, supermarkets, hardware home suppliers, plumbing and air conditioning materials, building materials, auto supplies, Miscellaneous expenses in bank and ATM withdrawals, along with deposits and credits from the banks in the accounting were examples that were supposed to have been forwarded to the city of Medford pursuant to the dissolution filing. As of this date, no accounting of any records, bank statements, meeting minutes, or accurate inventory accounting has ever been verified from channel three. Regarding the city's lack of providing public access TV, The ever-going question since 2013 has been, why has the city failed to mandate that public access be made available as contractually applied for? Fast forward to today, and putting aside all the comments and issue regarding the forced ascertainment hearing, the former mayor's commission report regarding public cable access, and multiple council resolutions regarding this matter. It seems that this administration feels that to spend some $500,000 for an access studio up in the back of Medford High School will serve in the best interest of a local public access station. I don't believe this to be in the best interest of our subscribers and citizens, and for the following reasons. It's location, location, location that is the primary success staple of any business. The Medford High location will not serve the best interest for our public access. Examples as to why. Its public access is not on a main street that is centrally located. The entranceway is not well lit. It is not easily accessible to walk up and to walk back the hill from the back to and from Medford High School. It presents a winter problem of ice and snow needing to be cleared at all times on the hill and the walkway to the school's back entrance. It presents a safety security problem for after school hours and nighttime lighting is at a minimum. As a major positive contrast to the Medford High location, the Medford Public Library serves as the best location for public access studio. It is centrally located within our city. It has walking convenience within the city's downtown area and bus routes. It is handicap accessible to being easily available for front door entrance for bus and cab transportation. It offers a great additional public educational opportunity for community public access. Medford's $500,000 bank deposits from Comcast and Verizon thus far will definitely produce at the library the space needs necessary for this development. As Councilor Caraviello has indicated by requesting the Massachusetts State Library Commission come to Medford to ascertain what state additional funding can be for the library to Ghana for the library's rehabilitation, That, along with what I proposed last year during the Mayor's campaign to have a complaint present use and future use, along with the $500,000 funds that are readily available right now here in City Hall, could catapult the Medford Public Library to being Medford's premier central educational and social meeting spot that incorporates an entire community of opportunity. This would be the perfect segue for having The Massachusetts State Library Commission realized that we are working to make our library a major focal point in our city, and their additional support position would certainly carry us to that potential. It would be an example of how a city fully realizes the community potential of its public library. To my understanding and education thus far, this would be a first for the Massachusetts State Library Commission to co-invest with a city with matching funds. The Medford Vocational School location, as is presently being entertained, could be a satellite location for students' learning of production and access operations as a school program offering separate and distinct from the public access studio. This opportunity for community public access to be better located and more readily available should not be squandered away because of political posturing. Mayor McGlynn's own committee report of June 2015 specifically stated, We are a committee that feels that the best location will be in one that is conveniently and centrally located with its own entrance and exit and should be handicap accessible. The Method Public Library could serve no better location than the one that has been advised for. Also, with the city owning the property, annual rental payments will not have to be provided. Therefore, providing for more revenue to maintain, upgrade equipment, and conveniently offer to the community programs that showcase our city and the families and subscribers that watch and use public access TV. I respectfully ask that this honorable body of councilors request by a roll call vote that our city administration reconsider its position regarding public access to TV being at Medford High School and entertain the Medford Public Library as the location that will better serve our community in the Comcast and variable cable rate payers for paying for their public access. Well, I have a question that I presented before the council. I was just wondering if anyone would entertain that because I think this is a very important issue. It's a lot of money and I think it offers a great opportunity.
[Robert Penta]: All set? Mr. President, as just a point of reference, for the last six years, prior to last year, don't forget the city of Medford got waivers from the Mass Department, State Department of Library Commissioners, because the city did not put enough money in there when, in fact, they did have the money. But putting that aside, with all due respect to Councilor Knight, if you look at the Mass Department of Education, cable, public access, and the teaching of public access is an allowable educational product here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It can't be a deed restriction, or even, I don't know what the deed restriction can be, because the library is an educational thing, and the public access is educational. It works hand in hand. And as I indicated earlier, what Councilor Caraviello might have met and talked to those folks from the state, they've never had a co-investing partner like the City of Medford would have. And if we could upgrade not only the building, the roof, the second floor, whatever needs to be done with the $500,000 that the city has at the present time, and moving that forward, having a full public access, here, right here in the city of Medford, centrally located, that would help to expedite. If the administration was serious about the public library, as was a campaign issue during this past year, we wouldn't have to worry about 140 pages being done. You'd go out and hire someone ASAP and make that presentation. And if they knew that the city of Medford was willing to invest its money instead of asking for all of the money from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the board of library commissioners, it's the first of its kind. And I think they would be more receptive to that than just the plain grant application. I don't see any what the problem would be. Because if we want to move this thing forward, we have the money. It isn't like we don't have the money. We're not offering the service that's contractually been obligated for through Verizon and Comcast. You do not have public access here in the city of Medford. And we can go back to resolutions from 2013 bringing forward where the votes have been seven to nothing on this council floor to go forward and find out what's going on. You can't even get the records back from the former Cable 3, the Channel 3. We don't even know if they've actually been formally dissolved by the Karma of the Mass. They could still be in operation. Nobody knows nothing. We haven't received anything back. But the onus of responsibility, with all due respect, Mr. President, right now can come from this council, because I think you're all on the same page. you want to see something done. And to find out that they're doing some work now up at that school, and this council not even being notified or entertained about it, that doesn't speak well about transparency. They can do all the restructuring up there they want and do it for another purpose. This is more important. How and where public access is going to go, how the $500,000 is going to go, how it's going to be centrally located, and how it can be immersed into this community as an educational product, ready, willing, and able to go locally, not segued in a certain part of this community that has too many obstacles to make the thing work. Thank you very much.
[Robert Penta]: Welcome. My name is Robert Penter. I live at Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. Last week we had a conversation regarding these, this position and the issue as it relates to, um, since we're talking about the chief of staff position right now, um, the concern that a chief of staff would have, especially as it relates to the working operation, not only of the mayor's office, but the interaction of all department heads and employees here in the city of Medford and outside concerns. What bothers me on this particular matter right now is that this position, which became effective on January 4th of this year, Um, since it's a title to position and it's a compensated position in a, in a CAF, um, category, um, you're approving it now tonight, but it's been operative, uh, since January 4th of this year. Uh, last week, um, I brought up the issue and I don't see any, unless you guys and ladies have a paper on your agenda here. Uh, the relative to the fact that our city auditor has been asked to also, um, entertain doing the duties of the treasurer collector. And from last week to this week, I've consulted with the division of local services and the department of revenue. And it's absolutely, you cannot do it. The city auditor cannot do it. It's a, it's a prerogative and it's a concern of chief.
[Robert Penta]: It's an issue that a chief of staff would look into. With due respect to the chair. With due respect, Mr. President, the chief of staff is an advisor, is an advisor to the mayor of this community. And the advice to the mayor of the community over and beyond legal advice would be whether this is an allowable or whether it's allowable or not. There's no case law and there is no state statute that allows whether it be temporary or what have you. And as a result of that, I think it's something that needs to be addressed because the chief of staff who's been operating since January 4th of this year, it's obvious that that information either has been given to the incumbent mayor. or the president administration just refuses to, um, abide by it. The law is also quite succinct in its, um, in its review that under chapter 41, section 52, all accounts are rendered to be kept in the departments of any city shall be subject to the inspection of the city auditor or officer having similar duties. So we know now on the chapter 41, section 52, that that's the auditor's position as it relates to not being allowed to do any other position in the department, I mean, in the city. And chapter 41, section 55 clearly delineates the fact that the town accountant shall be sworn to the faithful performance of his duties, shall hold no other town office involving the receipt or disbursement of monies. If you've already had a chief of staff since January 5th of this year, that is a known fact that should not be allowed to take place, temporary or otherwise. There is nothing in state law. There is no state statute. and there is no case law that allows this to happen. The only exemption to the rule is- We have before us- Pardon me? We have before us, sir- We're talking about the chief of staff. The chief of staff position.
[Robert Penta]: It's one of the duties that a chief of staff does, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: I believe the city solicitor was here last week, and in our conversation he did acknowledge the fact that there is no case law, number one, and there is no state statute that allows it for temporary or otherwise. He's here tonight. He can stand on his own two feet to say it, but I think the OR is quite succinct. But more importantly, it's the position of the chief of staff, and they should know this. And this new administration should not be going into a territory knowing that it's in violation of state statute. Now, the unfortunate part about this whole issue right now is that you have a city solicitor that represents the mayor, that represents the city council, that represents the board of appeals. And if there's a difference of opinion as to who should prevail. It's quite obvious if the council needs to have a question answered, you still haven't gotten that answered. And I think you are entitled to have that answer legally, right, wrong, or indifferent. I stand here, and I'll be willing to be corrected. But for my information that I've been able to ascertain, and now speaking with the Division of Local Services at the Department of Revenue, you cannot do it. And the law is quite succinct on that. That is a prerogative, and that's a detailed description that a chief of staff does. They are the advisor. They are the advisor. And if their advice to the present administration was not consulted with the city's law department, well, that's a mistake there. But if the law department is basically saying this— Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Knight. Mr. President, no one is standing here to interrupt the appointment. The fact of the matter is that that person has been in the position since January 4th of this year. So all you're doing is finalizing something that was initiated on January 4th. The person is in there. The papers have already gone out. The individual is signing off as chief of staff. So it's already a done deal, so to speak. And this council deserves to have, within its own bailiwick of information, the fact whether this is right or wrong. Because if this council is just going to sit there, it would ignore the fact that a city auditor is also assuming the position as a treasurer collector, when you know that there was a young lady, Judy Johnson, who's worked very hard, very capable to be that person, to do it. Why is that not happening? No. The ball's in your court. You folks can do what you want. But this isn't a good message sending out to the people of this community, that you have a present administration that's potentially working with the conflict of interest and in violation of the law by having one person, the city auditor, assume two positions, that and that of the treasurer-collector, when you have a qualified person downstairs in that office that could do the job. Thank you very much. Well, I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, is the city council going to request a legal opinion on that because I think it's important. As a citizen, I'd like to ask one of my colleagues to make that request to the city administration, whether Mrs. Baker on the chapter 41, chapter 41, section 55 is entitled to be the city and the town treasurer at the same time.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague, he knows.
[Robert Penta]: I don't know. You can take a roll call vote. I mean, you can take a vote on it or what? Yeah, we'll take a vote on it.
[Robert Penta]: Please state your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is Robert Penter. I live at Zero Summit Road in Massachusetts, and I think we're in an area right now where we have a unique opportunity to really look at what our audiences are saying and where we can be going, because if we're going to relegate ourselves to changing audiences, maybe we should just look at the total picture. The total picture revolves itself around to the victor goes to spoils, and I understand that. But rather than change our municipal ordinance or any ordinance, maybe we ought to take advantage of what the law already allows for. The new administration does have a unique opportunity to hire any individual he or she would like. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 4, Section 7, Sixth A, allows for coterminous appointments that would exist to that of the mayor in this particular situation. And what would happen there, that the individual who would be appointed would not be subject to any municipal ordinance. They would just be subject to this particular law, which happens to be state statute, and every person that's in the mayor's office, which is an administrative appointment, would find itself in a co-terminus position as it relates to the term that the mayor sits in that office. If, in fact, a new mayor were to come in in the future, the person sitting in that position would then be reviewed at a subsequent time by the then new mayor for the purposes of whether they continue to be coterminous or whether in fact they are going to be eliminated. They would come under the same privileges of having a review to their job, their job application, and what have you. The second portion that you would have to look at is these individuals are serving at an at-will position. The mayor chooses individuals to work in that particular office, his or her office. And by looking at having that person sit in that particular office, you have to take into consideration the fact that are we putting people in there because of a municipal ordinance? Are we putting people in there because it's going to be coterminous? Are we putting those people in there because they're at will? Now, if you look at all the state rules and laws and regulations as it relates to at-will contracts, you can have these made in such a way that you can fire them and hire them anytime they want. They can leave anytime they want. You can have an employment contract that basically relegates what their terms and duties are in this particular office. And to do that, that sets the tempo of making sure that you do have and you have hired the right person. For example, you might hire somebody and the person just doesn't work out six, seven months down the road. Then what are you going to do? If you stick with the municipal ordinance the way it is, you're not going to have the same luxury of either an at-will or a coterminous type of an individual, because that way the other review factor would be part and parcel of what's going on. Second of all, and more importantly, whether it's this position or any other position, you have to look at the conflict of interest issue that revolves around the people in this particular case. In this particular case, you already have one individual that's working in the office, I believe it was on or about January, in January, early January, and this individual also happens to be on the, on the transition team. Well, being on a transition team and also getting paid by the city of Medford for being an individual working in the mayor's office right now, I think presents itself, Mr. Solicitor. And I asked the question, I begged the question, so to speak, is there a conflict of interest? Because the impartiality of a transition team is supposed to bring the recommendations to the administration. But when you're getting paid by the administration, and you're also on this transition team, you're also, I think, if you look under the conflict of interest law, you're possibly looking or possibly indicating that there could be a conflict, there might be a conflict, or it could appear to be a conflict. And really, that's what you don't want right now, especially starting off with a brand new administration. So I would suggest to my colleagues, as you review this thing in your committee of the whole, that you look into this thing a little bit further, over and beyond changing a municipal ordinance or adding or subtracting to it, and look at the term that's allowed by state statute under the term of being either coterminous or at-will employees, because your responsibility back to the taxpayers is not the same as that of the administration. If you appropriate money for those particular positions, the question then becomes, after that appropriation, you have absolutely no control. You'll have absolutely no control over that employee. other than the chief executive officer making the final decision. So if you want to ask the hard questions, this is the time to do it. But you do have options, and your options are either serve coterminously, number one, at will, number two, and more importantly, I think you really need to look at the conflict of interest that presently exists in the office, because I don't think it's right that someone who's on the transition team at the same time is getting paid well in excess of $90,000 to sit in the mayor's office at the present time and take on another job and duty and responsibility. the same job and duty of responsibility that will come up in the next issue that's going to be presented before you. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions, but I just think you really need to look at this thing more in its totality as to what's going on. And I really think Councilor Lungo-Koehn is right. I think you need a listing of every single person, their job classification, who they're replacing, and more importantly, what's the difference in the salaries, because that's going to make a big difference as to why are we making these changes at all and for what reason. And I think you deserve that. And that's what transparency is all about. And you should not be afraid to ask the question. It's the taxpayer's money. And it's your duty and responsibility, as it was mine when I was sitting on that side, to make sure that the money was accounted for properly and appropriately. So that's it, if anyone wants to ask any questions.
[Robert Penta]: Watch the button there, please. I did. Bob Penta, 07 Road Method Mask. I'd just like to bring your attention to the number F section over there, where it says report to the director of finance auditing on matters that pertain to procurement. On January 5th of this year, the city administration appointed Ann Baker to also be the city treasurer, beside being the city auditor. She can't do that. It's illegal. It's against the law. and I don't even know why she's being allowed to do that. The second section of the law is very specific as it relates to where we're going on that. Chapter 41, section 52 states that all accounts are rendered to be kept in the departments of the city shall be subject to the inspection of the city auditor or officer having similar duties. Now, the term city auditor and town auditor is interchangeable under our state statute. Then you go to chapter 41, section 55, and it's clear as a bell. The town accountant shall be sworn to the faithful performance of his duties, shall hold no other town office involving the receipt or disbursement of monies." So, I don't know where you're going with that. I think Mr. Solicitor, you need to look at that. I could be wrong, but the way I read that, your town auditor or your city auditor, which is Ann Baker, is also now, as of January 5th, the city's tax collector. She can hold both those positions, a direct conflict of law. Uh, it's conflict of interest, excuse me. And the law is very specific, especially chapter 41, section 55. I think a committee of the whole is so important to understand all the ramifications, you know, what this is all about. Um, you, as I said before, you have a lady that's a come on board from the transition team at $106,000 a year, um, as the director of budget and personnel. And that's what her title is, unless that's going to change in the future, what have you. These are issues that I think the council needs to know. I think you need to know all the names, the dollar amounts, and wherever you're going. But the conflicts that possibly and potentially arise, and this is one. It's as clear as a bell. She got appointed in January. She is our city auditor. And apparently, she's going to be the city treasurer for another 60 days. You can't do it. The law is specific. It's not me saying it. It's the law. You only can serve one master. You only can serve one position at one time, especially in the city or town. And with all due respect, I just think before you guys just jump in, ladies, before you jump into this thing, I think you really need to understand the full ramifications. Not only that, but the background of the individuals that are accepting these positions. Again, the mayor, whoever he or she might be, has that privilege of hiring whoever they want. But if there's a potential conflict, that needs to be addressed. And then if there's also a possibility that, I'm not saying take the job out of a classification, I'm saying take the job out of a time sequence. and make it run coterminous with the mayor, whether it's a CAF 14, 18, 22, whatever it might be, as it designated to the terminology, chief of staff, secretary. I've got no problem with that. That's not the issue. The real issue is the person that's being hired, whether it's at will or whether it's coterminous. But more importantly, in this particular case, I think it needs to be addressed immediately. Ann Bega cannot be the city auditor. She cannot be the city's tax collector at the same time. The law is specific, chapter 41, section 55, says it, I don't say it, and I would expect that the city takes the appropriate action on that matter, just to make sure that they don't get themselves in any kind of a quandary as a conflict that possibly could exist. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. President, I would like to make a response since the city solicitor challenged. Point of order, Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: I'll address my comments back to the City Council so we don't have to have a discourse back and forth between my friend, the City Solicitor, and myself. If he wanted to take that one step further as to what I said, I didn't say it was illegal, I said it has potential for conflict of interest. And Councilman Marks is absolutely right. If there is at present an Assistant City, what's her name, Treasurer, no, Mrs. Baker, an Assistant, there's two Assistants in both of those offices. Whether it's Ann Baker as the auditor or Fred Pompeo's office as an assistant, they both have two capable individuals that could assume either one of those roles. And my argument is, and it's very specific in here, I have a difference of opinion with my city solicitor friend, whether either one of those two assistants assume the position, but making one person assume both of them when you have other people just as capable and able to do the job presents and begs the issue. And that's what the issue is. How's the checks and balances going to take place? A city auditor is supposed to be the checks and balances as to how and when the city spends its money. So if the city auditor wants to challenge, you know, what the treasurer-collector has done in the past, which has been her job, now that person is assuming both those positions. She will have a conflict between herself as to what role am I supposed to play, the auditor or the treasurer-collector? And that makes no sense at all. And especially since you have the personnel that are in this building, well qualified, work their way up to the ranks, they should be given that opportunity rather than even get into this discourse that we're having right now. That's what begs the question. Why are we even discussing this? There is no need for this. You have people in this building, they're getting paid, they've been trained, and they do their job well. But to take one person and put it in charge of two, which is the checks and balance person, how do you checks and balance yourself? That doesn't make any sense. The law is very specific. You only can serve one thing. And whether it's temporary or not temporary, we're not at that juncture of the road. Where we are right now is the fact that you have personnel that are capable and able of doing the position. And that's what you should be talking about, and that's what should be being addressed. Not one person assuming two positions and scratching their head and saying, what would happen if something were to happen? Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President? Sir? I'd like to speak about... Please state your name and address for the record. Bob Henton from Zero Summit Road, Medford, Massachusetts. I'd like to speak about the contract in one particular area. If you go back and look at the contract and look at the proposal that was made, we were talking at one point in time of possibly having zones here in the city of Medford. And to date, there are no zones, and none of the METAs are identified as being in any particular zone. As Ms. Rodriguez just got through saying, during this past month of December, people were putting money in the METAs, and the METAs were accepting them. I think the question needs to go a little bit further to the Park-Metford office to find out what their technology is, because they should be able to shut down that meter that indicates that they will not accept the money on any particular day. As far as the new meters in downtown Metford Square, I think Councilor Caraviello can attest to this, because I think he was a product of it, putting the money in the meter, and the meter did take the money in Metford Square. So you have situations here that even where you have the pay park ones, and now you have the stanchions where you put the quarters in, there are some problems. I think it would behoove the council not only to have your first annual update, Councilor Caraviello, as you were talking about, maybe to have them come in here and find out, especially with two new councillors, what your concerns might be. They indicated that they have all this technology. They have this computer app technology and whatever it might be. But there definitely are concerns. There are people still getting tagged for no reason at all. And more importantly, there are no zones. City of Boston is very clear on how they address their issue relative toward their parking and their meters, their zones and their territories. It would be very easy to put zone locations on each and every one of the meters and each and every one of the, you know, it doesn't take a lot to put, you know, the number, whatever it might be. And you don't have to go through the same thing. And on Christmas Eve day, Christmas Eve day in the afternoon, people were getting tickets right up until six o'clock at night. I think that's just a little bit disingenuous, as I said before, They're nothing but a bunch of bounty hunters coming here to Boston and Medford, Massachusetts, to get as much money as they can. And it's just not working out. And with the two new councils on here, I would hope that they would be brought up to date that the past council, the very past one in December, voted seven to nothing to give the senior citizens in the city of Medford the break of not being able to pay, because that was one of the concerns that was attributed by the president administration that they would do. So I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed, and I think it's an issue that should work well for the City of Medford, especially for the seniors in our city. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: This recognition tonight is for a gentleman and his wife, Henry and Evelyn. They're like out in the community, there are a lot of silent people that do things on behalf of other folks, not looking for any recognition, not looking for any prestige, just letting folks know that there are other people out there to help them. And since I've gotten to know Henry and Elephant, they're very quiet people. They're not looking for much praise. They're not looking for anything that basically says, hey, look at me, look what I did. But they fortunately got recognized this past November by ARC, a nationally recognized organization. group of individuals, an association for whatever the reason my name might be. And they go out there and they help out folks who are intellectually and physically disabled. And it's not just in the city of Medford, it's in other and surrounding communities. So it gives me great pleasure, it gives me great pleasure to make this proclamation be read publicly. And it goes as a presentation from the Medford City Council to Henry and Evelyn Milleran. in recognition for your continued support within the disability community in Medford and its surrounding communities. Your efforts were most recently recognized at the November meeting of ARC, a nationally recognized organization that deals with the intellectual and physical disabilities of those less fortunate. The Medford City Council extends its deepest appreciation and gratitude for your efforts in improving the quality of life for the citizenry of Medford and all those that you have helped out. I'd like to have the both of you come up. Andrea and Evelyn, please. And the interesting component about these two, they're husband and wife. And so not only do they do their husband and wife team, they are a husband and wife team for these intellectual and physical disabilities. And that's a great compliment to the both of you. Thank you very much.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, and for those who might be watching and are interested in our public safety and our Medford Police Department, most recently there was an incident, a public health incident that took place in the Medford Police Department building. And unfortunately it was a backup and it was a sewage backup into the building, which has caused a huge contamination of probably the basement area where the cells are downstairs and a whole host of other things. This city council has been advocating for the past two years that their first priority would be for a new police station. I in my campaign for mayor advocated that a police station would be my top priority on there as well. What I don't understand and what I don't see is the unfortunate need that what our method police officers go through male and female on a daily basis is not being recognized and has not been recognized for the past 28 years. The unfortunate part is simply this. We need a new method police station, and we need to have our public safety be brought up to par. We're down by at least a minimum of 10 police officers, and that's rank and file. That's not management or captains or lieutenants. That's just rank and file patrolmen. You know, there's a new administration coming on board, and I would hope that they're not looked at, the police department with John Desai, because maybe they didn't take the positive position in coming out and endorsing that particular person. But the unfortunate part is, that should not be used against them. Our public safety right now is at an all-time low. Our police cruises are at an all-time low. The building itself, the evidence room, and everything else that surrounds the Medford Police Department on a daily basis is at an all-time low. It needs to be addressed now. It cannot wait. Public safety in our community cannot be put on hold, and it should not be put on hold. And I would hope that anyone who might be watching, and anyone who has an interest in public safety, And anyone who really believes that our Medford Police Department deserves better, because that's what our taxes are paying for, now is the time to come forward. You have a new administration coming on. You have two new Councilors coming on. The commitment has to be made. The finances has to be looked out for and sought out. And they can be. Malden is a perfect example. They're building a brand new police station. They already have $9 million of the $18 million they've already secured in grants. Medford cannot be put on hold any longer. in regards to its police department. And with that being said, Mr. President, I would hope that this city council and the incoming city council holds new administration's feet to the fire to build that brand-new police station in behalf of not only the citizens of this community, but because of the public safety that is necessary and it's demanding right now on a daily basis. All you have to do is talk to the police officers, talk to the chief of police, and ask them what they think should be done as compared to what is being done. I thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, since 2013 until now, December of 2015, it's been approximately 2 years. And during that period of time, the city of Medford has intentionally, the city administration has intentionally taken ratepayers' money from Comcast and subsequently, since Verizon has come on board, for what they call public access TV here in the city of Medford. As of today, there is approximately $400,000, $450,000 sitting in the city coffers downstairs for public access television. Public access television for which the mayor and its current administration has intentionally not allowed here in the city of Medford. And who's at the loss of that? And that's the cable TV subscribers. Whether you agree or disagree with anyone running for office, no candidate for this past election had the opportunity to be on public access, to have their position stated, accepted, rejected, or even looked at. No citizen of this community has had the opportunity to have their shows relative to sports, family events, or anything that might be educational, historical, to be put on public access television. During the past two years, what the mayor did is he implemented a three-member committee person, three-member person committee, for the purposes of reviewing public access here in the city of Medford. Coming up with a concocted story, that at some point in time, on or before Memorial Day of 2015, we would have something ongoing. And we don't. This is now December 2015, almost seven months later. And the money just keeps coming out of your cable bill each and every month from Verizon and Comcast. We had a public access meeting here for contract renewal with Comcast here in the city of Medford. It was another 10-year deal. And no one, not one person from the city administration, Not one person showed up to defend and argue on behalf of Comcast customers. I, along with nine other citizens, were here to do that. And this isn't because we're for or against. It's a 10-year contract. And in today's day and age, 10-year contracts are basically unheard of, especially when technology is so far advanced and it's ever-changing. From California all the way to Massachusetts, there's a combination of maybe even a collage between Verizon and Comcast technicians working together, sharing their jobs together as they traverse across the country. And yes, there is a movement out there that maybe public access is not the way to go because between Amazon and all these other technological programs that are out there between a combination of streaming or buying on Netflix or whatever it might be, the idea is out there that the city of Medford is not having it. With a proposal now that seems to be languishing, of possibly putting it up in the vocational school, a place that would serve no purpose, especially in the winter months that we have right now. It's dark out. The bus route would stop the person getting off at the bottom of the hill. You would have to walk up to the top of the hill. God knows where you would have to go into the building to get in. It does not serve a purpose because all this type of information on public access needs to be located in a centrally located place. And when you have something that's centrally located, it would bring more people. City of Reading, Town of Reading, perfect example. Not only do they have it in the downtown area, they have it on every Saturday morning at 11 o'clock. It's open to the public, coffee and donuts. People can come in. They show you how to make your own program. They lease out, rent out their equipment. They show you how to use the equipment. They show you how to make your own programs. I know we've had this discussion before over and over and over again. But the fact of the matter is when we started this discussion, There was nowhere near $450,000 sitting in the coffers downstairs. And when in fact some of that money was used to pay for salaries of three individuals up at the high school in a program out there that has nothing to do and has nothing to do by law with cable access and public TV access here in the city of Medford, and nothing's been challenged in that particular area. What needs to be done in this city is that you need a revolution in thought where people can turn around and say, hey, wait a minute. These are your dollars that are being taken out of your cable bill each and every month. It's almost like coming out of your check. You're paying for something that you're not getting. $450,000 is nothing to sneeze at, and you still have nothing for it. It's unfortunate that we have to talk about this thing over and over again. It's like the police station. There's a problem out there. It's being discussed. It needs to be discussed. It needs to be revolutionized to the point it needs change. New council coming in, new administration coming in. I hope the change takes effect. But the people, you, the taxpayers out there, you're paying for this each and every day. And you need to hold every one of the councils accountable, as well as the mayor, to make sure that your tax dollars, your cable bills, your water bills, anything that revolves around you paying for something in this community, for a service or a tax or a bill is being accounted for and spent wisely. I would hope, and I'll leave this as a thought rather than asking or putting the council on the spot, I would hope as a thought that the incoming city council does not allow this to continue to go on, that you come up and step up forward in demand of the new city administration, that you want cable access television here in the city of Medford. That's what the people have paid for. If not, give them the $450,000 back and figure out another way to do business here because it's absolutely wrong. It's almost stealing people's money and not doing what they're supposed to be doing with it. And that is just so wrong. You don't tell our kids when you're making them grow up, this is the way life is supposed to be. You pay for something you're not getting or you take something that you don't deserve. That's exactly what's happening. The city has taken your money that they don't deserve because they're not doing anything with it. And at the same time, You're paying for something that you're not getting. It's a no-win situation for you, the ratepayers. So with that being said, I would hope, Mr. President, and Rick, I know next year, I'm assuming if the deal is the way the deal is supposed to be, you as the president of the council, you would be able to tell, you know, this is where we're going to go with this particular direction. And as far as that goes, Mr. President, I leave my comments as they are.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, one of the key components of public access television is taking place here tonight. We're allowing people—not allowing, this is the People's Forum. They're having the opportunity to come up and speak for whatever their positions might be. But in June of 2014, a federal judge by the name of James O. Browning made a very distinct comment as it relates to people who have the opportunity to come up and speak and to give their opinions. And what that federal judge did to this particular city was to punish, and I won't say use the word punish, was to admonish them for not allowing criticism to be made at a podium. Because as he said, criticism at a podium is an unconstitutional burden on free speech. So if somebody wants to come here, or a council wants to compliment, commend, or whatever it might be, or somebody wants to go to that podium and speak in such a manner, so be it. But criticism of any commentary is just as much important or is just as much a part of free speech. And just as Browning indicated, and he said, limits can be placed on time and topic, but not on a speaker's opinion. And whatever the speaker feels he'd like to say, within reason, as long as it's not abusive, and it's his opinion, it needs to be allowed. He wrote an 89-page decision, and I'm waiting for that. I asked for the 89-page decision on that, because that's a huge issue right now. Freedom of speech, and allowing freedom of speech, and inclusive of freedom of speech, if there's a criticism included in there, and they're saying it, and it's done in fair commentary, it should not be excluded. and it should not be cut off. As a matter of fact, this whole decision by the judge banned a particular city council from imposing critiques on anyone who was speaking there. So I believe it's monumental. It goes back to June of 2014. It's a federal justice. It's not even a local justice. It's a federal district court justice making his opinion. And that's the second time within the year 2014 that two federal judges came out and made this commentary as it relates to free speech. And those who might want to critique or be critical of somebody speaking or whatever the commentary might be, as he said, quote, it's an unconstitutional burden on free speech by disallowing someone to voice their opinion, be it in a critique manner. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: The case was very succinct and it was not allowing people to speak. The council in its wisdom, decided council president, for whatever the reasons might be, did not allow people to make negative comments, to say anything negative at council meetings. And that, in and of itself, was an unconstitutional burden on free speech. Whether it was a council rule or the actions that were taking place, it found itself all the way to the Supreme Court. Strike that, the Federal District Court, by Justice Browning. So I guess a word to the wise is sufficient. Whether it's a ruling or not a ruling, or just not allowing anyone, for whatever the reasons might be, not to make a commentary contrary to what was being said, it's not allowable. It's an exercise against free speech. And the ruling is very succinct.
[Robert Penta]: Chair recognizes Councilor Penta. On the raised crosswalks, now we just got through putting one on Winthrop Street a couple of years ago. And you could drive down that street right now and go over it so that there's nothing to indicate other than a sign or a thing on a pole. Cars go down that street kind of like fast. I saw a bus the other day almost do a pretty good, pretty high jump going over that speed bump. Maybe they should paint that thing yellow. with that special paint, so to let people know that there is a speed bump that they're approaching. Because if you're driving down the street on any given day, and if anybody knows anything about Winthrop Street, when the sun is out in the morning, it's very, very hard to differentiate how the road is coming and the traffic. It's all enough, it's public safety going forward. So I would make a suggestion that that public, that speed bump, or what do you call it, the raised sidewalk, be painted in yellow, bright iridescent yellow, so people realize that they're coming up to that. That's right in front of the church over there.
[Robert Penta]: They have special paint for that. Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: I'll let the gentleman speak first.
[Robert Penta]: Some years ago, excuse me, so many years ago, Shaviro Auditorium could have possibly been non-existent here in the city of Medford. You may remember this. When they were cutting up the old Medford High School, Shaviro Auditorium was part of the original package. And it was at the behest of the then Medford City Council that the separation took place, because if it didn't take place, we wouldn't even be talking about this today. That's number one. This is the second time, I would say, in the last six months, I think it was Councilor Caraviello who brought up the resolution some six months ago or thereabouts, when there was a private film developer here in Medford Square, and they were putting up a marquee on top of the Chevalier Theater, and that drew so much attention. People thought that they were getting a marquee and shows were going to be coming to town. It was a great idea, and unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere because it wasn't It wasn't the auditorium's idea to put the marquee up. It was the private entrepreneur from Hollywood to do it. But it's a showing that if you had something like that, people would know what's coming. Now, as far as the great debate goes, it was well advertised. The chamber should be very proud of what they did. I am very proud of it. And more importantly, I just think it goes to show that if you bring something into that theater, people will come. Now, once you got into the theater, I think you saw something different. I think what you saw was a very old building that probably needs some rehabilitation, but you don't want to take the character away from the building that's contained inside of it. I believe they did a great job in the lobby and the bathrooms coming in, and that took some money. Again, all volunteer work. It's been all volunteer work since the separation took place from Old Mifflin High School and Cheviot became independent. The unfortunate part about it, I just don't think it's ever been looked upon by city government the same way it's looked at now it is today, because you know it's a viable asset here for this community. It can make money for the theater. It can also definitely make money here for the folks here in Medford. The part about it, I think it was Councilor Marks alluded to the fact that it's not air-conditioned. And as you know, when you go to the Boston theaters, they are air-conditioned. And in the heat of the summer, you're just not going to get the type of a show that you think you would like to get because you're not Boston, number one. The drawer is not the same. The amenities around the theater probably are not the same. But this theater is one of the catalysts that's going to make this square come back and come alive. This is what the new administration is going to want to deal with, because it's going to be good for the city of Medford. And it's going to show that arts, culture, and history can be incorporated into your everyday commercial life. It can be incorporated into your business district. And it definitely can be communicated and worked into your everyday nightlife that the City of Medford is working on very slowly. It was quite obvious that on that particular night, we had folks there from Somerville SCAT TV. And the only problem that I would probably say that presented itself that night, that should have been the City of Medford's cable access telecasting that. We're going on the 21st year of the third year of a 10-year contract with Comcast. And because we're going on this third year, and because we just renewed, the city, excuse me, the city just renewed its contract, I believe it was May 7th, the public hearing took place, and I was the only one here for the city because I believe that Shavia, as well as other parts of this city, should have been included into the contract. And if Shavia was wired properly, we wouldn't be talking about this for the next 10 years. So I think what the commission's gonna have to deal with, and it's gonna be a very tough deal, is no matter what they wanna produce there, and what they wanna show, and how they wanna get it out, It's going to be costly, and they're going to have to go out of town because, again, Comcast is not there. Maybe we can do something about that. Maybe we can revisit that whole issue of how we're getting it rewired for whatever it might be. But right now, it doesn't stand that way. And when you have folks there from the high school, which was Channel 15, and you had the government channel being there, the people were excited over the fact that not only did you have almost 1,000 people there, but people would be able to watch this live. They'd be able to see it subsequent to that on a later date. I can't say nothing more other than the fact that I believe it was a good night for everybody there, the contestants, the panelists, the folks that put the program together. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, make the people, let them know, A, there's an election, but more importantly, let them know that Chevalier Auditorium is a viable component here in the city of Medford. So rather than letting, have all these volunteers do the work, it's time that the city steps up to the plate. The city of Lynn, proposes our office, I could be wrong, John, you can correct me. I think it's about $100,000 they started off their auditorium commission over there. They gave them the money to do a show. You go do the show, give us the money back, we'll give you the money for the next show. And slowly but surely, it was one of these little walking steps. Not running steps, walking steps. And that's what they did to get it going. We can do the same thing. You can go to Stoneham. Look what they did to an old movie theater over there. It came alive. Small as it might be, it's alive, it's well, and it's running. Medford has the talent, they have the arts, they have the history, and they definitely have the culture to do this in. So with that being said, Councilor Caviallo, but more importantly, to you, the citizens of this community, and to the Chevalier Auditorium Commission, and everyone who put that together that night, I think it was a great night for the city of Medford, and I thank you, and I'm very appreciative of it. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Sure. Bill on that page, you want page number two, page number two. That's where your preferred route and your alternate routes are.
[Robert Penta]: The goal routes, which align themselves to be the alternative route, which look like they're way out of, the general direction. Why is that? Why would you not be able to do the preferred route?
[Robert Penta]: But if you were to choose that alternate route for whatever the reason might be, it looks like the way it is here would be much more costly.
[Robert Penta]: On that last point, on the project and the city will negotiate an agreement, you have mitigation in there? Is there going to be mitigation?
[Robert Penta]: Before the city council can direct it, how do we know where to go? In other words, what would the mitigation be and for what?
[Robert Penta]: I don't want to receive it in place on file, because we asked two months ago for an updated financial uh, accounting of just where are we right now between the Republic parking and all the citations that have been dismissed. We still haven't gotten it. So I don't want to receive it, but I want to report back from the mayor.
[Robert Penta]: So on the motion of approval, uh, Councilor Penta, um, Mr. Rumley, can you answer a question please? The city saloon sitter approaches the podium. I was looking at you. I couldn't get the words out of my mouth. I'm saying, I apologize. Um, This young lady that's being appointed now, that's a mayoral appointment, correct? It is, Councilor. And how long has the vacancy been there?
[Robert Penta]: Does anybody know how long the vacancy has been?
[Robert Penta]: One full year.
[Robert Penta]: So with that being said, Mr. Solicitor, I know it's not your call, but during this past year, there have been concerns from tenants that there was no tenant representative. So I would hope the young lady becomes very cognizant of all the concerns, whether you agree or disagree, to bring them forward to the board, because there hasn't been anyone there for a year. And that's really what's needed. You need representation. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. That falls in concert with this.
[Robert Penta]: Very good. Councilor Knight. You have the amendment, you said?
[Robert Penta]: Why don't we let him finish his presentation?
[Robert Penta]: Mark. Yes. the folks that are involved with the community gardens do wonderful work. And it's these folks as individuals and a lot of them don't have the space at their own personal residence where they could have this type of a garden. But I have some concern over this as it relates to number one, I'm passing this tonight without knowing and having a lot of the representatives, you know, and some of the terms here is called plotters. But one of the things that stands out at me is the mayor has all five appointments. And since you're asking the council to make a vote of acceptance, not you, but the administration is, uh, I think the council should have one representative of their choice. And I think the, the plotters or the garden people, they should have a representative as well. Um, and leave all five exclusively to the mirror. I think at this point in time, I think would not be fair. That's, that's number one. Number two, it's called the river bend garden folks. And you're right. Exempting them. They've done a wonderful job for 12 years down there. And everything down there really works well. And they probably have set the tempo as to what's going on. So I guess the question is, what are they doing so right that we need a commission to say we've got to correct something going forward? I don't know. These are questions that I think, you know, and the committee will hold. Second of all, I have no idea where the $10,000 figure came from.
[Robert Penta]: But the Riverbend folks, didn't have any kind of a cap. They just adjusted themselves and paid for whatever their expenses were and have been through the years. And if I'm reading this correctly, it indicates over here, um, that not only are these, uh, plot families, um, plot holders along with donations, and they're also going to be charged a fee and inclusive of that. Um, the question is if, if I had my particular garden down there and I was working on it, now I'm going to be charged the fee. And then, If we are putting all of these together, and I believe it says, um, and line over here, it says each community garden or group of gardens in the case of gardens, plural of eight or fewer plots, she'll have at least one representative on the commission.
[Robert Penta]: So if they have one representative on the commission, the question then becomes if they have one representative on the commission and the mayor has all five, how do you, how do you get to that one member on the commission? I don't know. But, Just put that aside as a separate thought. I'm just concerned over the fact that it's another tax and a fee on people who are doing something voluntarily, who are willing to take a parcel of land, cultivate it, grow it into a garden, for the purposes of which they so choose. I believe it's on a first come, first served basis. And I guess the Riverbend folks are the best example to show you this, that through the last 12 years, they paid for all their expenses themselves, and they've shared it. Now, the question then becomes, if, in fact, we get all these plotters, as they're called, to have to pay an annual fee or whatever it might be, and it goes into a pool, who then makes the determination if one of these locations needs an upgrading and wants an upgrading? And if I'm in the river bend or X bend, whatever it might be, and I feel that I don't want that money to go there, I want it to stay right here in my own section, how are we going to address this and handle this?
[Robert Penta]: So having no form of function without the ordinance right now, if you go to the one on Winthrop Street, they're basically working on their own. If you go to McNally Park, they're basically working on their own. I think it's a good idea to have some kind of oversight, but to have it this controlled and taxing. To me, it's like another tax. on somebody wanting to do something. It's a fee.
[Robert Penta]: It's a fee.
[Robert Penta]: It's another fee. So you're asking someone who never had to pay a fee before, now they're going to have to pay a fee, over and beyond expenses.
[Robert Penta]: No, I understand that. But you've also been allowed to do this. And for the last 12 years, there's a group.
[Robert Penta]: But how do you get a fee? How do we get to this issue of a fee? Who's going to make the determination of the fee?
[Robert Penta]: But if you already have a group of people that are doing that on their own, what I don't understand is you're saying going from them forward, it's going to come under a commission.
[Robert Penta]: The only real thing, lastly, the only real thing is the $10,000. If I was a plotter, and I was to see this ordinance, and I was to see it's going to be up to and not exceeding $10,000, does that mean at any point in time, at any one of these developments, any future development, if an assessment had to be to carry the next person forward, but in my small little world, whether it's on Winthrop Street or wherever, I'm going to be charged an additional amount of money to get to that point? Because if I understand this correctly, their fees and whatever, it all goes into a pool, correct? Yes. And in that pool, whatever the location might need that's making the request, that's where the money's going to go if the commission votes on it. That's correct, too. Correct. So, like I said, if I'm in my own little world and I don't want it to go there, I want it to keep it on my one subscription, whatever it might be. Councilor, I could tell you this.
[Robert Penta]: To me, a realistic figure would probably be $3,000 to start, because I'm quite sure this is all a minimal. $3,000 is fine by me. I would move, Mr. President, that $10,000 be reduced to $3,000. And let's just see where this gets itself going and how the cost factor goes.
[Robert Penta]: Mayor, two members of the mayor, one from the council and one from the clubs.
[Robert Penta]: All right.
[Robert Penta]: One member from the club is in the three-year term.
[Robert Penta]: And then it revolves out. At the outset, the council gets one two-year term, because we read every two years. The Guiding Club gets one three-year term, and the mayor gets two three-year terms, and he gets the one-year term. Starting off, that's what you said.
[Robert Penta]: At the outset. Point of clarification, Mr. President?
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Penta. I find this very intriguing. I'm a very nuts and bolts guy when it comes to dollars and cents. Absolutely. So please just explain to me, you said it costs $6,000 to get to Winthrop Street. Yes. Is that shared by the 13 folks that are there now?
[Robert Penta]: OK, so now with that being said, and you folks that are out there working it, what do you actually think it's going to cost to get through this first year?
[Robert Penta]: All right. Now, taking what you just said into consideration, Mr. Clerk—I mean, Mr. Solicitor. Mr. Solicitor, could you come here real quick? Because she's getting to the nub of my question. When we talked about the original dollar amount of $10,000, and now we have it down to $5,000, and just hearing the young lady in the back of the hall just basically say what they're purchasing and buying. Does this mean that the fees that this new ordinance is going to have is going to cover all that so you folks don't have to pay for that or not? No. So I guess my question is, what is this money going to be used for for the fees?
[Robert Penta]: I guess I'm just confused because if you folks are donating all your own time, effort, and money into all of this, I think, can you just explain it better?
[Robert Penta]: That's what I think people need to hear. Thank you for that. I appreciate that.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. That's good.
[Robert Penta]: No.
[Robert Penta]: Membership.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, two questions. Um, number three says the director of office of energy environment. And since this is all on Parkland, is there any reason why this is not coming under the park board commission? rather than the Office of Energy and Environment?
[Robert Penta]: And the second part of number three, it said she'll have the authority in accordance with all. Does that mean that that individual, whoever he or she might be, can refuse a vote of the commission to make an expenditure?
[Robert Penta]: But it says here, the director of the Office of Energy and Environment shall have the authority to approve.
[Robert Penta]: But I understand that. It says to approve expenditures. And if that individual, now or in the future, does not feel that the expenditures are warranted, wouldn't that be in contravention to the commission?
[Robert Penta]: But if this is just a matter of personal choice, that's what I'm concerned about.
[Robert Penta]: So who makes that final decision?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Carol, you guys and your girlfriend, you do a wonderful job. And I think the idea, it's not about raising the money, it's just the awareness. People need to know what's going on. They shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. It's like the addiction that we have here in the city of Medford. Huge addiction problem, you know, on drugs and what it does to people and how it can kill them. Same thing with ovarian cancer, you know. And unfortunately, it's something you have to deal with. And I think people need to live with it and people have to understand it and people have to accept it and people have to work for it. And we have great medical staff here in the Commonwealth of Mass. But once again, you do our city proud by doing this, make me feel good about it. I have life experience as it relates to this, so I thank you for what you do.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. To let a citizen in the audience speak as it relates to a problem that she has.
[Robert Penta]: Patty, can you answer this question, please? What's the response been back to you from this Park Medford place? I mean, these people that are from Tennessee that are running this place.
[Robert Penta]: I think the fact of what you're saying just represents the failure within the system. The city of Medford is equally responsible for you getting those tickets, because if they're giving out more permits than the spaces are allotted, and they're not making provisos for it, what they're doing is they're grabbing the money, just like this group from Tennessee are, taking the money, and they don't really care where it's coming from and how. It doesn't make any sense. This does not cultivate a business community at all. Bad enough that the kiosks are doing what they're doing, and now they want to put kiosks in the parking lots, which again becomes another issue. The fact of the matter is that you are a legitimate business person and you should be treated the same as everyone else. But for that person to indicate to you because they're carrying heavy boxes, how do they know that that person's carrying heavy boxes as compared to what you carry or what you don't carry? It's absolutely wrong. And that's the problem with this whole system. It's an out-of-state company and it's not in-state. They take 68% of our money and they run with it. The fact of the matter is, It's anti-business, it's anti-consumer, it's anti-friendly. There's no reason for this. So as a business community, I would hope that the Chamber of Commerce recognizes this because they have a big stake to play in this. The Chamber supposedly is the spokesperson for all the business people. And as a business person and as a member of the Chamber, if in fact this is going on, somebody needs to speak up. It's quite obvious you're not going to get it from the Conor office because that's his program, this is what he wants. But this is the only place people can come to speak about this and understand and recognize the fact that this is wrong, this is so terribly, terribly wrong. And if I were you, I'd probably look at the, I would probably go to the city solicitor and say, before you entertain anything legal or otherwise, this has got to stop. Because if he is representing the city of Medford as legal counsel, and the city of Medford is issuing these permits, knowing that there are not enough spaces, and they don't do what you said, which is very simple, just park on the street for the time period in question, then what are you supposed to do? You can't do anything other than get a ticket, but the city can do something about it. They've changed the amount of kiosks. They've changed the dollar amount. We can go on and on in this whole subject matter. It's not good, it's not healthy, and it's not business-friendly. It's not consumer-friendly. And I'll sit here and say, I apologize for your problems that you have, because this is just so terribly wrong. And hopefully, after the first of the year, this will be changed. This will be changed.
[Robert Penta]: Chief. I'm going to greatly disagree with you. I don't appreciate that last statement. If you have a job that you have to be out of the square in every 15 minutes, maybe you should look for a different job.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you know, if somebody wants to be in Medford Square for location, I don't care if they were in there every five or 10 minutes, whatever it might be. The problem is there was a legitimate taxpayer citizen came up here to tell you her concerns. To me, the nub to the whole matter is if a business person can park in front of their place, because allegedly they're carrying heavy boxes. Who was he or who was she to make a determination as it relates to another business person? That's number one.
[Robert Penta]: You heard it tonight, all right. I just heard that tonight. But this is new. We've had a multitude of problems with this company since they've been in here, dating back to when they first started in October, when the contract was signed, and they officially took off on January 15. And then it took from January, and we heard they were going to go in March, and then we heard they were in May. It wound up until the end of July before they even found their way over to the senior center to explain to the seniors that they were going to do something. We have kiosks on High Street, as you and I have spoken about, in front of two-family homes that don't belong there. We have kiosks that are going to go in parking lots where the signage hasn't even changed. The parking lots are supposed to be three-hour municipal parking lots. And now you're going to put a kiosk in there with signs that say 15 minutes, 30 minutes, one hour, and two hours, all in the same parking lot. How is a kiosk going to address that? How is anyone supposed to figure that out? You tell me. I don't know. To me, I told you, Chief, they got to go. It is unfriendly. It's unhealthy. It's poor for business. We are not like downtown Boston. We're not even like Somerville. We're just like Medford. We want to get ourselves back in action. We want to get a downtown vibrancy. We want to get all our little cities and towns, the sister cities that make up this community, to have a collage of types of businesses that entice people. The whole idea was not revenue enhancement. It was revenue enforcement. And if you had revenue enforcement, maybe every two hours, and that's more than enough time to be on the street, and the cars were ticketed, and they were tagged, and maybe they were told, the message will get out there. You don't need more than two hours in most of these businesses. Hairdressers, for example, in West Medford, some of them go maybe two or three hours, okay? And because of the concern that was brought up by the city, that it was the city people that were doing the signs and that was against the union. I mean, the company was doing the signs and the city should have been doing it. It's a union contract. They haven't even changed the signs yet. So now you're going to be put these kiosks in there. You're going to be charging people after two hours. You got to tell them to move a car. And the most stupidest thing of all of this thing is how do you park yourself in a spot? And you only can be there for two hours. And if you put the money in there, you get a ticket. But you can move up one more spot, because the GPS system tells you it's OK. And you can sit there for another two hours. And if you come from out of state with an out-of-state plate, it doesn't take it. You're automatically going to get a ticket. There are so many frailties. They're not open on a Saturday. Everybody else gets a ticket on a Saturday. They're not open on a Saturday for someone to go there and have a concern, whatever the concern might be. To me, they're nothing but out-of-state hustlers They're bounty hunters, they get 68% of whatever the profit is, for what? To cause all this confusion, animosity, and concern? No, Chief, it's not good for the city. You're my friend and I told you this before, this is not your job, not your responsibility. It doesn't belong in your bailiwick, it belongs in a commission. It doesn't belong in the diversity director of this city to be the hearings officer for someone who might get a ticket. It doesn't take two months for tickets to be heard. That's insanity, that's crazy. And if somebody wants to go there, and it's closed on a Saturday because they can't get there on a workday, that's not fair either. But it's OK for them to give tickets. And if you don't like it, we'll appeal it. You know what happens on the appeal process? Somebody says, I'm not coming back. I'll pay it, but I'll never come back here again. Go to West Medford. Go to South Medford. Go to Haines Square. I'll leave the name of the personnel. One particular business is off 8% to 12%. 8% to 12% because of that crazy chaos. And you know where they go? They go down the street where they say, like saying business, and there's no kiosk. You tell me how that's fair. It's not fair. And you know it's unfair, and I know it's unfair. That's why this whole thing is just not good for the city of Medford. And if the city administration, before he bows out, recognizes it and says, I made a mistake, let's correct it, let's get rid of it, and come in with a program, I will stand here and publicly compliment him. I said that to you before. I will stand up publicly and compliment the mayor for recognizing the mistake that he made. and correcting it because he doesn't want to hurt the business people. It's definitely not good for the taxpaying citizens. Go into the shops in Medford Square and ask them what they think about that. Go ask the customers what they think about this. Why should I go and worry about it? I was with a lady last Friday in Haines Square. The poor woman went into the shop to get her clothing. She comes out with her clothing. She had 18 minutes left on her ticket. And right number, 18 minutes, and she still got the ticket. That's not the first time I've heard that story. You don't like it, appeal it. Well, that's wrong. Maybe there's something wrong. If these things all run off the sun, maybe the sun isn't working right, whatever it might be. It certainly doesn't work right for those solar compacts that Waste Management has. The doors are open and the rubbish is all over the place. So, Chief, you're my friend. I like you, but I do not agree in this program. It's a complete disaster to the operation of this community.
[Robert Penta]: But chief, if we really want to be business friendly, and we're comparing a business-friendly to a commuter pass. Why don't we just cut back on the commuter passes and give more of the business passes, and at least if you have given out 134, you have 134 spots.
[Robert Penta]: And West Bedford Chief, on Playstead Road, as you know, you're lucky if there's one car there during that day, that $5 parking. And all those people that were parking there now have put themselves into the neighborhood, OK?
[Robert Penta]: I think Councilor Marks alluded to this fact a few months ago. where they have these handheld devices that'll acknowledge how long the car is there, and it comes up, and it just comes right off the computer handheld. They have that in Somerville in spots where they don't have meters because the people are walking by, and they have a person in each one of the squares.
[Robert Penta]: But Chief, all we're asking for is to start off small and just work our way up to it.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Let's do this one more time. On an annual basis, we are charged a water and sewer dollar amount from the MWRA, correct?
[Robert Penta]: And that assessment, and that's a result of what we as a community use for water by cubic feet, and we're back charged on the sewer side at 120% of the water bill.
[Robert Penta]: But it comes out to the charge of 120% of our water bill. Now, you're asking us to vote for this. I know we have the committee to hold tonight where there was a whole bunch of explanations as to where and why these things are going. And of course, my question is, why didn't we just do this earlier? We're only sitting on $7.5 million of money, but that's beside the point. Just looking and trying to understand this, if 45% of this loan is going to be a grant from the MWRA, correct? That is correct. The remaining 55%, which is $1,166,000, has to be repaid. That's correct. So as we are repaying them, during the next five years, we're also going to be assessed by them in the next five years for water and sewer charges, correct?
[Robert Penta]: Okay. So in essence, since we're already being charged an assessment for what we're using, we're really not getting this money for nothing because we're being charged. And even though this is an isolated project, which is costing $2.1 million, we have to pay back $1,168,000. And I've been thinking about that from the time we left that room till over here. I think the city has one of two options. They either go this route or rather than saying, just pay it off over a five year period of time, since we're going to be taking it out of the sewer account for which is half of the water and sewer account. Why don't we just pay it off the first year? You're going to have to pay it off one way or the other. So I guess my question then comes to the council. I would probably move to amend not one to five years, Mr. President, pay it off within the first year, because you have to pay it off no matter what. I wouldn't want to wait and procrastinate over five years and realize that I would want to know what my balance is now to go forward on any future endeavors that this might reveal. You said one to five years, correct?
[Robert Penta]: Up to 1 to 5 years, we could repay this back.
[Robert Penta]: It's a 5-year repayment. So we can pay that anywhere up to 5 years.
[Robert Penta]: I don't care about the 0%. I understand that. But we're going to have to pay it back one way or the other. So why procrastinate and go through a 5-year, $275,000 deletion? I would rather have it taken out now and understand what my balance is. to go forward on other projects. Because if something comes up of a major concern, I'm going to then have to worry about $275,000 for year 2, 3, 4, and 5. And I don't want to think about it. So the more I keep thinking about it, we're already being assessed on an annual basis. And if we're going to be assessed for the next five years on the sewer charge, and we're paying them back the money that they're loaning us, we're still paying out on their sewer portion of it. because we're being assessed. So, with that being said, I'm going to move, Mr. President, that since we are going to accept the grant, that we pay it back year one — within year one of this five-year loan. Is that what you call it? A five-year loan moratorium? Is that what it is? Ms. DeParle That is a five-year loan. Mr. Schultz Within the five-year loan. And I move on that question, Mr. President, because I just think, you know, it terminates the whole issue of over a five-year period of time, and it also terminates the fact that over the next four to five years, after the first year, we have to delete $275,000 out of that account. Since we're going to have to pay for it anyway, we might as well just get rid of it up front and deal with the remaining balance that we have.
[Robert Penta]: That be paid within the first year because if we're going to delay it over a five-year period of time, I think what that's going to do, I think that's going to limit whatever might become as a future project by almost a million dollars and I would rather know up front that that million dollars was gone beginning the second year and just dealing with the residue that's there because I don't want to deal with an uncertainty of a particular project in years two, three, four, or five.
[Robert Penta]: It's within the five year period of time. You forgot the five years.
[Robert Penta]: You forgot the five years.
[Robert Penta]: No, that's the committee paper that was amended. Right.
[Robert Penta]: What had happened was, yes, the council voted for it. It was taken out of the budget, and the rates weren't supposed to go up. But the Water and Sewer Commission changed the rate structure. into three separate tiers where before they were never. So as of last year, after our vote, the mayor empowered them to change the rate structure, for which they've changed twice since last year.
[Robert Penta]: How wide is the trench going to be?
[Robert Penta]: So you're going to be almost in the middle of the street.
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to put a condition on here, Mr. President, that in six months that the city review the street opening to make sure that there were no depressions, because The problem with you folks lately, not you, because you're not digging the hole, is your company comes in and digs holes, and within six months, they just become depressed. And they sometimes can cause some of these potholes that are existing on some of these streets. So I think we also have to look at, Mr. President, the bond amount that the city is charging right now. I'd like to raise it to $100,000 that your company has to leave here within the city of Medford, because if these streets need to be repaired, you know, You guys opened it, you should repair it to the way you found it. There are so many streets. You go up to Doonan Street, you go up to Hillside, you go up to Fulton Street. You guys are all over the place. I know you have to do work, but whoever is filling your potholes or whoever is filling your trenches, you leave a lot to be desired. That's just me talking on another area.
[Robert Penta]: Yep. Move approval with that condition to the city.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. No, to the City of Medford, no, to the City of Medford for repairs if they become deficient.
[Robert Penta]: 12 o'clock, September 1st?
[Robert Penta]: Eddie, you just said, I don't know if it was a slip. I don't know if you made a slip. Did you say you can come in up to 12 o'clock on September 1st to get an absentee ballot?
[Robert Penta]: So what happens to all these Service people that are overseas, they have to get their ballots when? Well in advance. People who are overseas, out of state, they have to get these ballots to you well in advance. They have to be there before September 1st.
[Robert Penta]: By 5 o'clock. Now, when do you open up those ballots?
[Robert Penta]: The ballots, the absentee ballots. When do you open them up?
[Robert Penta]: OK, but what about the ones that you have to wait till the end of the day when the mail comes in? When do they count, to the next day?
[Robert Penta]: So whatever mail you get on September 1st, that day, election day, you bring to the respective polls? That would be too late. Well, then how does it work? If you get the mail later in the day, how do you get it to the polls by 8 o'clock for them to count it?
[Robert Penta]: That's what I just said.
[Robert Penta]: You have the mail up to September 1 on that day.
[Robert Penta]: So nothing's counted the next day. Everything is counted that night.
[Robert Penta]: Overseas ballot. I don't know. That's another.
[Robert Penta]: Well, we have Panera, Snappy Patty, not Snappy Patties. What is it? Smashburgers. Smashburgers and noodles and noodles going down over there. This is really a disgrace what's going on because it's alleged that it's contaminated soil. It's been covered up and re-covered up, you know, on hot, warm days. And when the wind blows, that dirt is going all over the place. There's got to be a reason why. or a problem why that dirt has not been removed. I mean, how do you have a triple business development take place over there and have this amount of dirt stay there day in and day out, month in and month out? So, Mr. President, I'm going to move that the building department and our health inspector go down there, tag them, find them, do whatever it takes, because this is absolutely unacceptable as part of a business project development here in this community. And if the city was on top of this, we wouldn't even be discussing this, but it's quite obvious. that there is something wrong there. They just, once again this past week, covered it with more new type of clear plastic. And I don't know, I can't answer it. The poor people across the street, the lady who's across the street, she's beside herself. She just can't understand what's going on over there. And so is it the responsibility of the three people? Is it the responsibility of the people that own the parking lot? I don't know. But it's there. And it's the first time in all my years serving that this amount of dirt has hung around after projects gotten started, while the project continues to go forward, and the dirt continues to stay there. So Mr. President, I ask that we move on this expeditiously. I know we don't meet until the end of September, so I don't want to wait till then. I think this needs to be resolved immediately, and the fines need to be assessed. Go ahead and do it. The city should go ahead and do it. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't belong there. So I move the question and roll call vote.
[Robert Penta]: the Board of Health and the Court of Enforcement, and the Billing Department. I said that, the Board of Health.
[Robert Penta]: No, we had talked about it, but I just want to make it as part of the official resolution that these kiosks that are now going in there, the proper signage has yet to be put into the parking lots. I mean, I don't know how they can do this. Once again, people are just being taxed impositioned by these kiosks from these out-of-state bounty hunters. And there's just no sympathy being left out there for people who don't understand the program. At the same time, all they want to do is just keep taxing the people. And this is not the way our city should be going. Again, like I said, it's not good for business. So I don't know how you can set up these programs, especially when Parking is supposed to be three hours in the municipal lots, and these kiosks are now going to be regulated to a maximum of two over 15-minute increments. Signage isn't properly put up. So I'm going to refer this, Mr. President, Madam President, to our parking commission and Republic Park, and also ask, as a tag-on to this, that they entertain Saturday operating hours at Park Medford on Main Street and Medford.
[Robert Penta]: I want, as a tag along to this resolution, relative toward the unacceptable use of these kiosks in the parking lots, to request also that they entertain staying open on Saturdays as a regular business working day. Park Medford.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: No. The parking meters in the municipal lots are not ready to go, because the signage is not ready, which is supposed to be for three-hour parking lots. And as a result of that, I want that referred to the traffic commission.
[Robert Penta]: Traffic commission.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Two quick questions. In these charts that you have, you have outside seating. Correct. You're proposing, is that going to require a separate license? Yes. You'll be coming back again for that?
[Robert Penta]: And is this just like an example of having four, or is that what it's going to be just for?
[Robert Penta]: Well, your food is excellent. I've been there many times. And I just need to ask you this last question. On one of your pages here, you have a blueberry muffin. The best blueberry muffins came out of Jardin Marsh when they were in Boston. Are they as good? Tell the people.
[Robert Penta]: Quick question. That's one half. What's the percent on the remaining portion of the loan?
[Robert Penta]: Just a point of information, Mr. President. Is there any way that we can get a copy of this so you're not reading it, so we have this information ahead of time? We never got any of this. And two members of the council aren't even here tonight. You're asking for $2 million, and you're reading to us what we're supposed to be understanding now. So I think it would be more appropriate if we had copies of this to understand it. I mean, this is a lot to digest for you selling this, so, you know.
[Robert Penta]: But it would be interesting for us to know what we're going to be voting on. and have all the information. You have the information there. We don't have it here.
[Robert Penta]: Let's have copies of whatever you're talking about made available.
[Robert Penta]: They're talking to us for the first time about a $2 million project. We're just hearing about this, trying to understand it while you're talking. And with two members not being here, Mr. President, I just respectfully suggest that we just lay this on the table until we can get our information at hand for the purposes of understanding it. When was the grant applied for?
[Robert Penta]: But you're talking about what you're going to do.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, and you're asking us to vote on this.
[Robert Penta]: But you're asking us to vote on it tonight. You've seen it, you've worked on it, and you know what it's about.
[Robert Penta]: which is November. But I'll finish Louise. We have a meeting I think is August 11th.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. So we can lay this on the table, discuss it. And when August 11th comes, the council can vote on it.
[Robert Penta]: Is there any reason why we had to wait this long?
[Robert Penta]: This past Friday? Yes. And you want us to vote on it tonight because it has to take three readings before August 20th. Is that what you're saying?
[Robert Penta]: And we have over $7.5 million in a surplus money in our water and sewer account. I have that. For which we wouldn't have to pay any interest on. There is no interest under this loan. Why are we rushing into this?
[Robert Penta]: We asked for a copy of what you applied for. You gave us something dated September 16, 2014.
[Robert Penta]: Who is the application? We asked for a copy of the application.
[Robert Penta]: What's the date on that? Today. So that's ending June 30th?
[Robert Penta]: Can we get a copy of that also?
[Robert Penta]: Louise, this is important information. It would be nice to get that ahead of time so we could review it.
[Robert Penta]: Madam Vice President.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute. You can't have the amendment and then vote for this because one offsets the other. Fine. So what do we do? Vote for the amendment first. So on the amendment, Sevid, do we need a roll call on that?
[Robert Penta]: Well, if you're making the request for the money to do the work and you can come up with a figure that's less than what's needed and you're still accomplishing the job, what's the problem? This grant, I don't see anything in this application other than a date stating September of 2014. So with September of 2014 and with the figures that are in here, are you using the figures that are in here in 2015? I don't know.
[Robert Penta]: So you have anticipated projects to be done with a cost proposal, correct?
[Robert Penta]: Where is that? That's another thing we didn't get.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you know, it's unfortunate, Louise, because you say we will make sure we're going to get them. You're asking us to vote for something, and you're asking us to tell us this is where it's going to be up to Project 5, and we have to ask the questions. Where are the documents? And you want us to vote on something. It's really not fair. It's not an intelligent way to make a presentation asking for $2 million. That's my position.
[Robert Penta]: Just a point of clarification. Yes. If we don't apply for that, we have over $7.5 million sitting in our own Water and Sewer Enterprise account that can accomplish the same thing. So why would you make anyone want to think that if we don't do this, we don't have the money to do this project, when we do have the money to do this project?
[Robert Penta]: And we already have it, with over $4 million in a combination of over 7 1⁄2 million with water and sewer. So since this is a sewer part project, I don't understand what the problem here is. Beside not getting the information timely like we should have, and having a committee of the whole ahead of time to discuss it and understand it and understanding what council along with current has just asked for taking 575 out of the retained earnings portion of it. I just don't understand it. I mean, how do you explain this to the taxpayers of this community that this is the way to do business? I don't understand this.
[Robert Penta]: On that subject, when we talk about leverage, you're leveraging the taxpayers' money that have been sitting in a non-interest-paying account for many, many years. We're leveraging our ability to borrow. We're leveraging the money that the taxpayers have been paying that has accumulated approximately $7.5 million. This is a very important subject matter. Tonight, we had a Committee of the Whole meeting on the CPA, okay? It's a community preservation act. Now, if you want to compare that to the $2 million, I think the Community Preservation Act could have weighed it to August, and that could have been our Committee of the Whole meeting. This is a matter of the process and the priorities that take place here in this community, and this is too important of an issue. We have the money to spend for this. We have our reserves account of $4.5 million. I just don't think the process was presented properly. When you have to come to a meeting and ask for the information, and then they have to go and Xerox it during the course of the meeting and you still don't have all the locations. And as Councilor Caraviello just alluded to, with the 19 catch basins. We don't even know which catch basins there are. This is such an important issue that this council has been talking about for so many, many months. INI, leak detection, water and sewer construction, and street reconstruction. The Winthrop Street Rotary, we had many conversations over that. Committee of the Whole meeting's over that. And tonight we're asking for $2.1 million, quick, quick, quick, because the MWRA is saying that if we don't have this by August 20th, we're gonna lose our-
[Robert Penta]: With all due respect to my colleague, Mr. President, he had his opportunity to speak and I'm going to have mine. And mine is very simply this. You know, you're talking about talking about it for 10 years. And each and every—for the last five to six years, you've had an accumulated—an accumulated net surplus that never went back to the rate payers in this community. There was a gentleman over here that just gave you a sighting section of the law that turned around and told you if there was a surplus at the end of the year and there was no ongoing projects—and I think the projects has to be within a 90-day startup period of time—that that surplus was supposed to go back to the rate payers of this community, so they don't have to pay a water and sewer rate increase in their bills. That's number one. The other part of this whole situation is the presentation, the process. What do we consider to be important here? On this particular night, we're talking about $2.5 million or $2.1 million. We have to ask for the information, and we still don't have all the information. I think it's wrong. We have access to our money and the retained earnings. I feel very comfortable in going there, and I feel very comfortable in knowing that the ratepayers' money will now be used for something rather than sitting there, as the administration says, the more we keep it in the air, it increases our bond rating. I'm not worried about bond rating anymore, because the taxpayers, their streets, their sidewalks, their sewer infrastructure is beyond repair. When you talk about first time in 10 years, well, where was the city 10 years ago? Okay? Where was the city 10 years ago? The city wasn't doing what it should have done 10 years ago. You've done all the parks over three times, but you let the streets, and you let the water, and the sewer, and the ironite deteriorate to the point that it is right now. No, I'm not going to vote for this tonight, because we do have the alternative, and the alternative is taking out of retained earnings. And when anyone has to come to that podium and try to force and compel a city council to vote for something because you're in a time squeeze and this council didn't even have enough between itself to figure out to call a meeting rather than wait for the August meeting or the July meeting because of the importance of this, shame on this council and shame on the leadership of this council because we should have been informed about this, had the meeting with the water and sewer people, the city engineer Louise Miller and everyone else concerned. To put our backs against the wall on something that we still don't know that's dated, and I don't care what anyone says, dated September 2014, still doesn't cut the mustard for me, and I am not going to take its first reading. I'm going to use the option that we have in our city revenue, in our city reserves, and the retained earnings of our water and soil.
[Robert Penta]: B comes before 8-0? It's the amendment. She's amending the main motion.
[Robert Penta]: Louis, let me ask you this question.
[Robert Penta]: You're saying it has to take its readings. So if it takes its first read—if it takes its first reading and it's into its second before the third takes place in August, what's the problem? As long as it's taking its readings, it isn't like it's not taking its readings, it's taking its readings.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Council meeting before the next meeting.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Caraviello. Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I'd like to ask Mr. Rumley, if he wouldn't mind, there are a group of folks out here with some children. They would like to address the Council as it relates to the issue in their neighborhood. So rather than go into Executive Session, could you just wait to let them speak first? You mind? Sure. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: What is this mysterious matter, Councilor? There are residents out there that would like to speak on the matter. Are they on the agenda?
[Robert Penta]: No, you don't.
[Robert Penta]: So it isn't a trick.
[Robert Penta]: One of the things that I heard here tonight was there is an inconsistency of traffic enforcement in this community. And some of the suggestions offered by Councilor Knight and as Councilor Caraviello just alluded to, these are things that definitely need to be addressed. One of the things that I would have a special interest in would be having a truck enforcement unit within our Method Police Department, because there are just so many trucks that are traveling through our community at high rates of speed that that's a serious concern that we have here right now. Unfortunately, this administration, you know, has not wished to delve into that. I can assure you, after January, it will be delved into. And as a result of that, we will make sure that public safety is looked upon seriously and not just as a temporary political fix, so to speak. The public safety of this community is the backbone of why people want to live here. In today's edition, I think it was in the Boston Globe, it said we're in the lowest third tier of people wanting to live here in the city of Medford. This is the latest report that just came out today. And as a result of, pardon me, lowest tier. You really want to know why you're living here in the city of Medford. Just because your real estate values are going up, is it because of the school system? Is it because of the streets? Is it because of your accessibility to 93? Is it your accessibility to public transportation? It certainly has nothing to do with your downtown environment, because there's nothing there. There's no economic development in these squares. They've been laying in abyss for such a long period of time. We really need to do an awful lot of work as to find out what our city's about and where it needs to go. You know, when you talk about Somerville and some of these issues, they've come a long way in a short period of time because everybody worked together. They put a collective effort together. Now, there's a gentleman sitting out there, and I don't want to embarrass him, but Mr. Chris DeVita. He said he was a city planner. He worked over there in Somerville where they had 12, 14 people at one time. City of Medford has one and a half people. This administration only kept one and a half people working full time in that office. That's a sad commentary to why we don't have development. We don't have development because there's nothing in this city to go out and develop because there's nobody out there being able to do it. And I'll just leave you with this last thought. It's public safety and streets and roads. But this all interconnects with each other. It interwines with each other. You know, your roads will take you from A to B and B to C and C to D. And that's very important. Your kids on the roads, bicycles, people traveling in the summertime. During the summertime, more speeding tickets are given up in the city of Medford because the motorcycle patrolmen are out there. I met with them last night and had a conversation about that. I think what needs to be done is to have you folks call the chief of police and ask him to put his motorcycle unit in particular areas because you folks know where the issues are. They try to do the best they can with what they have, but if they're being told where the issues might be, Let's see where that goes, and let's just see the response that comes from that. That's a beginning. That's a first step. And then, from there, you can take a step by saying, hey, you either were responded to, or you weren't responded to. That's the way we're going to fix these problems, one street, one day at a time. And if we all work together, it can take place, and it will get done. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Well, does your resolution address that?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President, it's quite obvious that since this, uh, I believe since March of this year, that unsightly, um, issue is in front of us at high street in Medford. I just don't know why our city administration, is failing to take immediate action, corrective action on this particular. So with that being said, I would like to have the council consider, as soon as this fall comes into place, an ordinance that addresses a situation such as this. We have the lean and mean program. If somebody doesn't care for their property, you can go ahead and do it and charge them on this. This is a situation where I think the city can just go out there and do what needs to be done. I have no idea. I don't think anybody in this city knows what is wrong with the building, if anything at all, why that scaffolding is all around the building. And it's just, it's a detriment, a detriment to business, public safety and public health. So that being said, Mr. President, I would suggest, I'm going to suggest an offer for our September meeting and that we establish an ordinance that addresses situations such as this. Now, if it was an ongoing problem that just needed a delay in time, and work was ongoing. That's one thing, but absolutely no work is being done taking place. And as a result of that, that just absolutely detours from any kind of advancement in making Metro square look better than what it is right now. So I move on that motion, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: I believe the way the issue runs itself is that if work is taking place, and it's ongoing, and it's continuing — The President I understand no work taking place. Mr. Sperling There is nothing. Zero. There's absolutely nothing taking place. As a matter of fact, the other day, for some reason or another, either kids did it or something else, there was a two-by-four plank that fell off the scaffolding. So I don't know how it got up there, whatever it did. But thankfully, nobody got hurt, and it fell down. So, with that being said — well, beside the audience, Mr. President — strike that. I forgot to say, I think we move immediately to have the building department take the appropriate legal action. and our legal department take the appropriate legal action against the landowner on this particular matter. Very good.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, once again, these out-of-state bounty hunters did exactly what they did on Patriots Day. They were out there tagging. I had a long discussion with our chief of police on this. He wasn't very happy as to what they were doing. I guess most of these tickets, if not all of them, revolved themselves into neighborhood parking areas. And it's just not right. It's not right for the taxpayers of this community to be subject to this out-of-state company that the mayor decided to bring in. And just hustle the citizens of this community out of their money, especially on July 4th, one of the sacred holidays that we have in our country, other than Christmas and New Year's and Memorial Day. It's just wrong. And, you know, it's obvious that they're in here just for the money. They really don't care about what our community is all about. And it's just the wrong thing. And I would hope, Mr. President, that we can get the chief of police just to give us a report back. I know he said he was going to have a discussion with the Republic Parking Company about this. And as an aside to this whole thing, a lot of the folks that go to this Republic Parking Company cannot understand why they're not open on a Saturday. They're running it like a business, and they're tagging people in the business area, but they're not open on a Saturday for anybody to go in there and to resolve any of their problems. So a dual request here is to have the chief report back and also to make a request that Republic Park can be opened on a Saturday during regular business hours, Mr. President. Roll call vote.
[Robert Penta]: To report back. To report back, you know.
[Robert Penta]: Unfortunately, the contract was signed on July 1st of this year. And we're just finding out about it tonight. We're just getting, because it was just scuttlebutt, and we're getting a copy of it here July 21st, 21 days, 20 days after the fact. It's just a shame that this contract, I have absolutely no idea, haven't had a chance to read it. When the public hearing took place this past May, neither the mayor nor anyone from the Medford City government appeared at that public hearing on behalf of the ratepayers. I was the only elected official there. There were 10 other residents from this community who spoke on their concerns. I don't even know if their concerns were even incorporated into this contract, for which I've yet to see. The fact that the mayor has signed a 10-year contract obligating Comcast customers for the next 10 years, when the terms right now are roughly running anywhere from three to five years with cable contracts with renewable options, it just doesn't make any sense. Since the mayor decided not to hire a new public works director, letting the new mayor come in in January of this year to make that determination, why would he do the same thing for this? Why would he obligate the community to a 10-year contract when he has failed to do what he needed to do regarding public access here in this community? We're sitting on over $330,000 in public access money. We've never received the financial reports from the old Channel 3 station. never received the minutes, never received the documents from the State Attorney General's office, never from the Secretary of State's office. We don't even know if Channel 3 has been dissolved or not, whether it's been accepted to be dissolved or whether it's legally dissolved. I have no idea. I will address further on, because I'm just getting this document here tonight on peg access, where it sits and where it fits in here in this particular document. But it's just a damn shame that The whole facade of hiring Mr. Peter Epstein from Boston, I believe he gets paid $325 an hour to sit before this community on, I believe, a Wednesday afternoon with 10 folks, including myself. We're here to testify, to give our reasons, and not knowing whether any of those reasons were addressed, whether a bona fide research, or even acknowledged to be part of the document that we have before us. So anyone who might be a rate payer out there, the only thing I can tell you is, unfortunately, this administration, this mayor, has tied up, once again, your cable contract for 10 years with Comcast, not knowing whether to be bad, good, or indifferent. And one of the requests were made that the issuing authority go to the legislative body, as they do in a lot of communities, and not to the executive authority. So that way, the public hearings would be able to take place. You'd be able to have an opportunity to talk about it and discuss it. And you'd have more of a reasonable interpretation and transparency as to what could be in your cable rate, in your cable bill. I don't know if this is going to cause you an increase. I don't know if the senior citizens are going to be addressed. I don't know if low-income people are going to be addressed. All these things were issues that were brought up at the public hearing this past May. So with that being said, Mr. President, again, it's another sad day for ratepayers in this community being saddled with a new 10-year contract. And this mayor is just riding off into the sunset, leaving this community without even knowing what the options might be. I mean, he signed it. He delivered it. This council wasn't apprised of it. The ratepayers weren't apprised of it. And now we're saddled with another 10-year contract. It doesn't speak well for government interpretation with the customer. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Caraviello.
[Robert Penta]: The whole idea of having this was, it was scuttled, but at the time that I sent my resolution to be on the agenda for this week, and now knowing tonight when Mr. Finn turned around and said he had copies of it already prepared, and I'd seen the city solicitor early, and he had indicated, you know, if you want it electronically through email, but I'd rather have the hard copy. I'm glad we got it, but the sad, the disturbing part about this is, once again, You know, why would the mayor sign a 10-year contract? Mostly all the cities and towns are into three to five-year contracts. That's number one. And number two, having no input into this other than the make-believe dog and pony show that took place here in May. hiring an attorney to come in here and just elicit commentaries. You could hire our own city solicitor to come in to do it, or the assistant city solicitor. We don't even know if any of these things are incorporated in here. And the hour is what? 10 past 10. We just get this thing at approximately 10 o'clock tonight and to review it. So I would like to review it, bring it up at another time. Do you want to do it as a separate paper? Yeah, do it as a separate paper. We can receive this and place it on file. But the fact of the matter is, this does not bode well for cable TV subscribers who have Comcast, who's probably been rated one of the worst companies in the country to deal business with. And that's not from me. That's from the Wall Street people.
[Robert Penta]: Well, before we move to the question, if the gentleman at the podium is correct, once again, why do we have to hear this from a citizen if the mayor is already making a determination?
[Robert Penta]: I hear what you're saying. The fact of the matter is Councilor Camuso is not the mayor in this community. If the mayor is making a determination with the high school and the contractor, this council which has been asking week after week, month after month, to be apprised as to what's going on, and we have to hear it from citizens in the newspaper once again to read about it, that that's wrong. That's not transparency. That's not communication. That's the mayor once again just doing whatever he wants when he wants, and it's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. No, I want to report back. I want to report back from the mayor. If in fact that's true, what is the mayor intending to do with peg access up at the high school? Roll call vote on that.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Wait, wait, where did you get three? How did you count those votes again?
[Robert Penta]: It passed. Three to two.
[Robert Penta]: How many people are here? You need a majority of those attending a meeting. It doesn't say the word minimum. It's a majority of those attending, I believe.
[Robert Penta]: A few questions. Um, there was a discussion early on dating back maybe some two years ago talking about the sewer line from the bridge to the square. Is there a sewer line from the bridge to the square?
[Robert Penta]: Right. But there's nothing that goes across the bridge. Okay. Second question basically was, coming over the bridge, there was talk about putting a light at the intersection right there where you could take a left to go up to High Street. Is there any further discussion on that? In other words, moving the traffic.
[Robert Penta]: No, no. I'm talking about a traffic light.
[Robert Penta]: So is there going to be a traffic light that's going to take a left on High Street?
[Robert Penta]: The question is this. You go over the bridge. And you can go right into the square. Go straight, or can you take a left to go up High Street without having to go all the way around? That was one of the concerns.
[Robert Penta]: That is not? Correct. You indicated your reconstruction project goals, opportunity to upgrade existing utilities over the bridge. How and what are they? What are these upgradings you're going to be giving?
[Robert Penta]: So you're saying that all these utilities are going to be upgrading a long overdue? Is that what we're saying? I mean, I mean, it would be nice. I mean, these are questions I'd like to know.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Do you know when the first time was when this whole issue on the Craddock bridge came about? I was not present. It was in 2002 and it was offered by council long ago regarding the safety and the concerns of the Karatek Bridge. This is now 2015. That's a long time to wait about all these concerns, if safety is an issue as it was back then. Let's go to... You talked about under construction on the traffic management plan, you talked about accommodating traffic, pedestrian and buses. And you indicated, quote, it looks like it's going to go underneath the bridge. You folks have no control over bus routes. This Medford City Council controls where the bus routes go. And I think that's something that really needs to be considered, because this council has maybe different ideas, maybe the same. But to say that you're going to put it underneath the bridge, where a lot of seniors at 99 and 121 now will have to not only walk down to that ring road and then cross over the bridge to get to it, it would be a lot closer and easier for them if they went to Medford Square and they put it temporarily on River Street, turn that into a one-way. I believe it's nothing more than a three-and-a-half-minute change in a route that accommodates the people, when, in fact, your construction is completely disrupting the entire business community. I do not believe the temporary relocation has been finalized yet. Well, we had asked for someone from the MBTA to be here tonight. Is there somebody in the audience from the MBTA here? Is there any reason why that was not communicated to them? This is an important part. This is a very important part of this project. The bus route. It accommodates, according to your information here tonight, 300 bus trips a day go through Medford Square. That's an awful lot. That's an awful lot of people that need to take a bus to get to work or go to whatever they need to do during the course of a day. And there are options out there. And I wouldn't want anyone in this room to think, and anyone who might be watching, that you folks are going to change that bus route, because you're not. This Medford City Council will make the recommendation to the MBTA, because we're the only ones that have the power to make and change bus routes. So I would hope that you go back and you review that as a very serious component. Also, talk about, and this is really mind-boggling. We can go back to 2011 when you said the project was gonna cost 2.5 million. Then in 2012, it jumped to 8.5 million. Then in April of 2013, it jumps to $12.7 million. Then in June of 2013, it goes down to $10.7 million. And now here we are in June 2015. It's approximately $11 million. Does anybody know what the real number is? The bid price is $11 million. So that's the bid price. That is correct. So all this in the interim from 2006 coming forward was just speculation. Those were estimates. Estimates. It's a hell of a jump in estimates from 2006 $2.5 to almost $11 million. That's a big change. Also, one of the concerns, and I believe you're the contractor, correct? You are, but I mean, he's the contractor. Has there been any discussion about mitigation here for any damages or anything to help and offset the business community that might be affected by this? Has mitigation been discussed with either one of you or through the Department of Transportation?
[Robert Penta]: Do you, sir, know anything about this?
[Robert Penta]: So I would have to say no. So you're saying a project at this scale of $11 million that's going to disrupt tie up the city of MidFitness downtown area for approximately three years, and nobody's going to have any empathy, so to speak, toward any type of business or any one business or multiple business that might be either disrupted or put out of business because of this. We have a great deal of empathy for the people.
[Robert Penta]: But there's no mitigation.
[Robert Penta]: Sir, we're talking about three years. This isn't a one year project. You're talking about three years. I understand that. That's a long period of time. Yes, it is. You also indicated that you clean up after the fact. I think it was Councilman Mox who asked a question about dirt and dust and disruption and this and that. Have you folks been before the city's Conservation Commission?
[Robert Penta]: Pardon me?
[Robert Penta]: Today? Yes. But when other businesses have been working in abutting the Karatek Bridge, straight down the river, they had to go to the Conservation Commission first to be told how and what their construction would be and the effect it would have on the river itself.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. But while the construction has been taking place so far, nothing has been, you folks or whoever you're employing have done nothing the same as other businesses that had to make sure that anything that fell off the building, any dirt or any rubbish or anything did not go into that, did not go into that river. It has not taken place yet.
[Robert Penta]: I see it every day.
[Robert Penta]: But you've been there before this morning.
[Robert Penta]: Today is when they first came. You should have done this before, when you first got the job and you was first awarded. And you should have known the rules and regulations were on any type of work that abuts that river, that affects the birds and the fish that are in there. Like, last weekend, there was tons of fish that were dead in that water after your work took place.
[Robert Penta]: Secretary Nielsen Well, don't tell me please. Second of all — and lastly, Mr. President,
[Robert Penta]: Well, you don't have to be insulted.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm sorry, sir. I'm telling you what I'm saying. So are you telling me I'm not seeing it correctly?
[Robert Penta]: Well, I think you're insulting too, OK? If you can't stand here, if you can't stand here and answer the questions. Councilor, thank you. Yes, sir. Now, one last question, and that's this. And maybe you can answer it or someone from the Department of Transportation can answer it. Can you explain why it's taken almost three years to do 121 feet?
[Robert Penta]: No, the bridge is only 121 feet.
[Robert Penta]: And to do three years for what you're saying.
[Robert Penta]: I'd just like to make one last comment, Mr. President. I appreciate the fact that you folks are here. But this council has asked for a long period of time to be updated as to where we're going on this. And it's unfortunate that you've started the job, and now we're getting the information after the fact. But I do appreciate the fact that you're here. I think you hear what all the concerns might be — public safety, road, displacement, business displacement, if in fact that be the case. And if the gentleman that walked away from the podium is insulted, I apologize, but I'm not apologizing for my comments because my comments are what I've seen and heard. So with all due respect to that gentleman, I don't know what to say to you because I would have never walked away from a podium. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: The unfortunate part about all of this is the council's asking the questions. There's no one here from the city administration. There's no one here from the Office of Community Development. And if they are, would they please stand up? This is very important. And that's the part that I think is a little bit disturbing right now, because this information, whether it be for public safety, whether it be for the bus routes, whether it be for the parking, or just the fact that I have a telephone number to call, this meeting didn't happen overnight. Thank you for your point of information, Councilor. This meeting was pointed out. Councilor, can I just ask one more thing, please? You made his point of information console Sir Councilor yes, you asked for point of information And I would appreciate it and I think would have been appreciated by anyone who watching would have had either the number Officer community development or somebody here from the city administration That's how important I believe this issue is. Thank you console console longer current are you through?
[Robert Penta]: I believe there was some questions asked by the council. Can we move that we get an update on this bridge process on a monthly basis? And can we have a phone number that we would be able to have in a project person as a contact person? So if anyone were to call us or the city clerk or any citizen, um, and they can't get ahold of anybody because they close here at 12 o'clock on a Friday. So for the weekend when it's closed, if they want to call a Councilor on the weekend, and if emergency happens, they can give any one of us a call. So the number will be made available. I think that's important. Mr. President on that motion. A monthly update, the phone number, and the location of where the office is going to be, and the contact person.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to thank Councilor Caraviello for bringing this up because when he discussed this last week, I don't think anybody really knew the magnitude of the impact that this could have on neighborhoods, and especially if you're abutting this particular situation. And through his follow-through with the community of Plymouth, I think he just highlights the fact that sometimes, unfortunately, when pieces of legislation are written and they're enacted, one little word can just change the whole agenda of what somebody might have to offer and what they want to do. I want to thank you, Councilor Caraviello, for going forward with this, because I think what it does, I think it's a safeguard into our community, into our neighborhoods, into the little children who might have to be exposed to this, because this is an enterprise that's going on. This is a scandalous for-profit enterprise by people who have no care about our community and the concept of morals that our community should have. So with that being said, and I know our city solicitor is here, I'm quite sure you're going to be looking into it, and I'm quite sure that we can come up with something.
[Robert Penta]: It's a residential.
[Robert Penta]: And the sad part about this, as we're talking about it, the one that's on Central Ave, if you were to drive by, the windows are all covered. You'd have no idea what the heck's going on over there. And some of the individuals inside, some of the people that are running it may not be that nice to you if you were to ask them questions. Why, and what are you doing, and what are you asking questions for, why are you taking pictures, and whatever it might be. So thank you. This is a good move. This is what you call a good neighborhood protection move. It's a good public health and public safety move between our chief of police and our city solicitor. I'm quite sure that we can manage, as plummeters manage, to write something that, unfortunately, until the state decides to change its law and its state statute, we can do it here in our local community. So, thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. You made a comment about next to Bistro 5, you could put a strip joint. City of Medford has what they call an entertainment zone. There's only one spot in the city and that's on the end of Mystic Avenue. That's the only place that something like that.
[Robert Penta]: I think Mr. Sincardi asked the clerk. There's only there's two ways you can record yourself here in the city as a corporation or What was the second one? But if you get a business certificate it has to have an address on it and has to give you the name of the person Okay, so apparently our index at City Hall does not go by name It doesn't go by it. Can it go either way by name or address?
[Robert Penta]: No, no. I think what he's saying Eddie is the fact that is there any record that shows that somebody either is a business operating or.
[Robert Penta]: It's not the type. It's the name of the business and the street location. So if you don't, if you can't get it out by the name of the business, can you go by, if you went into our office right now, could you put up a two, uh, what's the name? What's the address over there? Well, it's, it's 34 Riverside and your business and your business thing. Would it come up? Can you get something come up on your computer?
[Robert Penta]: And do they have a name on, do they have anything at that address?
[Robert Penta]: No, the owner, that's not the owner of the building. That's the renter of the rent, right?
[Robert Penta]: Then the question is, is there a city solicitor? Is he still here? Mr. Mark. I know you came in after the fact, but we went through with the chamber some years ago, painstaking to change all these ordinances. The covering of the window, 40% was max.
[Robert Penta]: The sign ordinance, excuse me, 40% was max. I don't know if you've been down there, but this is completely sprayed. You cannot see nothing on this one here in Central Ave. Is that in and of itself enough of a public safety issue and a violation of our municipal law?
[Robert Penta]: No, I just agree with Mr. Sincarly because I've been over there to see and I saw it in Medford Square and I don't understand where the state legislators are on this. I can't understand. This is something that would take it out of their bailiwick and they wouldn't have to worry about it as a state piece of law. It'll come back to the local community and the local community. would make its decision. You're right. And then it would be on the back of every one of the seven councils or nine or 11, depending on what the form of government might be and the legislative body might be. I mean, this has no redeeming social, economic, financial, no value at all to any community for whatever it might be. This is not Las Vegas if you want to go out there and engage in this type of business and pay for it. So with that being said, I think the council is quite uniform on this. I think the council should send a vote to our state senators. and our three representatives that are part here of the city of Medford, and ask them to file a bill, take a leadership position on it, file a bill to eliminate this particular clause that's in the state law, and for whatever the terminology might be, just bring it back here to local control, and maybe whoever the other gentleman was that came up here and talked about changing our zoning ordinance, maybe we need to take a look and revise the wording in our zoning ordinance that not only addresses this, or any other type-like businesses that might appear in the future, because they may take the word Asian out, and may call it international, Who knows what it could be? And if they do that, they beat around the law, and they don't have to do it. So I think this is one issue that completely belongs in the control of the local community. And you can't say it any other way. That's where my vote would go. Move approval, Mr. President. Roll call vote. Have it forwarded to our state senator and our three state reps. I move the motion to make a motion by Councilor Gabriello, as amended by Councilor Penta,
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Pente. A few questions. Louise, one of the things that we had asked for was our electrical department. that the superintendent wise, um, contact national grid to address the lack of lighting at Wentworth street rotary. The response is that the lack of lighting is due to the removal of one street light for construction reasons and will be reinstalled. The other answer was one street light was struck by a truck and has been struck on more than one occasion. National grid is evaluating, evaluating whether or not to reinstall due to this location. Now, have you ever gone to Wentworth circle at nighttime?
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Well, if you go there at nighttime, you think you're in the woods, because there's absolutely no lights. It's as dark as can be. It's a huge public safety issue. We had asked Mr. Randazzo for whatever it takes to put additional lighting in there while this whole construction is going on. Now, I know that they're repaving part of the street in Winthrop Street, but they're still working over there. And to have National Grid tell us that they're going to evaluate whether, in fact, they're going to put a new light up, that doesn't make any sense. And that's the type of an answer I would have not responded to by saying that. I would have went out of my way to make sure national grid did put the light up there. It's a public safety issue. It's a huge factor over there and that needs to be addressed. Also, there's some concerns that I had in this budget from four particular departments, engineering, the library, the building and the police department. And I think we were all educated, at least I was immensely during this past budgetary process, that these four departments in particular, when asked about their wish list, for which we've been asking each and every year, well, judges knew, as you're aware now, they were all very enlightening to turn around and tell us that they did ask for certain things. The engineering department in particular, when the engineering director was asked what her wish list was, and she had been asking for this for four years, and how was it done, two times it was verbal, And two times it was in an email, and she was told by her predecessor not to include it in the budget, because you weren't going to get it. Well, how do you deny having four people use one telephone call, one telephone? How do you deny giving them an extra table to work on, file cabinets, and a computerization system to bring them up to date, or at least to keep them up to date, for a $30,000 to a $40,000 hit? I don't know. Paul Mulkey from the building department, when he came up, he was asking for something very simple. He wanted to become modernized and more computerized. And that was costing him maybe $30,000 to $40,000, asking. Is the chief still here? I don't want to put him on the spot. But the question was asked of the chief relative to his wish list. He had never been asked. And when it was asked of you on the night of the budget, you indicated that you had just heard it that morning from the chief. And here is the department. that has cars and a building and a whole gamut of issues still not being addressed. The library, for four years, the poor librarian, and including myself, have been all over him because he's not putting these things into the budget. And it took a cast of characters from our community to say that they wanted that library fixed and they wanted their recertification to come forward. And what had happened? When Mr. Bryan was there, he was told not to say anything and not to put in his library by your predecessor. For six years, we went without being certified. We kept getting these variances and these special privileges from the state. That, to me, did not represent what a true budget is all about, because that $225,000, $30,000, or whatever it should have been, should have been part of the daily operating budget that that department needs to have. And then lastly, I think the question was asked to you. And I don't think I was the one that asked the question, but I believe the question was asked to you. Would you have presented the budget the same way you got it to be presented? And you said no, you would have presented it different. Because I think you heard about our wish list, a page that had about expensive, a page about salaries, and a page about the whole operation. To me, that spoke volumes. Taking a quick look over to the school department, whether Roy wants to agree with me or not, for whatever it might be, we had a conversation about the Curtis Tufts School. Now, the Curtis Tufts School, to some degree, has been a little bit of a bone of contention. But our own superintendent at that meeting indicated they had to make some changes because it wasn't going in the right direction. You can correct me if the words are wrong, but I think that's what you said. It wasn't going in the right direction. So you had to bring in somebody new. That's okay for 19 kids that are there. I believe between 11 administrators and teachers. But you reward the fellow that's been there for 32 years with a $97,000 brand new job up at the high school. To me, that's not right. I don't think that's fair. That's $97,000 that could have gone toward education, to a teacher, to books, to materials that teachers probably need. Maybe you have a difference of opinion with the superintendent, but I wouldn't have done that. I look at it an entirely different way. I also look at the fact that when these new school buildings were built, there was a 5% annual supposed to be in there for each particular budget. Now, Councilor Caraviello, I believe it was three years ago going into his first year, produced a document, not from him, but the school department that showed $1,203,000 of repairs that were needed in that school. The reason why the schools got themselves in trouble in the first place was because they never kept maintenance up. And at the rate we're going, we're going to find ourselves in the same situation. All I ask for each school, to be broken down individually to have a 5% inclusion of each school rather than all the schools together and try to figure out how this thing is going to work. And the other part for which I, again, disagree with my superintendent, and I consider him to be my friend, but we have a difference of opinion, I just think the entrance to Medford High School does not present itself very good for an educational purpose. If I'm bringing my child up there from the eighth grade going into the ninth, and I look at that front entrance of that building, And I'm not going to accept the fact that it was a poor winter. It's been like that for a while, with bricks that are broken, door handles that are off the thing. And you walk into the, it's not very welcoming. Medford High has a huge talent pool of students and teachers. It gives a good education to the people in this community. But of all the schools that Medford has, that high school gets the bad rap for its appearance. And as we all know, an appearance can tell a huge story. I just don't think right now, the way this budget's been presented, and knowing and seeing these department heads tell their particular stories, I don't feel that we're really getting what you call an accurate budget, especially since we just went two weeks ago to have over $1,200,000 in transfers from one department to another. Are some transfers needed? Absolutely. No question about it. But when one, two, three, four, five department heads come in there and tell you that they couldn't put in their budget what they really wanted so we as Councilors could understand it. Maybe we wouldn't have accepted any of them, but all we've asked for for the past many years is show us what your wish list is, tell us how much it's going to cost, and maybe explain to us how you think we can fund it. But when your predecessor tells them not to put it in there and they don't put it in there, that to me is wrong. And because of that, I'm having a hard time right now telling you You know, Louise, whether I'm going to vote for this budget tonight or not, because I don't think it reflects an accurate presentation of what department heads need. I don't see anything coming back here that says the electrical department's going to get its $40,000. So every single employee has its own phone rather than one phone for four people, and a table to work on, and a file cabinet to store things. Okay? That's number one. I don't see anything in the electrical department that makes me feel satisfied that that one circle is going to be safe. All I'm getting is a report back that somebody's accepting somebody else's opinion. Well, that opinion isn't good enough for me when public safety is at issue. When I hear a librarian tell me that for four years he's been stifled from putting in what he wants, and you hear the people from this community who brought the charge back, which forced Amir to automatically, mysteriously find $250,000 from a construction job, when we're sitting on $6.5 million in free cash, I have a problem with that. And when Paul Moki from the building department tells me all he needs is about 30, 40,000 to upgrade his department to computerize it, that's great. But we didn't hear that. And when I hear our chief of police tell me as of the morning of the date of the budget, that's the first time you and prior to you, your predecessor never had the opportunity or being invited to talk about these things. That's bothers me because I think a lot of the times through the past, this council was led to believe, When the budget was presented, okay, all the department heads agreed upon it, and maybe we should have asked more detailed questions. But this year's budget was very enlightening. So enlightening to the point that I honestly feel that what you were given for a budget to serve is not a true and honest and accurate budget, because if you're transferring a million dollars at the end of the year, as we've had for so many years in the past, and you just keep adding to your free cash, there is something wrong. I'm not worried about the bond rating of our community right now. What I'm worried about is how the taxpayers are going to be continuously taxed and taxed and taxed. And I'll just leave you with this one thought. We have so much development taking place in this community. We were told that when in Wellington Circle, when stations landing in there, that was going to be such a boom to the city of Medford and to the taxpayers of this community, we would probably not be looking at a tax rate increase maybe for a few years. We've had so much development since then, and again, we are taxed and taxed, increase, increase. So maybe development for the sake of development is not working in this community. Public safety, public works, public accommodations, plowing, all municipal services being put on the backs of the taxpayers to accommodate all this development and their taxes are not going down. So I thank you for taking on your new role. I know it was thrust upon you. But unfortunately, I can't buy what's in front of me right now. That's just my opinion.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penter. A couple of things pop out. The issue on the kiosks in the square, citations have gone up. They haven't gone down. January was 590, February was 1,800, March was 2,393, April was 2,689. Just in the month of May, it went down by some 300 citations, but they're still issuing over 2,000 of those a month. That's an awful lot. It's an awful lot of citations. And as the chief has indicated, and I believe in his report back to us, that some 400 of the 1,100 citations that were appealed were either reduced or they were abated to some degree. This kiosk program, as we all know, has been a handicap, in my opinion, to businesses throughout the community as it relates to not being business friendly, when in fact we could have engaged in a revenue, I mean, strike that, a traffic enforcement program rather than a revenue enhancement program. I hear what some of my colleagues are saying, but the hard part about supporting a budget like this is the following. Louise, you were there because you presented this budget and worked on it with us. Is there any reason why in the electrical department for their $40,000 that they were looking for, not to strike the electrical engineering, the building department probably almost around the same amount, at least the police department, even if he got a couple or two or three cruises, you had a fight for the $5,000 and the Council of Aging budget, you had a fight to get the $227,000, and you added on to make it $250,000 for the library. Is there any reason, since you knew that these were concerns from the Council, and before this came back tonight, that you couldn't have come back and added this in the budget, and some shape me in a reform, because the budget did increase by $4,800,000 from last year. This is almost two years in a row that this budget's increased by approximately $5 million. So an increase in the budget by $5 million are close to it. You're maxing out 2.5% to the max. And as Councilor Marks just alluded to, what you're doing is, well, we don't want to see this next year. But I've heard that rhetoric before about not seeing it next year. I'm seeing it here right now for the first year. And this is not to put it on you, because this is what was handed to you. But if one, two, three, four, if five department heads are all saying the same thing, and even if you increased each one of these departments by $30,000 each, that's what, $150,000 that you can't find in the budget? When, in fact, you just transferred over $1,200,000 at the end of the year? I just don't buy into that. And just what's happened, unfortunately, with the kiosks and the business people in the community and the last horror show of a lady yesterday with the kiosks and the machine and being yelled at when she went to Park Medford. And tonight, getting a report back from someone who had to wait two months to get his appeal answered, when I thought the appeal was taking place in this building and Park Medford is still doing the appeals. I don't know how this works, Chief, but if Park Medford is doing the appeals, when we were told it was being done in this building, there's still something wrong. I just don't think I'm going to vote for this budget, because to me, it does not represent a budget that represents the quality of life that the people of this community need. That's just my opinion. I think I'm going to stick to it, because, like I said, this has been very insightful to me. to talk to you and tell you things that we never heard before, that bothers me. It bothers me. And it should bother you, too.
[Robert Penta]: But in all fairness to you coming on late in the process, had these wish list issues been discussed? Now, you just got through saying in the building department, you needed more info. So if this was brought up in February, which I believe is when the building department, why would the questions asked then of him? Why should he have to come up with it? If he's telling you what he'd like to have, then isn't that what the budget director does or an assistant to the budget director going into the engineering department? She's been asking for this for four years.
[Robert Penta]: But when all these department heads indicated that they made the request and they were told not to include it and not to talk about it. Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Robert Penta]: Louise, on the library issue of getting ourselves certified, for the last six years we've been getting waivers. If the money had been included in the budget not to get away, it's good for the first, second year, okay, maybe there was a problem. But why wasn't the $225, whatever the appropriate dollar amount, included in the budget as part of its operating cost of doing business in the budget? Why did it have to be a group of concerned citizens coming forward that finally put the pressure, and with the help of the council, put the pressure to make sure They got their money, their certification, and they got more employees, and more of an upgrading in the building.
[Robert Penta]: But that's the whole thing. I mean, if we're supposed to be operating according to laws or rules and regulations, We shouldn't be looking for a waiver each and every year and just go on a wing and a prayer, because eventually it's going to come to an end. A true, actual, factual operating cost of that library is its recertification, whatever it might be. Not depending upon a waiver. And not to have a department head be worried about saying anything, because he's going to get in trouble. That to me is wrong. And I think you know it's wrong, too.
[Robert Penta]: Quick point. Well, I do, you know, but Councilor Longo just enlightened me about something. Roy, are you here? Are you still here? Quick question for you. These are the lowest people on the totem pole, and they haven't had a raise in over eight years, the lunch mothers. You said you were going to check into it. Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: Louise, thank you. I want to ask a question to Louise. Because I didn't find it. I just went through everything. Is there going to be increase in the water and sewer rate? And I believe you didn't have an answer for us and I haven't received an answer from anybody.
[Robert Penta]: Last year at this time, when we discussed our budget, there was an $800,000 additional monies in the budget to pay for the increase from the MWRA water and sewer rate. So are you saying now that the city,
[Robert Penta]: So you're saying that the water rate, I want to get this straight, that the water rate in the budget that's projected to pay the MWRA is the same? The sewer is being reduced? by $117,000?
[Robert Penta]: OK, wait a minute. But you also said the sewer portion has been reduced by $117,000. That is correct, from the MWRA. So it's not the same. So the water is the same, but the sewer is $117,000 less than what's in this budget. That is correct. OK?
[Robert Penta]: So as we speak right now, According to this budget, if it's passed, there's $117,000 that we haven't been apprised on because we're voting on a budget that's going to have a dollar amount that's $117,000 more than what you're saying right now.
[Robert Penta]: So right now, then that's an inaccurate budget. The total amount is inaccurate by $117,000 because you just got saying it was reduced.
[Robert Penta]: The vote of the Council has only been predicated on last year, for example, of the rate increase. We right now are voting on this water and sewer portion of the budget. not knowing what the fee is even going to be, if there's going to be an increase or a decrease. So that would mean you're going to have to come back at another time if there's going to be an increase, because the Water and Soil Commission don't set the rates. They're only giving you the dollar amount what's necessary. So even with your $117,000 reduction here, if the city decides, after reviewing its consumption and its getting rid of the water, there's going to be a $300,000 increase to pay. Okay? You're all going to have to come back to the council and ask this council, whatever the dollar amount might be, for an increase.
[Robert Penta]: So now let's just say it doesn't cover it and you need more money. You're going to then have to come back to the council.
[Robert Penta]: And right now we're sitting on $7.5 million of surplus money in the water and sewer enterprise account. That is correct. Council can still choose to recommend that that money, whatever the increase comes out of that. I would move, Mr. President, that the budget as presented with the dollar amount attached be reduced by $117,000.
[Robert Penta]: So on the motion for approval. Did you or did you not just say that the sewer portion is being reduced by $117,000? You just said it from there, correct?
[Robert Penta]: And that would be $117,000 less than what was given to us in that budget. That is correct. So the dollar amount the budget is coming forward with needs to be reduced by $117,000 to accurately reflect the water and sewer in this budget. Is that correct? The sewer portion only. Yes, the sewer portion. Thank you. Motion to sever.
[Robert Penta]: Very good. Mr. President. We're not cutting the line items. I believe the budget director just indicated, and again, she can correct me if I'm wrong, that you just got these figures now, correct?
[Robert Penta]: And the dollar amount in this book that represents the budget is now $117,000 less, correct? That is correct. And for this budget to be accurate with its numbers as presented now with the 117 before this vote, this total dollar amount of the budget of $150 million needs to be reduced by $117,000. Is that correct, Louise?
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. It needs to be reduced.
[Robert Penta]: That dollar needs to be deducted from the total.
[Robert Penta]: The 117,000 that represents the actual numbers of the budget presented.
[Robert Penta]: Ms. Miller just got through telling us that she just got today, for which none of us knew about this, $117,000 is a number less than what's in the budget. So to have these numbers to be accurate as presented, it needs to be deducted by $117,000. Right. Take the vote.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute, wait a minute. It can't be an amendment because the amendment lost.
[Robert Penta]: We just got this. We just got this tonight. We just got it. Yeah, so how can you vote for approval if you just got it? We didn't get it just tonight.
[Robert Penta]: We just got this tonight.
[Robert Penta]: Just got it now, handed it on my desk tonight.
[Robert Penta]: On the motion, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: I think it would be beneficial if you reviewed it to the public so they'd have an idea of what this prevention coordinator is going to do. It's been long overdue. People have been waiting for this, so I think you can hit the highlights of it.
[Robert Penta]: Job or salary?
[Robert Penta]: So it was in the sixties.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Could you just read at the end, um, the physical requirements?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, only for one reason. The one thing I'm, it doesn't talk about driving to a destination. And I'm just wondering, is this particular job going to just be completely in-house or is this job going to allow somebody to go to a different location or
[Robert Penta]: Move the question. And I want to thank you for passing this up tonight, because this is the first time I see it. Chief, I'd just like to ask you one question in here. It makes reference to the police department.
[Robert Penta]: Chief, do you have a copy of this or not?
[Robert Penta]: Okay. It's section over here. It says develop jointly with the police, Programming to decriminalize and foster relationship with those with substance abuse disorders and their families using evidence based upon principles and practices. Support police on programming and any grant activities related to substance abuse. What was your interaction with this for this to be included? In this program.
[Robert Penta]: So for the purposes of this position, are you going to oversee these particular police officers who might be designated? How is this going to work?
[Robert Penta]: How long does it take to advertise? Was it three weeks, ma'am? After the third reading. After the first reading.
[Robert Penta]: So it can be advertised.
[Robert Penta]: Eddie, you're saying you have the chair. You're saying you're putting this in a classification program, but just the case, just the headline are all these words. The headline we had, we don't even understand this.
[Robert Penta]: But we're talking about the classification, not this description, correct?
[Robert Penta]: Can this be added or subtracted to it? We're going to vote for the classification, but can recommendations be added or subtracted to this?
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote. For the classification. Marks. For this to be classified in the city's compensation plan.
[Robert Penta]: We don't have anything.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Question, Mark.
[Robert Penta]: Quick question. Are we as a city advocating that we want these things, or can somebody just come in here and set themselves up?
[Robert Penta]: This is almost like a preemptive strike for what we were talking about earlier with the folks about these massage parlors or whatever you want to call it. Yes. You know, we're preparing for it, and I would hope When you get this information, the same energy will go forward so that we can come up with an ordinance that basically we don't have to deal with folks in residential neighborhoods, unfortunately, that won't have the same luxury as something like this. So with that being said, I've got no problem having us go forward. But my only other question is, you suggested that they could maybe come in under the term horticultural.
[Robert Penta]: But when you say the word cultivation, is that going to mean growing? Yes, it does. Having a hothouse and all of that? Yes, it does.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. On that particular motion, number one, we talk about local access. It's got some access alluded to. You're looking at a location that's centrally located. Medford high school is not centrally located. And from my most recent talking and understanding, I believe that the whole project is on hold right now because they don't have a, they don't have anyone that, submitted a bid that would be acceptable to the city.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, from the information that I've been able to ascertain, It's on hold, number one, for the time being, because I don't believe that they had more than one developer who made a request to go up there, number one. We're not talking about the architect. We're talking about the tax-exempt non-profit that would be making the bid on the program.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, the tax-exempt non-profit, I believe that they only had one bidder at the present time, but that's not the point. The fact of the matter is simply this. It's not centrally located. It's not a place where somebody can go and take a bus. It's not a place where you would want to send an adult at nighttime to have them traverse up there and walk an extension part of the building. That's number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, if it would be in a centrally located place, it would be easily accessible to not only students, but professional people. And those folks would want to be educated and have the high school become the satellite to the central location somewhere in this community. We've talked about two locations possibly. One at Cheviro Auditorium, the other one, as Councilor Caraviello alluded to, at the public library. A great opportunity. The city is sitting on over $350,000 of that money. But the real fact of the matter is this, there is no public access operating right now. Whether you're a council running for office, whether you're running here for re-election, for whatever it might be, the mayor is intentionally stifling public access by not having it. And at the present time, that is absolutely not fair because each and every rate payer on every single month in their bill, Verizon and Comcast, is being charged for public access for which they're not getting. It's going to take some time. If you read the report that the three-member commission that the mayor empowered in February this past year talked about it being centrally located, easily accessible for people to get to, and to be educationally and technologically available to students and for business people and for residents and for taxpayers. We had six people come here on a particular night and talk about the value of what public access could be if, in fact, it was an operation. But it isn't an operation. And this administration, unfortunately, has not only fallen asleep on this matter. When you had the public access here in June, the public meeting on the 10-year contract with Comcast, not one person from the city administration was here to talk about, never mind public access, but to defend the ratepayers of this community for being charged for something. Where do you have it? Two o'clock in the afternoon when people are working. That's not the time to have it. That's not being open and communicative. And what does the city hire? They hire an outside attorney, pay him $350 an hour to sit here and take notes for the 10, 12 people who came and spoke on that particular day. I spoke on that day because I think public access, and more importantly, our cable access bill is very important. And to have a 10-year contract go out with the lack of amount of public interest and input, that is wrong. That's wrong. And that's what public access is about, having somebody have the opportunity to come up, whether you agree or disagree, to express their opinions. That's what we don't have here in this community. Not worried about what's going to go up in the high school, that's so far out into the future, way beyond an election coming forward, way beyond whether we have. July 3rd is right around the corner. This mayor has up until July 3rd to make his decision whether he's going to sign another 10-year contract with Comcast. And he was asked on that particular day, not only by myself, but other people, not to sign it. The same way that the mayor is not going to hire a new director of public works until the new mayor comes in in January of this year. Well, he should be doing the same thing as it relates to Comcast and to find out where we're going. The contracts now that are being extended go anywheres no more from three to five years max. And after the third year, There's supposed to be community input. There's supposed to be a community survey, for which never took place, as to what do you think about Comcast. You know, the aliquot and the specialty programs. None of that has taken place, for which if you read the contract, it was supposed to take place. And if you read the guidelines from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Utilities say those are the ingredients that are necessary in each and every one of contract renewals. This city did not follow any of the guidelines, none of the renewal quotes, and as it relates to that, and as a result, that's why we don't have public access. Because if this mayor was so interested in having public access, he could plaster himself all over it, like he does in Channel 15, and let everybody have an opportunity. It's not his station. It's not Comcast. He doesn't own it. And that's what's wrong.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, the reason why, you know, lying is a strange word around here, because I think sometimes the maker of the commentary should review his comments. The reason why we wanted to get rid of Channel 3 was because it's despicable actions. It's a lack of accounting for money. It's a lack of keeping minutes of records. It's a lack of allowing people to come and speak, and it's a lack of doing the community work. And for the people who were running it at the time, their complete abuse and misuse of their 501c3 prerogative, that's what is wrong.
[Robert Penta]: Lauren, you sent us a letter on April 24th, and in that letter on the second paragraph, you state as follows, for communities that are part of a regional housing consortium, the entitlement community must participate in a regional consolidation plan, which must describe and address the community development plans of all community development block grant entitlement communities that are members of the consortium. So my question to you is, are we a member of the consortium, number one? And number two, where are the monies, or are we giving monies to other communities that are in this consortium, unlike projects?
[Robert Penta]: No, not really. Are you saying that we are or we are not eligible?
[Robert Penta]: So since we are eligible, are we going to be taxed at any point in time from another community development plan because you're part of this consortium?
[Robert Penta]: Are we going to have to give up some monies that benefit the plan and another community?
[Robert Penta]: Second question is this. This idea of giving the housing authority $15,000, of all the people that have applied, they are sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenues. Why would you be doing that? I mean, I'm not worried about trying to develop a relationship with them. They never even got back to us after the feds went in there and did an in-depth investigation. And we were supposed to get a report back as to whether they were or were not adhering to the rules and regulations of not only federal practices, but also accounting practices. for which, again, we have yet to receive anything back. That's number one. But why would you give money to someone who sits on hundreds and thousands of dollars of revenue that they receive both from federal and state when you have so many other small little agencies who are trying to work their butts off to offer services in a myriad of ways within this community? I can't buy that. I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: Well, maybe they should transfer the monies that they just approved for parks and recreation and for new courts in the same area and use it for the air conditioning and make that the priority.
[Robert Penta]: Lauren, you may say it's a small amount of money. It's $15,000. That's not a small amount when you're taking less than $1,000 away from other benefactors who are looking for the money. Mr. Clark. I'm going to move to eliminate the $15,000 from the house from this budget for the housing authority. Also, you, you talked about planning and administration for $286,000 in that $286,000 there is a comment that says whenever possible, the city will make every effort to attract discretionary and formula grant funds from federal and state sources to meet community development objectives. Now, if I understand that correctly, that's telling me that either A, you're going to hire somebody, or B, you're going to hire a consultant who has the ability to go out there and get additional monies, either through a grant or through some type of discretionary fund for me.
[Robert Penta]: So why the wording is in there is- Well, maybe the next mayor coming in will take a look at all of this and understand that a two-person office can't do this, and I understand that. But I'm more concerned over if this is what the objective is to hire someone.
[Robert Penta]: And that's what's not in here. No. That's what's not described here as part of the 286.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Clark, you who Mr. Clark, Is he paying attention or not? Mr. Clark, the council has a question, right? If you ran the meeting like you're supposed to, I'd like to put an addendum on there that we get a complete breakdown of the $286,754 for the purposes of any and all salaries. Well, it's more than that.
[Robert Penta]: Any consultant that has to- No, I'm talking about employee salaries in this building.
[Robert Penta]: I said any part of the $286,000. That goes towards salaries. That goes towards salaries by name and by title.
[Robert Penta]: And the office of security development. Do you have that? Who? Yeah. No, I'm talking to him. Mr. Clerk, did you understand that?
[Robert Penta]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I just... They've never been refused money by the state, have they?
[Robert Penta]: They've gotten money each and every year for their state projects.
[Robert Penta]: Why are we spending money into a center that was already rehabbed before when you're leaving the 124 units still without air conditioning? I think they need to answer that question.
[Robert Penta]: So then maybe they are, if you looked at the minutes of their last meeting, you can look at the parks and the developments that they're doing on the outsides of pieces of the property. If I was a senior citizen and I was living there, and I haven't had air conditioning for all these years, and I all of a sudden your air conditioning and community center that I don't sleep in at night time because I'm going to have to go and during the course, I'm not going to spend all day in the community center. Maybe they should be putting a program together to show how they're going to air condition those units that the people live in day in and day out. They give them heat in the winter time, we'll give them air conditioning in the summer.
[Robert Penta]: Maybe they should come before us, Lauren, before the council. I'm going to stick to my issue. If you want to lay it on the table for a week, let the council go over it.
[Robert Penta]: No, I mean, let the council go over it, subject to whether they get the money in on the issue.
[Robert Penta]: That's a point of further information, clarification. When the dedication took place at the Fond du Carreau Center, the place was air conditioned at that time. So what happened to the air condition from then until now? Yeah, I think the heat pump, is that what they call it, the heat pump? I have no idea. But they should have been better prepared when they made their presentation before the city council. Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Warren, you made the comment that we could vote to take it out and always put it back in. Correct?
[Robert Penta]: And I don't think it's a matter of waiting in time. I think your assistant there just got through saying that, you know, you're probably getting $50,000 more from the state this year.
[Robert Penta]: See, that's the whole thing. When they came before us that night at that meeting, they were so ill prepared. to talk about where they were going with the projects. They just wanted our money. They just wanted the community block grant money. They're sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have grant writers over there. They have specialists that could do this. And to take the money from other deserving projects here in the city, I think it's wrong. That's my opinion. I hear you.
[Robert Penta]: Laura, let's go back and ask the question again. If in fact we go back to this $50,000 number at that point in time, could you pull this money?
[Robert Penta]: All we're doing is securing information, Paul. We're not asking you to take the money out. All she's going to do is report back if they're getting the money, and if they are getting the money, whatever the council so chooses.
[Robert Penta]: Why would you not want to get information?
[Robert Penta]: That becomes the whole issue, Paul. So let's give them as much money as we can. That becomes the whole issue, because all they're going to be doing is keep putting Band-Aids and Band-Aids and Band-Aids. They need a complete rehabilitation down there.
[Robert Penta]: But I think one of the issues, you're talking about the Green Line. That's not a definitive thing, number one. Number two, that's not even looked upon by the president administration to spend another $150 million.
[Robert Penta]: Talking about the State House administration, that's where the money is going to be coming from if the Green Line extension is going to come forward. So you're going from the post office in South Medford all the way to Route 16. That's not a done deal. Then you have the area metropolitan area planning council.
[Robert Penta]: The Tufts University, Tufts University, Tufts University.
[Robert Penta]: So you take that. I believe there's also a report, Lauren, that came back from the metropolitan area planning council that has itself supposedly at the end of route 16 for 165 units of affordable and low income housing for which the public hearing on that particular night that took place in room 207, there were many, many residents. from the West Method area that were very upset about that because of the traffic, the congestion, the cars that would be parking there. So there's a multitude of issues that are going on with this whole idea of the screen line extension. I'm more concerned about your housing authority, the housing, not yours, the housing authority that has not come forward with any type of a game plan for that walkway court. And all I see is patchwork, patchwork. patchwork and I think it's totally unfair.
[Robert Penta]: A quick question, John. You had indicated some time back that the City of Lynn, I believe, fronts shows with money and the shows produce the money back.
[Robert Penta]: To the community.
[Robert Penta]: So how could you make your argument successful for the city administration to front the money up front to get repaid back? And there might be some losses in the beginning, like you said, until it gets to the point that it's repaid.
[Robert Penta]: We're not really losing. We can win in the long run.
[Robert Penta]: You know, real quick, you just mentioned the Stoneham theater and you know yourself, they were struggling in the beginning to get themselves going. And it was the type of shows that they brought in that's basically saved them. And now they're, They're for profit.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President, this is a very important position. As we all know, this will be the first time in so many, many years that this office is going to be vacated by the incumbent mayor, Michael McGlynn. As I said before, I wish him well for whatever endeavor he so chooses. And I would hope that he would be finishing out his term and not leaving ahead of time. But be that as it may, that's not the issue. Right now, the second highest position in this building, which is the Director of Budget and Personnel, has made an announcement. that that individual is going to run and seek the office of mayor. I believe that was done some seven days, six days after the mayor made his announcement. And I believe that was on April 20th. And as a result of that, a further announcement has been forthcoming as it relates to that individual now going to relinquish that position on May 15th. And today, I believe we received another press release, which was dated April 21st. as it relates to the fact that the Director of Budget and Personnel is going to be leaving effective May 15th, even though the announcement was made on April 20th. In the second comment of the letter that states, I would not want the Office of Mayor to encounter any appearance of any conflict of interest. And I think there is a, a, a miss there. It's not the Office of Mayor. I think it would be the Office of the Budget Director because unfortunately, This individual is the one that presents the budget to the city council and goes through all the finances to make the city's council's budget come forward. At the same time, it's also the person that's in charge of personnel. There's only been one person that I've been able to find in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the person comes from the city of Medford. And when this person, many, many years ago, made his announcement that he was running for attorney general, he resigned his position as vice chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the State House, that was George L. Sacco, former representative George Sacco. And that always stuck out in my mind when somebody running for jobs of such high authority, if you're going to be that committed to it, they relinquish their position, at-present position. In that time, vice chairman of Ways and Means was a very important position. But when he resigned that position, that was the day he made his announcement. And I would personally believe, and I would think, and I would hope, that a budget director would reconsider her position and resign immediately. To have the luxury of reviewing a budget right now ahead of time or getting prepared for it, and I believe that the new person taking the budget director's place is now the procurement officer, and she will be assuming the budget director's position effective three days after May 15th, I think the conflict of interest is sort of like outstanding. That's an undue advantage ahead of time of any other candidate that might be running for that position, and in all fairness to all parties concerned, I think May 15th doesn't serve any purpose. I think it needs to be done immediately in all fairness, because if in fact, if in fact, that person were to become elected mayor of the community, and that person would be working with a mayor, I would strike that, would be working with a budget in advance that no one else would have had that advantage, advantage point two. So with that being said, with all due respect, I understand the position she's in. I understand that she's the budget director, and also the budget director in charge of personnel. And if I'm looking at the second press release that was offered here today, it says that the procurement officer will only assume the position of a budget director, but not of personnel. So I guess there'll be an addendum. Someone is going to pick up that position in the future. So with that being said, I would like that position to be made loud and clear, and all fairness to all candidates, whoever they may be, he or she, that if the second highest position in this city has that authority for which that person has in here, I think in all fairness, they should be resigning immediately, not till May 15th, to get their ducks in order, just in case that person does, in fact, become the mayor of this city. And you know something? I've spoken to members up in the State House, and they have basically said the same thing. Judge Sacco set the precedent. of resigning his position when he decided to run for Attorney General, because that's how committed he was. He was willing to give up that for which he had to go forward and campaign for that position of Attorney General. And that's what stuck out in my mind all these years. And then when I saw the situation taking place here right now, and reading today's press release, I just thought that that would probably be the fair way to go. And fairness to the person herself, to just leave and move forward because you've already committed to a date. Why did you commit on May 15th? I don't know if it's to get the budget in order and hands it down to the next president. Again, totally unfair and big advantage and a big conflict as far as I'm concerned. Councilor Camuso.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, in response to Councilor Camuso, I didn't challenge her integrity and I didn't challenge her high caliber. What I'm saying is the potentiality of a conflict of interest existing. I have, I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree with you. But I'm more concerned about the appearance of a conflict. Second highest position in this building. That's how I'm looking at it right now.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor? Mr. President and anyone who might be watching, but more importantly, business people in this community. that have to abide by the rules and regulations set forth by the council, the billing department, and the liquor commission. I observed something that's written in the local news food blog issue he made on March 16th, 2015. It says snappy patties will get a whole lot bigger with the new patio. And then it goes on to say that snappy patties in West Method is going to expand with 50 more seats. And they're going to put an outside, upscale, contemporary American food of world influence, which they'll be putting outside for a service. And they're going to more than double their capacity with the addition of a 50-plus seat capacity, including an outside bar, according to the job postings for positions on Craigslist. Now, the unfortunate part about this, I think both for Councilor Caraviello and myself, on two separate occasions, weeks apart from each other, were informed that Snappy Patty's was serving alcohol, not beer and wine. And such reports were submitted to the Liquor Commission and for which on both times, the Liquor Commission had to tell the Snappy Patty people they couldn't do that because they wouldn't be in jeopardy of their liquor license. Well, after the first occasion, they should have been fined because they knew that they wouldn't, they shouldn't be doing it. That's number one. I believe last week at some point in time, they were out there in the backyard with the backhoe or whatever, digging up the backyard. That in and of itself prompted the building department to go down there and tell them that they had to stop, whether cease and desist, or they were going to be fined. They continuously are just being obstinate to the rules and regulations as to what's going on in this community. There are many businesses here in this community that abide by the liquor license laws. As a matter of fact, I think most recently during, I would say early December or thereabouts, there were, I think, eight restaurants in this community that the Liquor Commission went in to make sure that the folks were doing what they were supposed to be doing. And I think two of them unfortunately got warnings because of the serving of the alcohol. And I believe in those situations, they were to minors. But this one here, they brazenly are serving hard alcohol beverage. at Snappy Patty's in total violation and total violation of the liquor laws here in the city of Medford. Now, if we all remember, we had a discussion most recently regarding Bertucci's wanting to expand and go with an outside dining capacity. And by doing that, I believe they gave us a demonstration and they gave us a schematic of the tables that were going to be in the restaurant needing to be at least two to three feet apart to allow a wheelchair to get by and also to have the accessibility of a handicapped bathroom. I strongly suggest that now Snappy Patty's has put themselves into a spotlight. I think their present location needs to be looked at as it relates to, is there room wide enough for a wheelchair to make an accessibility way in and out of their floor arrangement to a handicapped bathroom? And at the same time, this sole proposal for this expansion of 50 plus seats which I think takes into question, is it even going to go on city property? And if it is going to go on city property, for which we all know we're still waiting for the results, for the report to come back on the contamination of that particular parking lot that's back there. So I'm going to ask, Madam President, that the building commissioner report, well, they gave us an initial report here tonight, that they put things down for which Snappy Patty's needs to do. I believe what they need to do is first, before they do anything, They have to commit construction documents to the building department. They haven't done that. They have to apply for a building permit, for which they haven't done. They have to send in a certified plot plan, for which they haven't done. They have to submit a floor plan showing the detailed description of the proposed work area, for which they haven't done. And they haven't applied before the council for an outside permit to have their business. So how does this business take it upon themselves to go forward, start construction, start digging up, advertise what they're going to do in total violation of the rules and regulations of this community. If that's the case, Mr. President, and they continue to go forward, and they don't submit the appropriate paperwork and do what they're supposed to do, then I think the council needs to—and if I—Mr. Clerk, you can correct me if I'm wrong—do they have a common vigilance license from the council? They do. I think the council should have a show cause hearing on their common vigilance license for a violation of how they're operating, and at the same time, the request would go to the Liquor Commission as it relates to their violation of the liquor laws of the city of Medford, and it's quite obvious now, dated April 28th, that the building department is well aware of what they're doing and what needs to be done. You know, this is absolutely unfair to every other single business person that's had to come into this community to go by the rules and regulations as outlined by the building department and by this council, if in fact they have to come before the council. But to let this one particular business just do what they want to do advertise what they want to do, don't have the right proper documentation, that's wrong. So, Madam President, I'm referring this both back to the building department, to our liquor commission, and to our council waiting for a report back as to what they're going to do resulting from the building commission sending them their notices that they're violating without proper authority.
[Robert Penta]: I forgot. I mean, and the Craig list announced, uh, it basically says, They're doubling their capacity with an addition of a 50 foot seating capacity, including an outside bar. I mean an outside bar. Okay. So put that all together. And how do you advertise like that on, on March?
[Robert Penta]: March 16th. It was on Craigslist in the food service blog.
[Robert Penta]: When you say you don't further, we don't know where the city property begins or where the city property ends. And I think the city's engineers got to get down there and figure out what belongs to us.
[Robert Penta]: Madam President, we all know, and I guess at the beginning, I thought it was to the great betterment of the school department that they got a $2 million increase on their side of the ledger. for the 2014-2015 budget. But after doing some initial investigation, it appears like those monies did not find their way into something that I'm going to revert back to Councilor Caraviello. When you first came on, I believe it was at the end of your first term, you indicated there was $1.2 million worth of corrections that were needed in the Medford public school system. And I don't see any report coming back on that, number one. Number two, the $1.2 million in corrections, having been talked upon, it's only been talked, if they've done something, it would be nice to get a report. But approximately 27 positions have been involved or impacted as a result of this $2 million increase, which I believe, if my numbers are correct, is approximately seven new positions. And these seven new positions have jobs that are in the $90,000 range, if not more. And I don't think that's what the people of this community are looking for when they see increases in the school department budget, when there is a lacking of teachers in certain specific classes, in the classroom looking for whether it be books or supplies or things of that nature. Just because you haven't had an assistant principal in some school for years, now all of a sudden because you got the $2 million, you're going to go back and put an assistant principal in, which could be nothing more than maybe a political job, a favor to give to somebody. I don't know. But I just think it's kind of like wrong that these 27 positions or thereabouts that have been impacted, of seven of which are probably brand new or thereabouts are brand new, with $90,000 salaries, if not more, represents the $2 million increase into the school department budget. I don't even know if the city can afford another $2 million this year. to sustain the $2 million from last year. So, what I'd be asking for, Mr. President, is — Mr. President, I'd be asking that the superintendent of the school department — oh, let me tell you another story. I went up to the high school the other day, and I walked into — walking into that high school in the front. It's a war zone. It looks like that school has gone through a war. The cement is all broken. The bricks are — The bricks are just shuffled. There's loose pieces of concrete. The door's walking into the front entrance. It's an embarrassment, if you were a taxpayer to this community, to walk up to that school and say, this is my high school, and this is the high school where I want to send my children to. I don't understand it. I just can't understand what they don't understand. The young lady who came up here a little while ago, she talked about taking 5% of the budget for each building. Well, if we remember correctly, on the new school buildings, there was supposed to have been 5% on an annual basis until those buildings were paid off. But of course, the State Department of Education didn't have auditors to come in to check and see if 5% on an annual basis was being reinvested each and every year on those school buildings. And now all of a sudden, whether it's a million two, could it be up to a million four? I don't know. Maybe we should get a review of that also, Councilor Caraviello. Just what are the damages that need to be corrected in these buildings? But it's quite obvious that this $2 million has now become a political football in the school department wherewithal for the purposes of jobs and whatever it might be. I thought and I believed that the $2 million was going to be for educational purposes, teachers, books, supplies, things that are desperately needed, and maybe monies to be used to repair some of the buildings that have been so delinquent for so long and not getting repairs. And that's not happening. So I'd like to report back, you know, I don't know where the school committee is on this. You know, I think they have an obligation to explain this. And also, and also, and I don't know where we're going with this, but the scuttlebutt now is, and I'll wait one more week before I put this on the agenda, but the scuttlebutt is now, and it would be nice if we were told about this, that the high school is trying to merge the vocational school with the high school and only leave three or four certain classes that are certified and make the other classes nothing more than electives. The Medford Vocational School has been a wonderful asset to the community of the city of Medford for students who just are not college bound. There are students that want to be plumbers, auto repair person, auto mechanics, workshop folks, whatever. whatever the trades people are looking for. And now for the school department to be talking and thinking of merging and only leaving three or four certified positions up there as it relates to these type of work entities and have the rest become nothing more than, you know, electives that kids in the high school can go back and forth. It defeats the whole purpose of a vocational school education. So I'm going to make this in three counts, Mr. President. I think maybe we should just meet with the school committee. Maybe we should have a joint meeting with the school committee for the purposes of investigating not only the $2 million, but discuss the $2 million, discuss the problems of the city, and discuss the makeup of that, and also to discuss just what are they trying to do with the vocational school. Merge it? End it? I don't know. But you have teachers that are very confused. You have students that are really upset. You have parents that are upset, because when they talk to me, I have no idea what they're talking about, because apparently this has been going on, and it hasn't been advertised, and nothing's been written about it. So this is a major change to our public school education, if the vocational school is now going to be transformed into some type of community school within the high school. That's not what vocational education is all about. Absolutely not. So I'm going to ask, Mr. President, that over and beyond having a joint meeting with the school committee, I'd like to have a report back as to A, number one, the $2 million that have been spent for this year's budget, names of individuals and salaries attached to it. Two, the repairs that Councilor Caraviello brought to the council, I think it was some three years ago of approximately $1.2 million that we get a list of all the repairs and the projected costs. Three, What are they doing about this vocational school as it relates to changing the purpose that it presently operates under as to merging it with the high school? Fourth, why is the front entrance to Medford High School in such a terrible state of affairs? And lastly, to have a joint meeting with the school committee on all these matters.
[Robert Penta]: Well, all you have to do is look up at the ceiling over there and you wonder what's taken so long to get that fixed, whether it's the stairs in front of the police station, the stairs in front of the high school. This is the whole idea. How would the priorities are set? Just reverting back to Councilor Longo-Curran when she talked about, you know, look at the lunch mothers who haven't received diddly in years for a pay raise. And they're there every day taking care of the kids in the school. And if I understand some of these bumps that the $2 million afforded, they gave people in management positions pay raises or they escalated their pay. But I don't understand how you can do that if you've already had a budget that was voted upon, which your salary is supposed to be. And I don't know if you can turn around and do this. I mean, that's what needs to be explained to us. This is kind of like crazy. If you're getting paid $60,000, $70,000 a year, then how can you turn around and get another $6,000 or $7,000 or $8,000 out of this $2 million? Whether you're an administrator or rank and file, it doesn't cut the mustard. This $2 million was supposed to be for education. not for personal engrangement for certain people that work in that building. It should have been for teachers, classrooms, books, supplies, and maybe at the outset it should have been for repairs to the school buildings, because that's what's desperately needed. You spent $112 million for new buildings, And as of two and a half years ago, there were a million two in need of repairs. God knows what the amount is right now. But they know how to feather their own nest, their own pocketbook with their own pay raises without acknowledging this. I think this is a very crucial matter. You have people on the school committee wanting to run for the city council and not acknowledging any of these issues. These are the issues that are every day that are confronting the city and the taxpayers and the students that go to that school. You have whether they're the lunch mothers, who sometimes say they're the lowest ones on the rung because they don't get acknowledged, or you go all the way up to the superintendent, who gets the highest pay of anyone in the entirety. Something's got to be understood and explained, and not just at the budget time. And we have asked so many times ahead of time to have these joint meetings between the school department and the council and vice versa. So you have four separate issues here, Mr. President. And then you have a fifth issue to have a joint meeting with the school department, so it would be great to get all these answers ahead of time so we could have our joint meeting, so we could have some sense of understanding to know where we're going, rather than walk into a meeting and just look at each other like a bunch of dopes. Thank you, Councilor Penta. Councilor Langley-Curran?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, on the point of information regarding the motion to sever, and Councilor Knight can do whatever he wants as it relates to that. Fact of the matter is this city council makes the final vote on the city and the school department budget. And this city council was informed that the school department was given a $2 million increase during our budget with absolutely no explanation as to what and how. And now that this has now been surfacing and people are asking questions and there are some concerns as it relates to how and why the $2 million was spent and now which precipitates all these other issues, whether it be the vocational school, whether they're merging, they're not merging, whether it's people getting raises, schools are getting raises. whether the entrance to the high school is gonna be, it is our bailiwick, it is our responsibility, and it's the school department's responsibility to talk about it and acknowledge it, and they haven't.
[Robert Penta]: Let's be clear about this. When we were presented a budget and we were told that the school department had an increase of $2 million, there was nothing presented in the budget as in the entire other part of the budget of the school department budget. Each department was broken down. with the names and the salaries of each and every individual. So this is on and after the fact. So this information that's being requested is nowhere to be found in the budget. And I think it's our, I think we're entitled to have it as we were getting everything prior to the budget. So on that motion, all those in favor.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, the front main entrance, the front entrance, you know, an update on this, an update as to, you know, how they intend to fix it, when. and how it's gone into such poor repair.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Yeah, just reflecting back on what Councilor Lungo-Koehn alluded to on this Thursday coming up in the high school on the continuation of the drug issue. Today there was a forum that was held publicly outside here in front of the city hall. at three o'clock with some 50 plus individuals as it related to NACAM and the fact that they're still waiting from the police department and the fire department for coming forward and whether they're going to allow or whether they're going to use NACAM. Um, the unfortunate part is there's still no response back. Supposedly it's a union issue that they're waiting to negotiate. Um, you know, there's nine cities and towns around us that haven't, um, what the negotiation entails or includes, I don't know, but, We all know from the vigil that took place about a month and a month and a half ago, um, that we were led to believe that by the end of March, um, and this, uh, it was March or April, excuse me. It was going to be, um, set in motion. Let's put it this way.
[Robert Penta]: Let me finish. The gentleman from Armstrong ambulance indicated that they have administered it. but the surrounding, the nine surrounding cities and towns who have police and fire that likewise administered, sometimes they are there before the Armstrong ambulance, and sometimes they're in a position that no one else is in where they could possibly save someone's life. So what the detail and hanging up is, I don't know, but I think we need to get a report back from both the fire department and the police department on just where are we on allowing them to, or allowing them to have NACOM on their persons, so to speak, on their property when they're on duty for the purposes of an overdose. I guess you can't use that. Part of the clarification.
[Robert Penta]: We also received a paper that was requested. Um, it goes back to, I think council Caraviello's original original request to summer 23rd asking for a report regarding the finances as to what they have taken in, um, for the period of time. So for the month of January, February, March, they have taken in $223,964. Um, citations issued in January were 1,035 and February was 1,834. And in March it was 2,396 expired meters were 41% permitted zones was 19% snow bands is 13% and over time on the meters was 4%. The one thing that seems to be very telling here in their description notes, it says changes in the meter enforcement hours. from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to 8 to 6, significantly reduced meter and citation revenue potential. And unfortunately, that's okay as far as I'm concerned, because these bounty hunters need to leave this town anyway. Chris Cappe. Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. I believe also, Mr. President, I believe also that, um, Chris Capri, um, who was a hairdresser in Medford square also has in her possession in excess of, I believe over 225 signatures, mostly all method people who come to her shop who are not only opposed to this, but it doesn't serve in the best interest because again, the signage is still yet to be posted, um, as it should be. We also know that the chief was there. Unfortunately, the mayor or his representative was not there. Our budget director, who was also a part of this, was in her office during this whole meeting and left the building after this meeting took place when, you know, she was one of the people that orchestrated this whole parking program. And this is the problem with this administration. They don't want to own up to the things that are taking place in this building that they were a part of. Defend it if you want, or not defend it. But the fact of the matter is, the purpose of this meeting was to have an intelligent discussion, hopefully with the people within the administration that could either make the right decision or correct the decisions that need to be corrected. The unfortunate part to all of this, Mr. President, I don't know where we're going. I think the council has been pretty adamant, and they've acknowledged, you know, where they want to go as it relates to this. And the clue that doesn't seem to — they didn't tell you, and I believe it's — they have 600. citations that they had to negate because of the wrongness of the citations being issued. Over 600 — that's 200 a month, if you average it out. That's a phenomenal amount. And I believe, also, Mr. Nash acknowledged at the time when I asked him the question, they were supposed to have a job fair, and they didn't have no job fair. They were supposed to advertise over the Internet, and they didn't advertise over the Internet. They were supposed to publicly advertise, and they did. The only thing they did was advertise and the local press. So that was amongst other major breaches to this contract that relates to Republican, the city of Medford, for which the council voted five to two, two weeks ago to have them time for them to leave the city. And I, and I, and I stick by that, Mr. President, it's time for them to leave the city. They're serving no purpose, but to cause aggravation and concern here, the bounty hunters coming in here, sucking off the taxpayers of this city, to make a 68 to 70% profit on the returns, leaving the city with a diddly amount of money.
[Robert Penta]: Madam President, Ruth Balzer is a State Representative from Newton. And she filed this bill after consulting with other local folks and communities as it relates to local access. The bill requires that any monies received by municipalities for PEG access cable television be distributed to PEG access cable television. That's it. If a municipality fails to forward the funds, then it must provide an accounting, and the accounting has to go public. The bill requires cable TV providers to locate PEG channels in close proximity to broadcast channels. It requires cable TV providers to provide PEG channels with access high-definition or other technology. It also requires cable TV providers to provide proper mapping of channels. Now, this seems to be kind of interesting, because last week, as you know, I introduced some information disclosed by a group of individuals, legally chartered, called Stop the Cap. And Stop the Cap is a group of people throughout the country. It's a Broadband Comcast, it's a broadband watchdog group promoting better broadband, it fights data caps, usage-based billing, and other internet overcharging schemes. That for which Comcast is presently doing here in the city of Medford. As a matter of fact, Comcast, if you read it now in the Better Business Bureau, is now being regarded as one of the worst corporations in this country for the purposes of public service and for its charges. Two weeks ago, I believe, we introduced before the council our State's Attorney General going after the community of Lynn for their misappropriation of money, lack of keeping proper records and minutes, and a host of other issues. Most recently, as of April 26, the city of Lynn now has asked for a receiver to go in and take over the channel the public access chase in following months of turmoil and alleged financial breaches that have triggered lawsuits and the arrest of the husband on the board and a description of the use of the monies that have gone to people working there and the misuse of salaries coming out of the funding from the local access station. Similar, quite similar to that for which is taking place here in the city of Medford, for which the mayor has been not only dilatory, but he has failed. He has failed in recognizing that the sham of a filing of a dissolution by the Channel 3 board back in, I think it was October or September of 2013, has never been completed, has never taken place. And as a result of that, what we have here is a combination of now coming up next Thursday, an ascertainment hearing. Two weeks ago, last week, this council, I asked this council to vote to change, to make the, change the meeting from 2 in the afternoon to 6, 630 at night, because who the heck can go at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. The mayor re-advertises the hearing for next Thursday to be held at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. So nothing has been accomplished as it comes to that. But the fact of the matter is, in Somerset, in another locality, like I said, in Belmont, in Somerset, having these ascertainment hearings, these ascertainment hearings are done in advance, well in advance, before the renewal of a contract takes place with the cable provider. We are operating here in the city of Medford with no contract. We have no contract right now because the contract time has come and ended as of April 20th. And with that being ended yet, we're having an ascertainment hearing well after the fact. So Comcast is nothing more than a tenant at will, so to speak. The unfortunate part about all of this is when we were led to believe that for whether we agreed or disagreed, public access was going to find its new home up at the high school. Come to find out that the new home at the high school, for whatever it might be worth, everything has now been put on hold. So the monies that allegedly are sitting in the coffers at City Hall in excess of $300,000 that ratepayers have paid to access is now not going to be used for a facility up at the high school, number one. Number two, the mayor is now not going forward with the public access station for the purposes of saying, you know, we're going to have public access here in the city. This would make two elections in a row that this mayor has intentionally denied the taxpayers of this community and people who might be running for office the ability to be on public access and to tell your story for whatever it might be. And it's also denying taxpayers and rate payers in this community the use of public access for educational and social purposes, because that's what public access is all about. Now, when Comcast went before, and I think it was this past week, Comcast was denied its merger with Time Warner by the Federal Trading Commission. because they felt there was too much of a conglomerate, that they would have too much of a control taking place. But the mayor was one of 52 mayors in this country that signed the letter supporting Comcast. And in the commentary in the Broadband News Journal, the mayor and the 51 other mayors were considered to be shills, shills for Comcast to have this go forward. And they have a delineated description of what these mayors got as perks particular parks. From the best of knowledge that we have right now, the mayor got on an annual basis $2,500 for his golf tournament, and he got an annual $10,000 a year for his lights and whatever he wants to do in the city. No other ratepayer gets that privilege. They don't get these privileges when they buy their Comcast privilege, or their Comcast, you know, whatever you call it. Internet service or whatever it might be. Why should the mayor get this personal park for himself? for signing a 10-year contract, a 10-year contract, that now, if you go into it and reading about all the advances that are out there and all the technology that's waiting to be served, Apple started with it, Amazon is into it, and there's a whole host of other ones that are telling you, not only through streaming, but through the way that they can bring cable television into the communities. We don't need another 10-year contract getting ourselves locked in. And the fact of the matter is, It's the upstreaming of the rates that we're going to be saddled with for another 10 years. It's bad enough you got a 10-year contract that was renegotiated for the waste management. You got a 10-year contract that was negotiated for this stupid republic from Tennessee. And now we're looking at possibly another 10-year contract. And I would hope that this mayor does not sign this contract. He is going out of business. He is retiring. He is no longer the mayor. The same way he is holding off hiring a public works director and letting a new person come in, he should likewise do the same thing on this particular issue. This ascertainment hearing is nothing more than a dog and pony show. It's just a sham because the fact of the matter is there is no public access. The public access that was recommended by his three-member committee was to have a local front door place where people could actually see it, not to be putting it up in the wildernesses up at the high school where at nighttime when it's dark, you go into the back of the building. And now God knows what's going on up at the high school. Like I said, I hope we get this answer back if there is some kind of Something going on, that there's some kind of a merger between the high school and the vocational school, and this isn't even going to be a part of it, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that needs to be discussed, as we know, as a separate issue. But Representative Bowser, I would hope that she gets in touch with Representative Gobley, and Donato, and Christine Barber, and also Senator Jalen. and seek their support for this. Public access is on the throes of being challenged throughout the country. There's 1,800 locations throughout the country right now that Comcast and Verizon are challenging whether to accept them or not because they feel it's a cost demand upon them. They're not realizing what the value that public access has. The unfortunate part that we have a 5% charge here, this city has a 5% inclusion in Comcast payments. Three percent goes to the city's general funds, one percent goes to public access, and the other one goes to the high school for educational, and the other one goes to the police department, which is the old Channel 16, which is now, I think it's what, Channel 22. Maybe the review needs to take place. Get rid of the three percent. Keep your public access. Give a chance to have the rate payers have a reduction. and absolutely give no perks to any one individual that signs this contract. I don't see any one councilor over here getting a perk, getting a perk as the mayor has for his years of serving with Comcast and the perks that he gets maybe with waste management, I don't know. But I know that there is a $5,000 inclusion in the waste management contract that the mayor has to use at his leisure at any part of the city for whatever he wants to do. He's only signing that contract because he's supposed to be looking out for the best interest of this community, not for the best interest of him or her or whoever it might be in the future. That's what these contracts offer. These are the inducements that these big guys come in and offer for whatever it might be. I would hope next week, when we have the ascertainment hearing, folks do come. Unfortunately, it's going to be next Thursday, the 7th. I believe it's going to be 2 o'clock in the afternoon. And my recommendation is to make the issuing authority the Medford City Council. not the chief executive, because the Medford City Council hears the pulse of the people, they can understand what's going on, and there is a rationale of reason that can take place without having the singular person, he or she, make that singular decision on behalf of 18,000 ratepayers between Comcast and Verizon.
[Robert Penta]: On the motion, the legislation, I think, is very succinct where it gets to the second page. It basically says, whereas residents across the Commonwealth wish to keep in touch with their local government by viewing their city council or selectmen meetings, school committee and other commission meetings, chamber events, high school sports, regional and statewide legislative affairs shows, groundbreaking ceremonies, retirement dinners, dance recitals, school plays, and much more. And whereas the culture and definition surrounding Cable television is changing rapidly, and community media is only supported through the cable television franchise agreements. That's in essence what this is, whether it's amended up or down. Wait a minute, can you let me finish? What, are you in a rush to go home? For God's sakes, just slow down. This is part of the thing before we have our motion to table.
[Robert Penta]: You know, you guys are really a class act. You know, people want to talk. Just let us talk. If you don't want to vote, you don't have to vote on it. Just cool your jets, will you? This is what the legislation is about. This is just a scenario. This is the gut of it. If they want to amend it, if they don't want to amend it, add or subtract or go right ahead. There's nine people already on, that's why I said, hopefully our local legislative body and our state senator will jump on board with this. They are the ones that have been talking about public access. Here's a perfect example for them to be part of it, and I respect Councilor Lengel's concern to lay it on the table. I got no problem with that. But, you know, just listen it out, that's all. Just because it's late, that's what your job, that's what we're getting paid $25,000 a year to meet once a week for, okay? Just be a little courteous to your colleagues, all right, Councilor Dello Russo? And to you, too, Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: We're going to follow the rules or not, but it's been laid on the table. Yes. A little bit. We don't never get stopped. I don't understand this.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, I do. There's one correction that needs to take place. It's on paper 15 three 95. The word kiosk should be plural wise. It's kiosk. Should be an S. You have it as singular. Yeah, pluralized.
[Robert Penta]: No, it's plural.
[Robert Penta]: On that motion, some years ago before council and I came on the council, this was an issue that was brought up at that point in time. And I believe one of the concerns we had was that our building department were getting complaints from people who were renting out rooms, if not spaces, within the homes. And some of them went to college kids, some of them went to transients, and some of them were just for the purposes of, you know, raising some money. I believe then, at the time, when Councilor Burke was on the council, she had offered a resolution as it related to the fact of maybe going forward in addressing this particular matter so as to make it a revenue-producing part of the real estate that the rental properties were on. Now, the comment that you made, Councilor Knight, is basically the same thing that came back then when the conversation took place. I believe there was a side mechanism that could be involved in that, and that would be through zoning. If the zoning does not or does allow for it, then I believe it becomes an issue that you don't need the Department of Revenue to indicate whether it's legal or not. We were supposed to then at that point in time get an answer back. I don't know, we might even have something in our law department on that. But I'd like to amend your motion to go one step further to have a report back. If we were to do this, can we do this through our zoning ordinance change, make a change specifically in the zoning ordinances, that would either allow or disallow that type of a, of an issue to take place.
[Robert Penta]: I would like to amend counts and nights resolution to look into having a law department look into the legalese, so to speak, of whether to allow or whether we can allow or disallow depending on which way you want to use this mechanism. to be included within specific or particular zoning areas in the city of Medford. So that way there, let's just say someone has a two-family house, or they want to rent out a room, whatever it might be. I believe if you look at our zoning charts, it'll not be allowed, or it is allowed, or whatever it might be. But if it has to be included in there to make itself regulatory for the purposes of taxation, you can do that through zoning.
[Robert Penta]: One particular addendum to that. One of the concerns that were brought up at that point in time when this was discussed some years back was if, in fact, you are renting out that room or a particular part of the house, the parking situation as it relates to cars and within the neighborhood. And I think that's something that, again, through the law department, I think that's one of the things you need to have addressed.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, members of the council, and also our citizen taxpayers. I think the resolution goes a little bit deeper than the highlight that's basically saying there. I know tomorrow night we are supposedly having a meeting as it relates to the parking meter system here in the city of Medford. And we all know what's been going on as it relates to this mayor's parking program here in the city. Just a couple of things. The meeting is going to take place at six o'clock tomorrow night. Allegedly, our chief of police, the mayor, The people from Republic, from Tennessee are going to be there, and hopefully any and all interested citizens who have a concern as it relates to what this is all about and how they've been impacted. But during this past week, and then once again, I don't know where we begin and where we end with all of this, because it's becoming a nonstop issue. I'll jump on to you, Councilor Caraviello. On the issue with the meters. They still say 7 in the morning to 7 at night. OK? And as a result of them saying 7 in the morning to 7 at night, the fact of the matter is, I still see people trying to put the money in the machine. They were supposed to correct it. That's nothing more than simple terminology. They haven't changed the screens, and that's another issue. Speaking with the folks down in Riverside Avenue today, just today, because I unfortunately haven't been around for a while, speaking of the fact, the rudeness of the individuals, the rudeness of the individuals, and how they talk to the patrons utilizing that. They finally, from what I understand, just finally highlighted the back of the van that basically says, this truck makes frequent stoppings, and that's all to be included here in the contract. I want to thank one of our citizen taxpayers, Michael O'Jerry, who comes up here almost every week And he's been very insightful, and he's been very helpful to me, because in my discussions back and forth, we have labored over conversations as it relates to contents within the contract. But the contract has very specific sections as it relates to performance duties and responsibilities that not only the city has, but more importantly, the operator has. And those duties and responsibilities do come within the first 90 days of the contract, or within the first year, depending on how you want to read this. and take advantage of it. But we all know what took place yesterday, which is absolute disgrace. These people, these out-of-town bounty hunters from Tennessee, yesterday were tagging people all across the city. City Hall was closed yesterday. There was no rubbish picked up yesterday in the city. Nowhere in government was there to be operating. And what do we have? We have out-of-town bounty hunters going around, tagging people and making their lives miserable here in the city of Medford. I think we all received, if not all of you, at least I received, Three of them, through the email today, would pitch us not only of the tickets, but of the tags, and the people saying, I'm not even going to appeal it, I'm going to pay it, but I am not going back to that place of business again, because it's just absolutely wrong. If this is what we have denigrated our community to, I just think it's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. I had made a resolution, I believe some four weeks ago, and then I had brought it up again at another time. And then I was asked not to force the council or put the council in a position to take a vote until we have this meeting tomorrow night. You folks as Councilors, you can have this meeting all you want tomorrow night. But I am moving here right now, tonight, as a result of this resolution. And I believe you have my paper up there too, as it talks to under suspension. I am sure you can introduce it now. Yeah. Put it in there. Yep.
[Robert Penta]: Right. And this is what we're briefing upon it because right now the briefing upon this is very, very brief as far as I'm concerned. I am not going to go any further with this. And before I go over to my colleague, Councilor Camuso, I just want to say to Councilor Marks, I mean, it was his insight dating back some five years ago with the committee that he served on that basically said we should have nothing more than a traffic enforcement program. Let's start it. Let's see where we're going. When my resolution came up, I think it was three weeks ago, and you asked to lay it on the table, which I did. I believe at that point in time, It was your druthers council's marks that said, you know, maybe we should, if we're going to get rid of it, maybe we should think about having a traffic enforcement program, set it small, keep it in house. And at that point in time, take it to go forward. I am, I want to, I'm going to move on my resolution as I had. And council Camuso, he can speak on it as well because we've discussed this. I am going to move that the city of Medford drop out whatever the proper terminology might be to cease its operations with Republic. because of their multiple violations, for which I won't acknowledge here tonight. I'll put it in writing if the clerk wants it or if the city solicitor wants it. The multiple sections of the contract that have been totally violated by the operator and for which the city and for which our own chief of police has publicly acknowledged that he has warned them, advised them what to do, what to change. I have brought in here week after week with pictures. I have brought in the fact that they haven't honored their contract for lettering of their trucks. They haven't honored their contracts for the kiosk, for the Times, the collections of the money, and after yesterday, I think that was the ultimate straw. So I'm moving, Mr. President, that the council take official position to A, terminate its contract with Tennessee, and B, to support the resolution offered by Councilman Marks, which basically says that the city look at and investigate its own traffic enforcement program for the purposes of the parking, the signage, which is two hours, 30 minutes, whatever it might be, at least take that position and then begin to go forward.
[Robert Penta]: No, I said advising the Mayor to terminate the contract.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Camuso, it wasn't the people I spoke to. It was the people working the streets, not the people at the office. That's number one. Number two, I believe inclusive of that resolution that you have in there, there is also a request for my resolution for a roll call vote. And that's the thing that was laid in the table. Now we have two of them. So if you get to the, if you look at the official minutes and if you look at the record on the resolution, there was a request The one that just took off the table, Eddie. The one that came off the table. The one that came off the table had a request for a vote.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments, but once again, One of the issues that were brought up in this thing is the parking spaces in the permit parking. And on page two of the contract, one of the things that really, I think, have riled some of the neighborhood folks is, A, maintain and update permit database. B, redo, hold, revoke, and reinstate, reactivate permits. C, update all permit files. D, inquire into permit data. and E, billing and payment for permits. And all of those issues, those five issues, have been really bones of controversy with the parking program and the contract. I mean, we have folks from South Medford. We have people from Medford. We have people on streets that have permit parking that are getting tickets, and they have the stickers right on their cars. We also have the fact that into the contract, it basically says that the city has its exclusive right within its initial time period, which I believe is the first three months, for the purposes of, hey, taking an investigation and looking at and reviewing. And by looking and reviewing, we're not going anywhere. The fact of the matter is, Councilor Marks, you just hit something on the head that probably we should have brought up before, and that's this. People said there are more spaces now available than there was before. Where those spaces that are available, go to the stores, go to the merchants in front of the stores where those spaces are, and ask them if those spaces are helping or hurting their business. And I think the answer is very pronouncedly, no, it's not helping their business at all. You know, this is, you know, on page four of the contract, in the event that the operator terminates the agreement or, quote, ceases to perform its obligations herein prior to the completion of the initial term, that's the beginning, that's it, they're out. And I think with that being said, and I'm not going to rehash it, I'm moving to terminate it, thank Councilor Camuso for being part of it. And the resolution, I believe, speaks for itself, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, in regards to Councilor Knight's remark, I'd like to refer back to our city clerk, Ed Finn. I think it was last Friday. I had called Mr. Finn up and I asked him for something that the council included in the resolution that we brought up. I think we had asked for all the resolutions that had been sent to the traffic commission for the purposes of their action and those that have not been acted upon. Did that ring a bell, Mr. Finn? Okay. And the request was to have it for our packet this weekend so we could review it. The chief responded back, said, it's not ready yet. Then the second letter went out and asked them if we could have it before or on tonight's meeting so we do not go to tomorrow's meeting ill-prepared. And that's just symptomatic of what you're talking about. I don't know what it takes for people to respond to resolutions and requests, but every part of this program is just not working. It's just a disaster from day one.
[Robert Penta]: I, Rick, we've had multiple conversations about the cars not being properly signage, the back of the cars not being properly signage. the kiosks themselves not having proper signage, people putting money in the meter after 6 o'clock at night up until this past week, OK? These are multiple issues that have been ongoing. Well, that's their problem for not doing it.
[Robert Penta]: To clarify the point that Councilor Longo just alluded to is, number one, I believe what we're referring to was Councilor Marks's suggestion, is that if, in fact, we were going to terminate or eliminate, correct me if I'm wrong, if you're going to terminate or eliminate the Republic Company, then we should look into having our own in-house with signage and whatever it might be. If the confusion is taken away and we just stick to the resolution itself to eliminate and terminate the contract, the first one, the second one is offered by Councilor Camuso and myself because of the breach of the contract, I'd be willing to let everything else go. Because you know something? One of the things the mayor said in his newspaper editorial is to One of the reasons why he is no longer wanting to serve is because of his inability or his lack of getting along with this council. He's never sat down with this council. He's never discussed our concerns relative to these issues. He's made the outrageous statement that he's never received one complaint about this program. Well, I mean, if he hasn't received one complaint, Where's everybody, blind in City Hall that they don't know what's going on? Of course, of course it's an issue that it's outstanding. And if he wants to leave office magnanimously, and he could stand up here and say, you know something, we all make mistakes, and I made a big mistake by bringing this company in, but I'm going to rectify it. I'm going to listen to you, Council, or I'm going to pull the plug, and we're going to sit down. Because if he said something correctly, Councilman Didn't he say that he's been working on this for five years? He's been working on this program for five years. And you people put a report together. You people put a report together in September of 2009. This is now 2015. What did it take him five to six years to put together? An out-of-state bounty hunter country company to come in here and disrupt our community? I'd be willing to forego all the amendments to the resolution, stick to my original one, Councilor, Councilor Camuso, if you want to stick to yours, vote on both of those resolutions, and everything else will work itself out. Because whether he's going to sit down with us or not, it's immaterial. He hasn't even called us up. He didn't even give us the courtesy that he wasn't even going to run anymore to bring his legislative body in, the council who approves his budget year in and year out. whether we agree or disagree. We've had many good days. We've had, I think, more bad days as of late because of the lack of communication, the lack of conversation, the lack of the wherewithal to put eight heads together instead of one. And that's why we're in the problem that we're in right now. And I believe it was you, Councilor Camuso, who said right from the beginning, you would have favored meters. And I think if meters were in, people would have absolutely understood a meter, instead of this crazy, outlandish parking kiosk that you can't see at nighttime, You've confused every single senior citizen in the community. You've had people falling down in the snow, having to get an emergency ambulance to go to a hospital, and everything else that's been associated with it. So if you're willing to do that, I am willing to forego all of my amendments there, stick to my resolution, Mr. Fenn, as it relates to terminating the contract, and then subsequent with Councilor Camusos, for the same reason, and move on the question. And let the chips fall where they may.
[Robert Penta]: I'm leaving my original motion on the indeterminate in concert with Councilor Camuso's joint resolution with me. For the breach of the contract and to, what's my resolution, Mr. Clark? Right.
[Robert Penta]: We're the one that asked to eliminate, Wait, that's the... No, it's right there.
[Robert Penta]: 15-307. On the tabled paper, take my resolution to terminate the contract, and then take Councilor Camuso and Councilor Penta's resolution for the breach of the contract.
[Robert Penta]: I made that as an offering if everybody's satisfied. I'll withdraw mine, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: What's the resolution that you have there of mine that was tabled?
[Robert Penta]: That can be the substitute language for that resolution. On the motion of Councilor Penta,
[Robert Penta]: He already has them.
[Robert Penta]: That's the resolution.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Does the word terminate the contract in there? Wait a minute, where's the word terminate at? Wait a minute, where's the word? Wait a minute. To remove the kiosk and terminate the contract. Put that in the end edit.
[Robert Penta]: Fourth with. Remove the kiosk and terminate the contract fourth with. That's the key, right? That's the key. That was going to be a key paper or a separate motion. Why do you want it to be part of this?
[Robert Penta]: You have it, Eddie? All right, read it now.
[Robert Penta]: And to terminate the contract forthwith.
[Robert Penta]: No, no. After the word, read the last sentence.
[Robert Penta]: Did I hear you correctly? Did you said that you would want to edit what goes onto the city website rather than getting the actual true content?
[Robert Penta]: What did you say? Maybe I misunderstood.
[Robert Penta]: I want to thank counsel a night. You just lead me into my conversation. This ascertainment hearing that is scheduled for next Wednesday at two o'clock in the afternoon. makes absolutely no sense at all. Number one, the contract that the city of Medford has with Comcast Cable has already now been terminated. It ended on April 20th. April 20th has now come and gone. An ascertainment hearing, if anybody follows it, is for the purposes of gating information that one would have within a community as it relates to a forthcoming renewal to a contract. For example, in Belmont, the Board of Selectmen, who happened to be the issuing authority, and I would hope next Wednesday at that hearing, and I'm going to make the request tonight that the hearing take place at 6.30 at night rather than 2 o'clock in the afternoon, making it available for people. But the ascertainment hearing, which was offered by the Board of Selectmen, because they were the issuing authority, had a whole bunch of people who came forward that explained what they felt was needed in the community, for example, Some people complained that their reception was poor. Other people complained, was it possible to get channels without commercials? Another one complained, can senior citizens have a special break? Movie channels were also taken into consideration. They also talked about cable subscriptions and the lack of some cable subscriptions. Another resident complained about the unavailability of people to respond to their phone calls instead of a voicemail message and requesting people to leave messages. Another resident complained about the lack of a food channel and the Fox channels. And another resident complained about continual increases in the cost for cable services. And another resident complained about... And we can go on and on and on. The idea, if you're getting it, is the fact that people had an opportunity to come. And for the purposes of them having that opportunity to come, they would be able to explain what was wrong within the cable system within their community. Now, hunting all of this down, in some of the contracts that Comcast has, There are provisos in the contract that says within a 15-year period of time that a contract takes place. So that would give you a span of either one or two contracts. A public survey needs to be done or should be done by Comcast, in this particular case, because we're talking about Comcast, within the community for which they are securing their renewal to the license. And in that survey, They would be asking all kinds of questions as it relates to the needs within the community. What would you like to see? What do you think that Comcast could do better? How do you believe that they could be a better provider within the community? And with that being said, and I don't believe Medford has ever had it, and with that being said, Philadelphia is a perfect example. The city of Philadelphia did it. They had a great response from the rate payers within that community, and they got a better reception as it relates to you know, the services that Comcast was going to give them. Also, this merger taking place, the proposed merger to take place between Comcast and Time Warner is really a deadly issue. There is a group of a non-profit organization of individuals, it's called Stop the Cap, and these are a citizens-activated watchdog group. They promote better broadband, they fight data caps, usage-based billings, and other internet overcharging schemes. And in this particular case, only 52 mayors, only 52 mayors throughout the entire United States of America signed off on this merger. And who do you think one of the two, one of the 52 mayors was? It's our mayor and the city of Medford, Mayor McGlynn. And what he and the other 51 mayors did, they brought together and they signed a letter And in this letter that they signed, that they sent to the FCC, they unfortunately made a big mistake. Because what they did is it was a terribly misleading letter. Because what they did is they took facts and figures from the Comcast proposal that was used as part of their press release. And the letter was signed, and the text was taken almost, quote, almost entirely from Comcast's own talking points, and the letter was misleading in the parts because the facts were inaccurate. Now, one other thing a lot of people don't know about, that Comcast and Time Warner have what they call cross-marketing agreements with Verizon. And right now, the three of them do work together, and especially in the western part of our country, and California, and so forth. And the 52 mayors, which includes Mayor McGlynn, advocating for this multi-billion dollar cable merger is not good for the cable subscribers. Because if this merger succeeds, rates will increase, your delivery and your service will increase or decrease, depending on how you're viewed it, and you'll have no place to turn because you're going to be involved with what they call compulsory user allowance. And what compulsory user allowance means that whatever Comcast decides to make a decision on, and if this decision goes through with Time Warner, and Verizon, because they're all working together on this, rate changes and rate charges. And if they get into this term called compulsory usage allowance, that is going to precipitate the rates and the charges that people are going to take place. Now, we here in the city of Medford have a very unfortunate circumstance. We're dealing with a contract that's already been signed. And if I understand the contract that's already been signed, that's presently existing, not its renewal, it's part of a three year lapse over from the original contract. So we're dealing with the contract that is 13 years old here within our city of Medford, 13 years old. And what have the rate payers gotten out of this? Personally, they've gotten rate increases. If you notice on the second box and the second, third and fourth box of the rooms, they've now gone up from 199 to 299. If you look at the building, They secretly went up. But what's interesting here, there's only one person who's had a political gain out of all of this, and that's the mayor of this community. Because each and every year, while this contract has been in effect, he has received $2,500 for his annual golf classic, for the mayor's golf classic. Now, does anybody in this council, in the school committee, is there any rate payer out there that gets $2,500 from your cable provider for your golf classic or for whatever you want to do? And if, according to the records under the Freedom of Information Act, disclosed, he also gets an additional $10,000 a year for his celebrations committee. And what he does with that money and how he celebrates, we don't know. But isn't that interesting? We pay our cable rates, and this mayor gets $2,500 a year annually for his golf tournament, and he gets an additional $10,000 for his celebrations committee. Now, I ask every member of this council and anyone who might be watching at any rate Do you have that luxury and do you have that privilege? Because the mayor of this community under the present contract is the issuing authority. Why should he be given that luxury? And more importantly, how bold and brazen can he be to let a contract be signed and then he now calls for an ascertainment hearing for next Wednesday at 2 o'clock in the afternoon in the dead of day when people are working Who are going to be able to come here? And then what are you going to do? Have the poor people come and park behind City Hall and not understand that there's a kiosk there, and you're going to give them a ticket for coming to an ascertainment hearing that relates to their cable bills? I don't think so. So, with all due respect, Mr. President, I just think it's — we have two big issues here. We have one of 252 mayors throughout the entire country Only 52 mayors signed off on this merger because maybe those 52 mayors, maybe those 52 mayors were getting special privileges like our mayor was. I don't think he or anyone else deserved to get a special privilege because he signs a contract in behalf of ratepayers. That's number one. And on the other part, Mr. President, the ratepayers have no vantage point here. I think we need to know what does Verizon, what is Verizon giving to the city of Medford? What special perks, if any, does the mayor derive from Verizon toward any of A, his charities, or whatever his wants need to be? Because they're only enhancing his political background and his political career. And it is an interesting, because this year here, he normally gets this money midway through the year. But this year, I believe he got it early on, because he probably knew he was retiring or getting out of office. And he took that money as a use for his you know, for his political wherewithal, wherever he wants to put it. I think it's wrong. I think Mr. Peter Epstein, who's the attorney who represents the city of Medford for cable issues, whose failure to tell this council when asked if there's going to be a hearing, I don't even know if he's going to be here to do the ascertainment hearing. But how do you ascertain something after the fact? Can you tell me that? I don't think you can answer that, because in your profession, You can never ascertain anything after the fact, because your clients are already, unfortunately, deceased. But these people, who are alive and well, don't have that ability. They don't have the ability to know why and how. I strongly suggest that anyone who wants to come to the meeting next week, and I hope this council votes that it takes place at 6 o'clock at night, not 2 o'clock in the afternoon, but they eliminate any special perks and privileges associated to the issuing authority, whether it be the mayor, the city council, whoever it might be. The fact of the matter is, over $300,000 right now is still sitting in the city's coffers because there's been no public access, I believe, since September of 2013 because of the mayor's failure, and I say intentional failure, to do his job to make sure that the board of directors of Channel 3 performed what they were supposed to perform in their motion of dissolution. I got to give Martha Healy, the new Attorney General, credit because she went right after the town of Lynn. And she put together an absolutely beautiful document going after them for failure of records, failure of minutes, inappropriate spending. in basically lying about their jobs. And that's what took place here in the city of Medford. And Judge Jackson, who was paid almost $15,000, wrote that in her report, that if those guys and girls did not get their act together, they should be removed. And the mayor is yet, and he has never removed them. He's been afraid to confront them. So with that being said, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: The motion is this. Relax. Don't get nervous. The motion is this. The next week's ascertainment hearing be changed from 2 o'clock in the afternoon to 6 o'clock at night to give every single Medford taxpayer who was a rate payer to Comcast Cable an opportunity to speak.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Upon reviewing our resolutions that we've had in the past, and I don't know, you know, where you go with this, I don't know who has a sense of priorities around here or not, but going back, I believe it's the first week in March, and this is now almost getting to the last week of April, those lights in Medford Square are still out. That public safety issue still is looming, and I don't know what it is that this administration doesn't see about the issue of public safety. We heard the chief of police say that the biggest sense of priority and security for a business person is to have a light in front of his. There's eight of them out. There's eight of them out and all within the close proximity to each other. And it just doesn't make any sense. Beside not having any lights on the Route 16 parking lot, for which this is now the 16th time that we're talking about it. You know, I don't understand why the mayor was getting out. Maybe I do understand. He doesn't want to deal with these issues. because he maybe doesn't know how to handle them. He doesn't know how to tell people to go down there and change the street light in a matter of public safety. But it's OK for us to talk about it and talk about it and talk about it. As you've acknowledged, Mr. Council President, when you were sitting on there, on the 13th time we talked about the lights on Route 16, and they're still not done. So I don't know what it's going to take. And I don't even know if a new administration can make these changes unless there's a completely new attitude where it's directly people-oriented, not me, myself-oriented, people-oriented, taxpayer-oriented. You know, we just spent—we increased our school—we increased our budget last year by over $2 million for the school department. And what did they do? They went out there and hired administrators, more administrators. You know, you're looking for quality education, sound education. You're looking at the herculean issue of Common Core, where it's going here in Massachusetts, and how it's affecting families, and the whole educational process. What are we going to do this year when the budget comes in? If we don't have that $2 million extra, where's the cut going to be? You know? So, with that being said, Mr. President, you know, lights are a very important issue to me because they signify public safety, you know, at a minimum. And, you know, this is now going on two months for those eight lights to be out. And maybe the mayor didn't pay the electric bill this month. I don't know. He got his $2,500 ahead of time from Comcast, you know, for a golf tournament. So, I don't know when he's going to have that one. You know, I just don't know. I don't know what goes through that guy's mind anymore. You know, maybe you do because you talk to him because he doesn't, you know, didn't he make one of the comments, the reason why he's getting out because he can't get along with the council. There's no communication. Well, the reason why there's no communication, he doesn't want to talk to us. I'd be more than happy to talk to him anytime. If he came before this podium right now and indicated that I'm going to do that, I've been a little bit remiss. Okay. Mr. Mayor, if he acknowledged that he made a mistake with the kiosk, I would be perfectly happy with that. If he turned around and says, okay, I've been a little dilatory on having public access, but this is what we're going to do. You're right. It's a real need. I would be okay with that, but we don't have that. We don't have that. What are you thanking me for? You thanking me for my comments? Thank you, Mr. President. I know they're good comments, and they're made on behalf of the taxpayers of this community.
[Robert Penta]: Present.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I move suspension of the fools to allow a citizen to speak as it relates to her concern.
[Robert Penta]: You made a comment that related to the fact that you have a handicap placard and you've been tagged three times?
[Robert Penta]: And you, did you relate that to the chief of police?
[Robert Penta]: This is, Mr. President, and anyone who might be listening, this is just symptomatic as to what's going on with Republic's attitude here in the city of Medford. We have a resolution further on into the agenda that will address some of these things. But attacking a person, so to speak, with a handicapped spot These people, it's obvious that they're not trained properly. They're out-of-towners. As far as I'm concerned, they're bounty hunters. They're just coming in here to make as much money as they can at the expense of the taxpayers and small business. So, when we get to this conversation, Mr. President, as I asked you before, when we have our meeting in some two weeks, this is a serious issue. Tagging people, especially people that have a handicapped placard, that's just not right. And that shows a complete dereliction of somebody's duty to their job, knowing who they should tag and who they shouldn't tag. So I thank you for bringing that forward.
[Robert Penta]: Just real quick on Councilor Lungo-Koehn's comments. I have pictures here of just this past week and as late as yesterday. with these trucks driving around, driving around, unmarked, in particular locations within the city, on the ring road, and designated spots where they're not supposed to be, giving out tickets at 7.38 a.m., which is supposed to not start until 8 o'clock in the morning, and we can continue on and on and on. This is in complete violation of the contract on page four of the contract that they have with the city of Medford. You know, I know, Mr. President, you're having the meeting on the 23rd. You know, I don't know how much can be resolved by then. But it's quite obvious. And I'll just end it by saying this. You know, they had the contract signed on October 10th of 2014. And they had the luxury from October 10th, 2014, to January 15th, when it was supposed to be implemented, and strike that first day of implementation. And on February 3rd, it was Councilor Caraviello's resolution offered before the council. Because at that point in time, from January 15th to February 2nd, The screens were so light and hard to read. The resolution was put on there. And as we speak today on April 7th, they're still the same way, hard to read, almost illegible, especially if the sun is out. And we can go through a whole litany of other things beside that. So it's just obvious. And their public relations, it just doesn't work. And maybe they had no human resource background on teaching the folks that are going to work here in this city how to handle the people, talk to the people, whether it's permit parking, whether it's just giving people out tickets and what have you. I think this has been a complete disaster, Mr. President. This is Mayor McGlynn's program. He owns it lock, stock, and barrel. And if anyone has a concern, as you continue to have concerns, please call his office and tell him that you're dissatisfied and you want resolution to these problems. Because I think the council is speaking up each and every week on behalf of the taxpayers, but the mayor is the one and the only one that can resolve it. He signed the contract. This is his ballgame. Thank you, councilor.
[Robert Penta]: Lachey Senescar, number 5.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Alan, you indicated that you've done a host of issues as it relates to hopefully remediating the noise. at that particular point. My question to you is this, as I'm talking, I'm looking for your email. I believe that you sent to one of the residents as it relates to noise being loud enough or disturbing enough that you folks would be offering space in your hospital for her to run her business. What's the difference between that time till now if the noise issue is still the same?
[Robert Penta]: OK. Mr. President, through you to the chair, I have a letter here dated September 6, 2013, for which you addressed to me. And in that letter, you addressed two particular issues, one regarding the positive effects if, in fact, the Lawrence Memorial Hospital does go in effect into a merger. And then you have an unending paragraph. It says, on a second matter, which is about the noise emitted into the neighborhood from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, we have contracted with a firm to install covers over the air intakes at LMH. The installation is scheduled for next Friday. It should reduce the sound a great deal, and we hope it will provide relief to the neighbors needed. So there is an acknowledgment dating back to 2013 that the hospital acknowledges that there's an issue of noise in the neighborhood. Now, if the state is coming in or the city is coming in, and maybe they're not there on a 24-hour basis, they may be just coming in there and putting up one of those ear monitor machines and seeing if they hear. I personally was in the hospital in a doctor's office. that faces the Lawrence Road side. And I could hear it in the doctor's office. Was it consistent? No. But it did run in intermittent periods of time. Now, I believe it was some two to three weeks ago, the resident, Mrs. Casey, appeared before the council. And I believe, and I could be wrong because I know she's sitting there, she had what she had, what I believe, which is an independent contractor who would be willing to come in and service, I believe it was a $400 or $500 fee. I could be reading this wrong, but my impression was that I believe that she would accept and hopefully the hospital would accept whatever the findings might be that would make resolution to the matter. And Mrs. Casey is there. She can speak for herself, but I think that's the way I understood it. And that should not be at her cost. It should be at the hospital's cost because the track record exists that you folks at the hospital before you became CEO, and I wish you good luck. Um, but more importantly, you know, the neighborhood right now is an issue and it's, it'll always be an issue as long as that hospital is there.
[Robert Penta]: The only difference is this. You make a lot more money than we do. That's the difference. So you have to do a good job to stay in your position. The people can throw us out at any time. But you're stuck there with a good salary.
[Robert Penta]: Your own e-mails acknowledge the fact that a noise problem did exist. And however they've been resolved, mitigated or whatever they might be, so be it. But can we have Mrs. Casey just answer that question? I think this will resolve the whole problem.
[Robert Penta]: Sure.
[Robert Penta]: Nobody's saying that. I just, just want this problem resolved and to go away. So could we just, can we have Mrs. Casey just answer that question?
[Robert Penta]: Well, I don't think it's that. I think it's just getting to a final resolution and maybe this outside independent of both of you can bring resolution to the problem. And I think she would be willing to accept it as well. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Alan, one of the things that came out of the report from the new Attorney General Maury Healy was not only the concern of maybe lack of competition, but I believe that there were 50 other medical senior people, doctors in hospitals, who indicated that there was no belief that those prices were going to go down. And I think that was one of the major issues. Another concern, if I understood it correctly, is the fact that even if this merger is or were to have taken place, the guarantee that the Lawrence Memorial Hospital would become part of the Mass General or the Partners Group did not have a beginning date. They had that five-year window, so to speak. And I think one of the concerns, because in my letter that I addressed to both attorney generals and to the judge, is that if this were to take place, I think that the licensure should become operative immediately. So that way the city of Medford knows that the Lawrence Memorial Hospital is not in a holding patent, and we're not going to be just shuffled around. so to speak, because I'll speak for myself. My opinion is the Melrose-Wakefield right now seems to have gotten the bigger bite of the apple of what could possibly be had here for the city of Medford. So I don't think the Lawrence Memorial is out of the ballgame at all. I think it's still in there. But I would strongly, and I would write it again, and I would repeat my letter to whoever the attorney or the judge might be, that the Medford licensure for the Lawrence Memorial Hospital has to become an immediate decision Uh, not a decision breaker, an immediate decision. So the patients, the administration, the doctors, everybody knows that this hospital is alive and well, and it's not on a holding patent because that was the one thing that you did not read in the decision that was, that was rented by Martha Coakley. That licensure was not in there. And I know Maura Healy has a different, a different position on that.
[Robert Penta]: My apologies, Councilor. Judge Saunders, in her written opinion, was very specific as it related to the cost containment not being able to be proven by partners, and also, I believe, the competition that the cost containment could not prove that it would be able to do. I think in the decision that was rendered by the Attorney General, the first one, Coakley, I believe there was a five or a six year gap in there or a window that they said that they wouldn't raise rates.
[Robert Penta]: And I think when Maura Healey, the new Attorney General, was looking for something that would be more of an establishment, that it would be well recognized and it could be amortized out. And I think that was one of the things that was That was deficient in the report that Martha Coakley, the original Attorney General, who rendered her opinion on that. But the licensure issue is the key.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. And I think whatever your negotiations might be right now with partners, I think that should probably be premier right on the table. We'd like to be a party of this, but we have to have an understanding. that we have doctors that are well-respected in this community. You know, we don't want them to leave. We certainly don't want the citizens of Medford to leave the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. And for whatever and however, it's going to be left as an established hospital. But if we don't have our license or our licensure, however you want to term it, in hand, then we have to wait. That's just going to prompt these people to leave. It's going to prompt your nurses to say, hey, wait a minute. Where am I going to go?
[Robert Penta]: I know that. On that issue with the bushes. There was an agreement. No, no, no. The unfortunate part about that, the folks at the nursing home cut the bushes down by mistake. I understand that. Or whatever. And it was at the behest of the residents that forced the issue for which the hospital, the nursing home, had to put the bushes back. So no fault of the residents. I didn't say that.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you indicated through a mutual agreement. There was no mutual agreement.
[Robert Penta]: But you just said now. We made our point of clarification.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Council. I believe it was this council that made a request that have either Maura Healy or someone from her office attend a city council meeting to explain that position. And I believe also a request to have someone from the hospital to be here. I don't want to be that presumptuous to say to go ahead and support it because the new plan may not be advantageous to the Lawrence Memorial Hospital.
[Robert Penta]: Uh, and amendment, uh, request from Councilor Penta that the, uh, emotion also be amended to, to read that the, uh, Medford city council supports an immediate licensure approval for the Lawrence Memorial hospital. Uh, how do we say it? You know what I'm trying to say rather than having it approved and you have five years to work within it, that the license is effective for the hospital immediately to become interactive with the, um, uh, partners. Um, what would the proper terminal? Oh, that, uh, that,
[Robert Penta]: The chair recognizes Councilor Penta. Number 2B, the lighting. Can you explain where is this lighting going to be? Please state your name and address for the record, sir.
[Robert Penta]: Just on that issue right there, you're going to have that shooting off the building or are these going to be individual stanchions shooting down?
[Robert Penta]: So through the chair, if you're saying that you're going to shut the lights off at X amount of time. No, no. We didn't say we're going to shut the lights off. Well, I thought the whole idea was to give you the... Go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: That's inside the building, I'm talking about outside.
[Robert Penta]: So then how does that complete the purpose, as Councilor Marks alluded to in the beginning, of people just coming in there and wanting to hang around, because they're going to see the lights on outside.
[Robert Penta]: Um, I'm just a little bit perplexed on, on the motion to be honest with you, because we are now asking to get ourselves involved in a private institutions right to do whatever they want. And the social justice part of it, for which I understand, is very compelling, not knowing whether the jobs are going to be here or the jobs are not going to be there. But I've never seen the Medford City Council make the same argument for employees within this building, whether they're going to get laid off or not going to get laid off. And this is not within our purview. If you're looking for a vote that basically says it's not right, so be it. I've never seen Tufts University come down to this podium and tell us what to do and how to run our city. It's not their job. It's not our job to be telling them what to do. Do we feel bad about it? Sure we do. But I don't think this belongs within the realm of the Medford City Council. If the council individually wants to take it upon themselves and write a letter, to the school and indicate to the school, to the new president, Barbara Rubell, the public relations lady, that we don't think this is right, so be it. But the fact of the matter is, they are a private institution. They don't come under any control of this Medford City Council. And for us to go out of our way to try to say, You know, I would hope that they would save whatever their jobs might be. So be it. But I don't see them coming down here and telling us how to run our government. Mrs. Beatrice just came up here. I don't see them coming down here and telling her how to invest those monies that she has a responsibility and the trust fund for. I don't see that happening. I just think we're going into a territory that's, you know, as far as I'm concerned, it's never been charted before. I just don't think that, you know, It's going to serve any purpose, other than the fact of Tufts University, they get a resolution from the Medford City Council. Well, I don't know. Is it Somerville City Council? Are they doing the same thing? I don't know. April 9th. With that being said, Mr. President, I just don't think we're going in the right direction on this. And while I feel bad, and I don't know whether the jobs are going to be cut or not, I mean, if they're having such a large expansion, Common sense would tell me if they're going to be expanding more of their footprint, why would they be laying off rather than not hiring more to take care of the buildings of their new footprint? I don't know. And with that being said, I just can't support this right now. I don't think we have everything in front of us that we really need for the facts. I think it's emotional right now as it stands, and I can understand that. But if you're spending all this kind of money for all this expansion, which is in the multi-millions of dollars, Well, I mean, why should they even be considered to be losing their jobs? I don't know. Maybe we should have somebody from Tufts University come down here and explain it to us, and then maybe the vote will have more of a substance rather than the emotion that it's going to have right now at the podium. Mr. President?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I'm looking at the recommendation, and I will admit that it does have merit. There's a word in here that I didn't realize was in here. I was reading it. Maybe I read it wrong. I have no problem saying that Medford City Council respectfully recommends, because I think that has a different tone to it, okay? And the word reassess is not telling them exactly to do it, but I think it's implied. So with that being said, and I agree with Councilor Marks, you know, I think this is, it's a good resolution, because again, like I said, I don't think we're out to hurt anybody, but the fact of the matter is, you know, we have to look at our own building, what goes on in this entire building here between and amongst ourselves. We have positions that are understaffed and we have positions maybe that are overstaffed, I don't know. But as far as that goes, I would like to, after the word Medford City Council, put the word respectfully recommends. Because usually that's what a Medford City Council resolution does. They respectfully recommend.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, it's another wonderful Medford business person who, through the years, has helped so many individuals in this community make sure they got their tickets to enjoy sporting and community and family events, whether they be at the Boston Garden or other locations. So I just think it would be a nice way to say hello, give them a recommendation, and a happy birthday. The President Great guy. And thank you for that.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Um, thank you. Counsel Lingo, because I, I, it does, it touches everybody. Uh, this past Friday, a good friend of the family, 25 years old in New Hampshire doesn't make any difference where it comes from. Died of an overdose. Okay. It's, it's, it's, it's a sad situation, but I just like to travel back in time. And if you remember when we had this mini epidemic that was going on in the schools and the elementary grade, with the stamps. Remember when they were licking the stamps and there was drugs in the stamps and the kids got hooked on it? I think you may have been on the school committee at the time, Councilman LSD, okay? And they were giving it to the kids for nothing back then to get them hooked on it. And that's just so such a, it was a sad state of affairs back then. And I think parents and the schools, everybody got involved with it and stuff like that. When you talk about education, Councilor Lingo, I think every teacher, from kindergarten all the way up, needs to be educated on this particular subject matter. It's an educational course that's not English or history or social studies. It's an educational course of everyday life that's taking place in their classroom. And the child, other than having their parents at home, it's the teacher in the classroom that probably has them more at a confined time and period than any other time in their life as they're growing up. And the teachers need to recognize all the shortcomings. Now, the fact of the matter is, and I don't know, somebody out there mentioned the fact about, you know, the criminal aspect of it, and it's true. There needs to be, that component has to be attacked just as well because there has to be something that destroys the idea of having a seller give these drugs out or kids get themselves addicted to it and what have you. I believe that there's a law out there right now that says if you have any kind of a drug or you sell it within 1,000 feet or is it 500 feet of a school, it's a mandatory two or three years, whatever it might be. You know, there's been proponents for years going up on Beacon Hill saying that anyone who gets caught selling drugs to a student should have a mandatory five-year sentence. Then there was some as high as 10 years. Whether that's the issue to stop it or not, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that they're out there selling it, and there are more people using harrowing now than ever before. And I think that day, it couldn't have been any more telling when that lady stood up there at that vigil and told us that she didn't lose one, but she lost two sons. And she lost a second son after he was four years clean. This is — it just doesn't go away. And it's something that a parent has to live with, day in and day out. We're all around this rail subject to — whether it's our own kids, our grandkids, or relatives within our family, or friends outside the family. You know, it's out there. And I think the police department, whether it's local, state, or federal, they have a big job in their hands. And what they need to do, and what the judges need to do, they need to step up to the plateau. Instead of giving them a slap on the wrist, or giving them suspended sentences, they need to send them away and do their job. And maybe they should build the jails in Wellesley, and Newton, and Lexington, and the high-priced towns where a lot of these people are doing the selling, and that's where they're coming from. It affects every single body, and every single life, and every single community, rich, poor, and indifferent. So I thank you, Councilor Langel. But you know something? You know what I'd like to have you do? I'd like to put an amendment on there. I'd like to have you have the superintendent of schools report back to this council, and I'd like to have you give him a time period that what he is doing within his school system with his teachers, so we all have an idea as to what's going on. And I think that puts the pressure on that, hey, if you're really serious about addressing this thing within our school system, because this council is serious about it, because we've all affected it, We've all been affected by a loss by someone, immediate or otherwise, then we're doing something about it, and we want to see it. We want to see it in the agenda. We want to see it in the budget of the school department, and we want to have it come and televised and publicized to every single taxpayer in this community what they should be on the lookout for, because the school department's going to do it, and the parents should be apprised of it as well.
[Robert Penta]: And as, strike that, have it amended that the superintendent respond back as to what his plan is for each and every one of the teachers in the school system.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, prevention.
[Robert Penta]: On that particular resolution, can we also have a copy of that resolution sent to the governor's opiate, I can't think of the exact title of his commission, because what they're looking for is input from cities and towns as it relates to their concerns as it relates to that. I don't know the exact name of the commission, but he has a commission. It's the Opium Addition Tax Force, because if we could send a copy of that to them and keep them apprised.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. He's just a co-chairman of a committee, but I don't know what he's doing.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, I'm not on that committee. Are you on that committee, Councilor Penter? Not on that committee, no.
[Robert Penta]: Well, when he gave that comment at the vigil, I think they said they were- Did he dispose of the matter already? He said he was working on it. I don't know what he's doing.
[Robert Penta]: The card and shelf, this is probably, I think, maybe the 14th time that this council has addressed this. And I just don't know why the mayor just doesn't want to listen. Four months now, I mean, four weeks now into downtown Medford Square, and again, the lights are out. And you can go to all the squares, and it's epidemic. You know, National Grid, which has the lights for the city of Medford, used to have a gentleman at nighttime drive around the city, and he would identify all the lights that were out, and they would be repaired. Now, that stopped some time ago, and since that stopped, the city of Medford has done nothing to pick up the slack as it relates to that. I mean, you have to be blind not to realize, when you're driving through Medford Square right now, that there are eight lights out between CVS and going toward the banks and into the square. You know, public safety is a big thing. If you have to ask the chief of police, as I said today, what is your biggest public safety concern as it relates to breaking and entering? And he said, it's lighting. And in downtown Medford, you go to Haines Square, you go to West Medford, you go to North Medford. These lights are just out. So I don't know what it's going to take for the mayor to realize that he has a responsibility. He's got to come out of that corner office that he hides in all day long, and he doesn't want to see what's going on. He needs to see what's going on. This is a public safety issue. It's going on each and every day. This is four weeks running now that those lights are out. And there's no excuse to say that we don't have personnel. From my understanding, they just got through hiring a new gentleman that's going to be in charge of the electrical department, a former Metro resident. So with that being said, it isn't like they don't have anybody. They don't have the personnel. And if they need to stagger a person for one day a week at nighttime to drive around to identify the lights that are out and then go out and correct them during the day, then just do it. National Grid is not doing it. We need to do it, again. This is leadership that is so broken and fallen apart. I have no idea. I have absolutely no idea what's going on and how this city runs on so many of these issues. But this is a public safety issue. You can speak to the chief of police and every police officer will tell you the same thing. Once those lights go out and as the lights continue to go out, it does present a public safety to a public person walking, driving, and to the value and to the safety of the store. that these lights are supposedly on there to shine on and to protect people's business investments here in the city of Medford. It's bad enough you go down residential streets and some of the lights are out, but when they're in the downtown business working area and the lights are out, you have now multiplied that problem for an incident of crime to take place or an accident to take place. So that being said, Madam President, I move that the Medford City Council on a roll call vote tell the mayor to get these lights on immediately in the interest of public safety.
[Robert Penta]: Real quick, even though, and I appreciate the remarks as it relates to the Route 16, equally as important is the lighting in the downtown area, especially downtown Medford with these lights out. So, you know, these resolutions just don't go on the agenda lightly as all of us do, because, you know, we're believing we're doing it. But if we can't get our responses, and that's why I said last week, we have a resolution on there. I hope the city clerk has upgraded his thing and he inserted the 10-day slot, because that'll really tell us where we're going. on a lot of these things. We still haven't gotten a response back from upstairs on the MS4, which is right around the corner, which is going to be a big cost to the city if, in fact, we have to follow the EPA guidelines. We haven't gotten anything regarding, you know, our street recovery program. We could just go on and on and on and a whole bunch of issues, but he's just not responding to them. Maybe because he feels that the council is not bothering him, he's not going to respond to it. So if that be the case, then maybe what we need to do after Mr. Finn puts that 10-day period in, we just put it on here and we override his veto. And then from there, it just becomes law. If I understand the way the rules go, if he doesn't respond within 10 days, it becomes operative. Is that correct, Mr. Finn? If he does not respond in 10 days, 10 business working days, the resolution asked becomes operative. And if he sends it back with a no, we take a two-thirds vote and override the veto. And if we override the veto, then we figure out what needs to be done. And if he wants to challenge this charter as the charter is written, well, then let it begin now because this is really becoming totally unacceptable. These resolutions aren't even for ourselves. These are for the taxpayers of the community. They pay taxes for what we're talking about. And that man over there in the corner who wants to play King Solomon, he can't understand what's going on.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote, Madam President, and send it to the mayor.
[Robert Penta]: Madam President, once again today, as late as today, I have pictures here, right here on the infamous ring road. Then we have, I think it's Benton Street and South Metro, right down the street from you, Councilor Dello Russo, okay? And then we also have, I had a 42-minute conversation with our chief of police tonight as he relates to this. I told him, chief, the resolution's on there, you know what it's saying, you know what it's all about. I have tickets here that people continuously keep giving me, telling me that they're collecting monies from the meters that they're not supposed to be collecting. If you read the contract, the contract tells you how these vehicles are supposed to be addressed and highlighted. I know Councilor Dello Russo is calling for a meeting, I believe it's Wednesday the 22nd, I believe, or the 23rd, whatever it is. And we're going to have the people from Republic, the Chief of Police, and I believe it's the Traffic Commission. And as the council has asked, Mr. Finn, we've asked prior to that meeting to have a list of all the resolutions that the traffic commission has and is voted upon and what's still outstanding. And one of the things that outstanding Councilor Marks is I asked the chief about it. Um, I believe that your resolution regarding the 15 minute, um, grace period, I believe today, I, a lady got out of her car in Medford square and she, walked to the kiosk, and while she walked to the kiosk, the guy from Republic, the bounty hunter from Republic came over, and he gave her a ticket, which is absolutely crazy, because think of this logically, anybody who's out there watching, you go to Bedford Square, you park, and if you're five or six car lengths removed from the kiosk, by the time you go to the kiosk and walk back, how are you supposed to do what you're supposed to do, and the guy is going out there giving these tickets, and today he's holding this handheld thing. It's not right, it doesn't make any sense, and it's absolutely not fair. But the real good issue is going to come in two weeks. Now just think, what's going to happen here in two weeks? Does anybody know? We're going to have a carnival, aren't we? And the carnival is going to be taking up all the parking spaces here at City Hall. So all these wonderful people who are going to bring their kids and think they're going to go to a carnival and not worry about the parking are going to go park in that parking lot over there with those stupid, stupid little kiosks or against the building for which nobody can see at the end of the day, and the tickets are going to be galore. And then you're going to really see, you're really going to see the people getting upset about that. And the police department, because they're not going to want to handle it because it's not in their bailiwick, because that's what they agreed upon by a union vote, not to be involved, to get involved, but anything to do with the ticketing. And unfortunately for this chief of police, for which this wonderful mayor has saddled him with the responsibility of resolving all these problems. Well, as I said before, and I said to the chief, unfortunately, this is not your job. You should be doing police work, not parking work. The parking work should be done by the mayor. And to have him indicate and say that he's never received a complaint, he's absolutely, I don't know what he's drinking or smoking, but he's on something, whatever it might be. We heard a lady here come up here tonight and tell you from her beauty parlor that she not only wrote him, but she called him. We had last week, and I have the letter here, from Mystic Valley, the thing for pediatrics. We got the doctor, we got the employees, and we have people who are seniors who were there, gave the names of the individuals who didn't even know how to use, never mind the kiosk, but getting tagged. People who have handicapped placards getting tagged. I spoke to a lady that went to Here's Karen in West Medford during the second storm, the third storm, excuse me, an elderly woman whose daughter was driving her to Here's Karen. She gets getting out of the car and the Republic guy comes up to her, tells her to hurry up and move the car or you're going to get a ticket while the lady's walking into the store. Now that's not what you call good business. And then when you go in all the parking lots, the signs that say two hour parking is still up, And they're still giving out tickets. It's supposed to be three-hour parking. So we're right back to where we went right from the beginning. The contract was signed October 10. I don't even think there's been any human relations interaction between any of these people that work for National Republic and the city of Medford. I mean, pardon me? They're ambassadors. I don't know what they're, yeah, you know, they're ambassadors for bounty hunters. That's what they are. So with that being said, Madam President, I just really think, and I know we're going to have a meeting on the, I think it's the 23rd, but the contract, the violations just keep continuing. The pictures don't lie. And I think today, I think we all got, or at least I got an email from folks on Frederick Avenue. who have legitimate parking permits to be parked there. They got tagged yesterday and today. So where does this begin and where does this begin and end? It's obvious the republic doesn't know their job or the people that are working for them don't know the territory of their job. They're giving out tickets indiscriminately. Last week, I believe the chief had to go up to Boston Avenue. and resolve tickets for business people up there who are legitimately parked in a 30-minute parking zone, in a loading zone, delivering, making a delivery, and emptying stuff out of their car. And the response from the Republic, if you don't like it, appeal it. Well, that's not the way it's supposed to be. They should go and do their job. Madam President, I would hope when the Chief comes in two weeks, and the Traffic Commission comes in two weeks, Mr. Nash, and whoever he wants to come from in two weeks. It's obvious, all these things need to get resolved. But Councilor Marks, you came up with a good idea, I think it was a couple of weeks ago, or maybe it was last week. For those people who have paid, let's find out how great this electronic system is that they have. If I paid before eight, and I paid after six, they should have a listing of all of that, because my number plate was supposed to be tied into that system. And if we all remember correctly, And I think I do, because the records will reflect. I think that they said that they keep the records in that machine either for six weeks, if not eight weeks, okay? And if they keep them in there, pardon me? No, they don't purge them, they keep them for six, they have to keep them for the appeal period. They have to keep them for at least the appeal period. So I think it, yeah, the tickets, okay, in the system. So with that being said, I think there should be no reason not to find out, Councilor Marks, there should be no reason not to find out how many people and how much money that they took. That's illegally, they illegally, that's, you know, that's a meat of robbery, if that's what you want to call it, okay? And that's perpetrating a fraud. And you know who's getting rich out of this? Not only that, the mayor, he's making money on this because it goes to the end of the bottom line. But it's not right. It's bad enough you're taxing the people to death, and now you have this new McGlynn tax that's every single day. Don't take money that shouldn't be taken.
[Robert Penta]: Real quick, Rick, I'm going to go back to December 23rd of this past year. Your resolution, the mayor hasn't even acknowledged it, and you even gave him a grace period. Your resolution, as it relates to 14-795, basically says, and that we had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, we had almost 11 people speak that night, amended by Councilor Caraviello, that a 60-day evaluation take place with the mayor and republic with the council. And we gave the grace period to begin when it became operative in January 15th, okay? This is now April 7th. Never mind not having any meeting, we've got no financials. So this is what I would like to do in preparation for our meeting. Since we haven't had our 60-day meeting, I would like to amend and have the council go on record that effective immediately that we meet with the council every 30 days for the purposes of going over its finances and all the complaints and the concerns that we have until this thing gets itself resolved. Because we're going to be meeting with the traffic commission, And that's just going to be a one-shot deal. And if we can't get them to give us a response after 60 days, and if we follow what you're saying, Councilor Marks, and we now go 30 days after that, forget it. How much more time do you want to give them to get their act together?
[Robert Penta]: The 23rd, Wednesday.
[Robert Penta]: I want to have this resolved before we did once again to the concerns that were going to take place on the meeting of the 23rd.
[Robert Penta]: Is it the 23rd or the 22nd, Eddie?
[Robert Penta]: 22nd.
[Robert Penta]: Just before we do that, Madam President, Again, with all these pictures that are there, and the chief knows about it, he's aware about it, he's instructed Republic on more than one occasion to do it, and they haven't done it. And once again, I'm just publicly saying to the chief and any police officer out there, you see these cars, tag them. Tag them and tow them. Get them off the road. Because you know something? If a poor guy drives down the street and he doesn't have a sticker on his windshield because he wasn't inspected, that's a $50 fine, and he has the right to have his car impounded. The same thing without having a registration. These guys have been around since January. And from January till now, they still haven't gotten their act together, especially with their vehicles that they go out and they try to enforce the rules that they can't even have it. They try to enforce rules that they won't obey, but they want other people to obey. It's just not right, Madam President. That's what happens when you go out of town and you get out-of-towners. And these people are bounty hunters, and they probably have quotas, and they're going to do everything they can now to make life miserable, to make up for what they lost during the storms.
[Robert Penta]: It's a violation of the contract. They've done it since January.
[Robert Penta]: But my question is, the police aren't the enforcing authority on city contracts. The Registry of Motor Vehicles has a site and section that says if you make frequent stops, you have to have that on the back of your vehicle that says This vehicle makes frequent stops.
[Robert Penta]: And they have not done that.
[Robert Penta]: All they have is those stupid flashing yellow lights. All right. That's my question. I didn't know what was actually wrong with the vehicles, because I still haven't seen them, to be honest with you. You're not going to see them if you don't have them. I see the pictures every week. That's it.
[Robert Penta]: Aye.
[Robert Penta]: Madam President, can we allow suspension of the rules to allow a citizen to speak? Name and address for the record.
[Robert Penta]: One of the things I think it's kind of like really enlightening to read is the action that's taking place against the city of Lynn where the prosecution really, the prosecutorial process has really gone in depth as it relates to the finances that took place in the city of Lynn that were just not being justified and accountable for. And we have been asking for a long period of time over here the former people that worked for Channel 3 to submit their finances, and it started back at Mark Rumley, when they call it the Rumley Report, and then when we had Judge Thompson, and now we're here, and nothing's taking place, you know, and the mayor owes it. The mayor owes it. to every single TV subscriber. He owes it to this council. We keep talking about it. He's sitting on $300,000 of subscribers' monies with absolutely no accounting. And this is what precipitated the lawsuit in Lynn. And this is how they're all getting sued individually for whatever it might be worth. Lynn is one of eight communities that, unfortunately, the public access channels just apparently ran amok because nobody was watching over them. Just like this city here, nobody watching over them. And when the voluntary dissolution supposedly took place, I think it was October of 2013 to now, and they said that they were going to submit all these papers, and the Attorney General blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and is just out there in limbo. But this new Attorney General, Mara Healy, she must mean action. Well, big difference for Martha Coakley, because this one here at least does something whether you like it or you don't. She gets back to you and she responds. And their in-depth action against the Lynne Cable television should be the groundwork already being done for the city of Medford just to copy the same thing and go after these culprits who just not has done what they're supposed to have done as it relates to, you know, providing the information, the minutes, the finances, you know, the equipment. It's just, it's just outrageous. And for the mayor, And for the man not to have this public hearing, for which is required by just common sense, I mean, just for transparency, even if you don't want to even do anything but have it and let the people come and talk, what is he afraid of? I don't understand this man. I just don't understand it. He doesn't like the council because he doesn't respond to us. He tolerates the school committee because he has to go every other Monday when he has to go. He never responds to our resolutions. This is not leadership that works anymore. It might have worked in the beginning for him, but it's absolutely out of control. It's lazy. It's gone asleep. It's broken. And I think he's probably thinking about, you know, maybe these bounty hunters have a better job than him. And who knows, maybe he's going to go join a company like that. I have no idea, but this, this is absolutely not working.
[Robert Penta]: do you want to ask also in that FIOS contract the finances as it relates to it how much we get each quarter and you know how does that work into the whole program no no where are those monies that they come together with Comcast and FIOS you know we can find those resolve motion all those in favor all right all those opposed passes
[Robert Penta]: If anyone knew Joe Conway, you'd realize he was a consummate person that you would want to be a representative of this city. He always smiled. He was never rude. He was polite. He knew his job. He was friendly. And at the same time, he did his job like he was supposed to. And if you needed a break, he would help you out, making sure that you did what you were supposed to do. That's what I remember about Joe. Always had a smile on his face and was always willing to talk and help out people. And I think I wish I could say that for everybody in this building, but at least we can say that about Joe.
[Robert Penta]: On the back portion, Mr. Wendy. Mr. Wendy.
[Robert Penta]: Big Dave, whatever your name is. Behind Wendy's, isn't there an apartment complex being scheduled to be built there?
[Robert Penta]: And how many units? Do you have any idea how many units?
[Robert Penta]: I think one of the concerns before, just one council member just resurrected this in my head, on the lighting. And they wanted to make sure it was not going to be intrusive to the apartment buildings to the immediate left of them. I just don't know how the lighting is going to affect the apartments that are going to be behind you. And can we get some kind of a lighting scheme as to what's going to go in there? Because if it's going to be intrusive to the new development in the back, I think we're going to have to address that.
[Robert Penta]: It will not be lit?
[Robert Penta]: So this outside seating area will have no lights at all at any time during the day or night?
[Robert Penta]: So maybe, Councilor Mack, you can make a request that there be no lighting there after 11 o'clock at night? No, he said there is some along the side. Nothing near the patio at all.
[Robert Penta]: I do not believe you can waive a public hearing, Mr. Clark. Can you or can you not? Do it quick. It's for the public.
[Robert Penta]: No, it's a public hearing because you're asking to waive one of the ingredients of the hearing. Can't the Council... The Chair will... The Chair will... Wait a minute. If the Council votes for this right now and then for next week have a motion of reconsideration on the time sequence on that, can we do that? On the license. You would have to reconsider. Tomorrow, but we wouldn't have to go to the whole public hearing process and advertising or anything like that, correct?
[Robert Penta]: No, he just said no. You have to have the hand. You have to go through the whole thing. He has to read the paper.
[Robert Penta]: I forgot your name. What is it? Tony. Tony?
[Robert Penta]: Why do you want three o'clock? Have you done some kind of analysis that says you're going to make a lot of money up to three o'clock?
[Robert Penta]: One of my concerns, I want to go back to Councilor Marks, and you talked about the neighborhood. And it's true, in a hot summer's night, air conditioning's in a whole bunch of nine yards. Are you comfortable, John Edwards, are you comfortable with 3 o'clock as compared to 2?
[Robert Penta]: That's open 24 hours? The Dunkin' Donuts on the mall?
[Robert Penta]: The three o'clock is not going to be every night?
[Robert Penta]: So when we review this thing in six months, it's possible that you may not even be open until three, you may only be open until two or whatever it might be. Correct.
[Robert Penta]: All set, Mr. President. Quick question.
[Robert Penta]: You have a note here from Diane as it relates to everything looking good, One of your entrances having two feet, three inches, has that been corrected?
[Robert Penta]: She makes something here, which I've never seen before. It says, do you have people who will seat them, or will they seat themselves? And do you have an accessible seating policy? Is that something new?
[Robert Penta]: But will the person seat these people in this area?
[Robert Penta]: I've just never seen that before.
[Robert Penta]: Real quick, I'd like to just insert one question, where you have five dollars, it should be for a citizen copy. Okay, so that way you're there because governmental agencies would be entitled to it anyway.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, after I put this resolution on board, if anybody saw it, Apple, the Apple industry, Apple Computer Company, came out with their newest and latest of technologies for which they even allege it will be a challenge to Comcast customers. as it relates to not only their streaming, but also as it relates to the technology of being able to get that for which Comcast is offering its subscribers, as well as other internet providers. Also, Mr. President, unfortunately or fortunately, however you want to look at it, we got this letter dated December 18th that was delivered by UPS to this building over here. Unfortunately, it wasn't timestamped, so whoever had it and sat on it, and didn't relay it to the council as they should have, or to the city clerk's office as they should have, it just really presents a big issue because the 10 years is just about expiring, which is right around the corner. There's been no talk of having a public hearing, for which the mayor apparently is refusing to have because you're less than a month away, a little bit more than a month away to do this advertising. Also, there's an obligation, I believe under the contract, Even according to the folks from Xfinity, which is Mr. Kelly, and he writes in his letter of December 18th, that we didn't get until just last week, that the city has an obligation under the formal renewal process to either accept or deny Comcast's proposal within four months, or no later than April 18th. And this was hand-delivered by UPS on December 18th, and we received it last week. Taking that into consideration, and now seeing what's out there, We know what's happened with 10-year contracts here in the city. The first one is the rubbish contract for 10 years. The latest one is the outrageous kiosks that are operating here in the city of Medford, causing all kinds of problems, not only to our residents, but also to the small business people in this community. And now the mayor wants to saddle us again with another 10-year contract, and this time giving absolutely no public access for the purposes of information. The unfortunate part about all of this, Mr. President, The technologies are so far advanced out there that if you traverse yourself out to the states of California and in that particular territory, those folks that had even public access on the peg stations are now moving to get rid of them because they are basically alleging that they're serving no purpose other than making a huge cost and a dent in the cost of cable subscription. I believe Comcast and Verizon, as it relates to both of their service people, have merged in many of those cities and towns. as far as the service goes. And there is some movement that maybe Xfinity and Verizon might even merge in the future. But that's just another issue right now. Right now we're dealing with the 10-year issue that the city should not go forward and sign this contract. And anyone who has Comcast out there right now, send a letter, call the mayor's office, and just tell them not to sign this contract. What's Comcast going to do? Just pick up and walk out of the city? I don't think so. But the fact of the matter is the technology is so far advanced right now. It's out there. It's happening right in front of our faces, and Apple, Couldn't have proved it anymore, as they did last Thursday when they came out online. They did a seven and a half minute demo of showing how advanced, not only are they over cable television, but the new technologies that are out there, plus their merging and interaction with other subsidiaries that are into this particular type of a situation. We've seen also what's happened with the PEG access stations, when communities around us got themselves in trouble by misappropriating the funds, who went to jail for eight years, Who's being subject to an attorney general investigation? And it's just not fair. We have here in our own city of Medford an investigation that's going on. We were led to believe at some point in time that the public access channel was going to file dissolution. And they said they were, and they haven't. We have papers here tonight that come from the attorney general's office, especially the charitable affairs division, which are basically saying it is still under investigation. I don't know how much more investigation it can be when there's hundreds of thousands of dollars missing and unaccounted for. But when they're missing and unaccounted for, and the mayor of this community sits by and does absolutely nothing about it, and then he wants to even entertain possibly thinking of signing a new 10-year contract with a company that does nothing more than raise the rates each and every time they have a chance. And it's the same mayor in this community who happens to have a pretty good deal Concast, who recently gave him $5,000 for whatever he wanted to use within the community, and I believe there's a $30,000 or thereabout in account that he has used to do whatever he's wanted, unbeknownst to this council as it relates to whatever he feels a charitable event needs to take place here in this community. You know, Mr. Kelly, who's the Director of Governmental Affairs and Regulations, has never offered that to the City Council. He's never made that away to the taxpayers of this community. I'm not so sure the mayor would want to sign this because he has a particular perk that he gets out of this for himself to use whatever he wants to use. I'm not so sure, Mr. President, that public access here in the city of Medford, for which the city has in its coffers in excess of $300,000, if not more, that have been taken from subscribers to Comcast, who have had no public access for well over a year and a half or thereabouts, is the right way to go now in the future. The mayor wants to put this new public access channel up at the high school. It is not readily available, it's not easily accessible, it's not on a bus route that way you get off, it's an easily walking distance, and especially at nighttime, it presents itself with a handicap and a public safety issue. So with that being said, and recognizing that there was a three-member commission that the mayor empowered earlier this year, whether he agreed or disagreed with the folks that were on there, They did make recommendations that basically talked about keeping this thing centrally located, easily accessible, and something that could work. And to this day, the mayor still doesn't have it. He's quoted a saying back in 2014, excuse me, before the election, that public access would be made available and it would be in the city of Medford and it would be operational. Well, where is it? It doesn't exist. The mayor has taken personal advantage on the public access of Channel 15, the educational channel for his own, personal use for which he uses personnel from the high school for his own personal public affairs to have him televised anytime he wants on their dime while they should be teaching in school, not doing, they shouldn't be taking care of him. You know, we just heard tonight from the subcommittee of the council that was on relative to having our council meetings put on the government access. I mean, to be put on the city's website. That would be a great way to go. But I doubt it, if the mayor would allow that, because if there's anything that's controversial that doesn't speak well of the mayor, it's not gonna go. It's not gonna show. You know, Comcast, they may have been good at one point in time. I know Councilor Camuso, you had made comment, I think it was last week or two weeks ago, that maybe we should go back and just rescind the order that the council voted on, whatever it might be. We never got an answer back from the city clerk on that. So, pardon me?
[Robert Penta]: Okay, so with that being said, be it a homeroom petition or what have you, I don't think it's fair, especially to the ratepayers, who keep paying each and every month, each and every month, each and every month, and getting nothing forward, you know, and that's the problem with society today. People become so inundated with all these nuances, they just let it go by, and while they let it go by, the city keeps generating money, In an account that serves no purpose for the rate payers, and at the same time, the mayor has an extreme advantage of taking those monies to be used that he has going with Comcast. And one final comment, Mr. President, you know.
[Robert Penta]: Okay.
[Robert Penta]: The issue of the 5% is the franchise fee. That was a home rule which is broken down to 3, 1, and 1. Okay. With that being said, Mr. President, I just don't think it's fair. I don't think the city should go forward. I think the mayor should be getting, the council should direct them not to sign this contract. especially not having a public hearing. And more importantly, what are we getting? If we lock ourselves into another 10-year deal, God knows what's going to happen. The rates, Councilor Caraviello, you just said it, what are we getting? All we're getting is the rates just keep going up and up and up, and you're getting nothing forward in return. And it's just not fair. And with that being said, I'll open it up to anybody, other questions, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Well, a point of, just a point of further clarification.
[Robert Penta]: The peg access is very specific by law. It has to be used for public access, educational, government channel. And the other thing that nobody has talked about, why does it have to be for a non-profit? Why can't it not be for a for-profit? And if it was a for-profit, you might have a different attitude of people coming in here and saying, hey, not only can we do it and raise money for the community, you don't have to worry about public access because the for-profit will take care of the whole situation. And you know, and that's something that the mayor is not even entertained. He doesn't even, he doesn't have the ability to figure this thing out. We were paying a guy named Peter Epstein, something like $325 an hour. And that was the gentleman who did the last hearing 10 years ago. Okay. And he has yet to be contacted the last time I spoke to him, which is probably within the past three weeks to a month. And so if the mayor has no intention of having this public hearing, and he intends to have a 10-year contract signed, Mr. President. That's absolutely unfair to every single ratepayer, subscriber in this community, to know what's going on, and at the same time, it doesn't serve the taxpayer any benefit at all. They're getting nothing out of this 10-year contract, except the mayor is the one that becomes the beneficiary.
[Robert Penta]: I believe through the years it's been approximately $30,000 that the Mayor's been able to use. For whatever he feels he wants to use it for.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta was waiting for the floor. I'd be willing to amend it that reads the following. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council go on record advising the mayor on behalf of Comcast subscribers not to enter into any contract agreement until a public hearing takes place with Comcast to be effective as of August 20th since, in fact, and I think that's what you were leading to. Why sign a contract at all? We haven't even had our public hearing.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's a separate issue, because right now the contract is—the public vendor's going to have nothing to do with the contract. Because the contract is— The contract's the contract. The contract is having a 10-year deal with Comcast. That's where he's going. Inclusive of the contract is going to be having public access in whatever it might be. The key here is, if you don't want him to sign a 10-year contract, and you want the public hearing to get input from the community, you do that, or you just tell him not to sign a 10-year contract.
[Robert Penta]: I'll read it again.
[Robert Penta]: Be it resolved that the Medford City Council go on record advising the Mayor on behalf of Comcast subscribers not to enter into any contract agreement Hold it. Slow, slow, slow. All he has to do after the word to, where it says not to, just insert the words enter into any contract agreement until a public hearing takes place with Comcast to be effective as of April 20th and then continue on. You get it?
[Robert Penta]: After the word to, enter into any contract agreement until a public hearing takes place. because that is so important. People don't realize that that public hearing talks about exactly what's going on in this city and what Comcast is offering other than work. Would you be the rates just keep going up and up and up and nobody's got a chance to talk about this.
[Robert Penta]: They have profit public.
[Robert Penta]: – You can have for-profit that does not have to go through Comcast, because they're not going to come under those regulations. You will have a legitimate for-profit company come in here and run a cable company. Well, it'll be a public access, but they won't follow the same guidelines as if you're going to have it under Comcast. That's the difference. They have guidelines that they're going to have to follow, but it won't come under the Comcast contract.
[Robert Penta]: I'll somewhat disagree with that, only for one reason. The idea of having the public hearing is to get information from the ratepayers that are going to tell you what they like, what they don't like, or what they would like to see. Then they take that information and go back and negotiate. If you don't have any public hearing and you don't have any public information, what are you negotiating?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, once again, this week is another one of these weeks relative to the whole parking thing. Having discussions with the Chief of Police and small business people, people who are getting tickets, machines that just aren't working, I don't know. So let me start off with the first one right here. Here is a picture of a poll that says 30-minute parking Monday through Saturday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. On March 10th of this year, that law was changed to 8 to 6. These signs are still up and people are still getting tickets for which now the chief is getting phone calls as it relates to this. I have here a ticket that's issued on the 18th of March, where somebody put the money in the meter, and the meter stopped collecting it and collecting it, for which they shouldn't have collected the money. Now, Councilor Caraviello, you made a resolution back on December 23rd as it relates to having the city come forward and present to the council a 60-day evaluation take place by the mayor and Republican. The 60 days has come and gone. Then on January 2nd of this past year, you also had a resolution as it related to the kiosks on the face of the kiosk being legible so you could read it, and you still can't read it. Again this past week, we have the truck, once again, in downtown Medford, in other parts of the city, again in violation of the contract Nothing to be seen on the back saying that this truck makes frequent stops. The mayor has just intentionally allowed, allowed this company from Republic from Tennessee to go forward and continuously keep breaking and breaking the laws. Now, the other part of the contract basically says the following that, you know, we are supposed to be getting some kind of information forthcoming. I believe today, again, speaking to the chief outside, He had to go down and speak to some folks next to, I believe, Mystic Valley Pediatrics. Next to there, there's a beauty shop over there. The women over there are up in arms and they're all afraid because they think they're going to get tickets. Who's parked in the parking lot? The two kiosks are against the wall. The records reflect, as we just get, that in January of this past year before the city council, Republic was supposed to go over and meet with the senior citizens to explain to them the whole kiosk. And here we have here a letter dated March 19th, addressed to you, Council President Dello Russo, that on April 3rd, they're going to go over there and discuss how to use a kiosk. From January to April 3rd, okay? Huge. I mean, they're right on the ball with all of this. The fact of the matter is that the machines are still taking the money, and where does that extra money go to? Is it coming to the city of Medford? Is it going into Republic? We talk about the people getting tickets, full-scale observation. West Method, on Playstead Road, where Playstead Road and Winthrop Street meets, there were 15 to 17 cars on any one given day that used to be parked there, and they never got a ticket. Now you're lucky if you see one, if not two, cars at the very most. And you know where those cars are parking? Those cars are parking all on the side streets, and they're going into the neighborhoods, and the complaints are starting to come in. Go to the parking lots. Supposed to be three-hour parking. The sign's still up there for two hours. So how do you turn around and give somebody a ticket? Today, someone who was a business merchant in West Medford and a business merchant in Medford Square who paid their $100 for the pass got themselves tickets. They got themselves tickets today with the permit because they were parked in the municipal parking lot. On Boston Avenue, in front of this sign over here, where a legitimate delivery was being made, and the trunk was open and the merchandise was coming out, the guy in the truck goes up there and gives them a ticket. How do you give someone a ticket when you're in a legitimate spot? Tell me. Councilor Marks, you made a comment a little while ago when this thing was going on, that once this thing started to get going, you gotta be careful because they're gonna be taking aggressive action. They're doing more than taking aggressive action. Look at the tickets that they're giving out. You'd think they would at least put the courtesy, like every other city in town, from the back of the ticket that at least gives you the telephone number. You have to figure out where 557 Main Street is. A lot of people don't know that. A senior citizen, a senior citizen in Medford Square trying to figure out how to put money in the machine when they didn't have any change and they didn't have a credit card and trying to figure it out. It just doesn't work. Medford is not that type of a community. Why the mayor is doing this, I have absolutely no idea. But again, he's in complete violation The contract has been in complete violation, you know, since this thing operated. It's beginning. What about the credit cards that you're putting in? And they're reading the wrong numbers for the license plate. Last week we got a complete description. I have a complete description here from a nurse, a doctor, and the patients that just couldn't negotiate what's going on in Riverside Avenue in that big, huge parking lot. Imagine, we came here, had a big discussion with the people from Republic who stood at that podium that night and said, we are going to go over because the seniors were having a problem. We'll probably give them 25 pocket spaces. That was in January. And now they're going to go there on April 3rd, which isn't even here yet, April 3rd, to show and discuss with them how to put the money in the machine, which is almost 400 feet away from from where they park their cars. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Go outside and sit in front of City Hall over here. They have a stupid little meter on the corner of the road over there, so if you park all the way in the parking lot over here, you're gonna figure out I gotta walk all the way over here. It doesn't make any sense. Mr. President, page four of the contract. I am going to suggest tonight that the city exercises its right, as it states here, to fully terminate this contract with Republic before it gets any worse. We haven't even seen, we haven't even seen, as we've been told, the next phase of where these kiosks are going to go in. There are business districts and streets and locations that don't even have them yet. Once they have them, this is just going to accelerate and multiply. I'm going to make an offer here for the mayor tonight. He can go out of this thing being a hero, rather than having the council come after him. Mr. Mayor, this is what I'm saying to you. You came to the council a few years ago, and you asked us to take a million point two out of our water and sewer surplus account. Councilman Marks was the only one that voted against it, and looking back, he did the right thing. Probably the worst mistake I ever made, but I gave it to you at that point in time. Never a thank you in return, because that's what we needed to balance the budget. I'm asking you to take whatever it is You take the cost of what the contract says, of what it cost them to put this thing together, you amortize that over the minus the deductions of what we're being paid, and we'll pay the difference, seven, eight, nine hundred thousand dollars, let these people leave this community, let the people go back to their normal way of owning and operating their small little business, not being afraid of getting tagged and towed and ticketed wrongly, not being afraid to know that I'm going to lose a customer, because they didn't put the money in the meter, not to be afraid of a lady falling down and the snow that's going to be taken by an ambulance to the hospital because she was trying to put her money into the kiosk. Go out a hero and admit that we made a mistake and we're going to go back to the original idea of having traffic enforcement. We will do this in-house. We will get local people and we'll move ourselves forward. And I think everybody at that point in time would say thank you, Mr. Mayor, for understanding the impact that this is going to have. You know, Councilor Camuslo, you said something in one of the very first meetings a long time ago. You turned around and said that you were in favor of putting parking meters. And if parking meters were going to be the issue then, like it would be now, I don't think anybody would have, I think they would have understood it. But this has turned out to be a major, major disaster. With that being said, Mr. President, I get pictures, I get more and more stories, I get more and more people. giving me the authority to use their names. I think it's obvious. And you know the thing that's really funny about all this? Can you imagine the mayor having the audacity, and that's the word I would use, the audacity to say, he hasn't received one complaint. He hasn't received one complaint on this traffic program. Go walk the streets, Mr. Mayor. Go walk the streets. Look at these people. Ask them what they say. Unbelievable. That being said, Mr. President, I know it could be a tough vote. Maybe people will want to vote for it. Maybe they won't. But the message goes back to the mayor. You can do it one of two ways. You can voluntarily get out of it or the council is going to make a suggestion that you go out of it and terminate this contract with Republic. And I don't think there's anybody in this room and any businesses in this community that would turn around and say, OK, we can do that, you know, and if we have a problem, If we have a problem with enforcement, we will address it, but we will address it in-house, and we will start very slow. We don't have to have an out-of-town company called Republic from Tennessee, who takes almost 68% of the net profit before the city of Medford sees a dime. And now we're going to be dealing with this type of aggressive taxation on the people of this community. Plus, it's a 10-year contract. How many of these 10-year contracts does this mayor think the people in this community should stomach. It's wrong. There's no need for this. So, with that being said, Mr. President, I move that the city of Medford remove itself, terminate its contract with the Republic of Tennessee—I think that's the name—Republic Parking of Tennessee in the best interests of the taxpayers, the small business people, and the city of Medford as a whole.
[Robert Penta]: Resolution is 14795, December 3rd, 60-day review.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, you know, a lot of the times when the Republic was here for a couple of meetings and the chief was here, we gave a whole bunch of concerns that we had, and, you know, we got some of our responses back. I think the main one was changing the hours from 7 to 7 to 8 to 6. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Also with single head meters. Now how do you justify putting up the signs and telling you, you have 30 minute parking, but tagging people? And then having the audacity, as Councilor Caraviello says, being arrogant, well if you don't like it, appeal it. Why should somebody have to appeal something if they're parked in a spot that's legitimately for 30 minutes, and take some time off from work, And we don't even have our hearing officer. Our hearing officer, unfortunately, she's not in right now. And now there's some concern that maybe, that Republic is doing some of these hearings. I don't know if that's true or false. Maybe we should make that as another paper. Because if they're doing that, that's, again, outside the scope of this. You know, you have parking meters taking money after 7 o'clock at night. Councilor Caraviello, it was your resolution that said No charge for the parking period after the fact. You can delay this thing all you want. The fact of the matter is they've had more than enough time. You can't be driving around since January not having the proper signage on the truck. It took these to get the signage on the side of the truck and they were still doing it. I spoke to the chief tonight, and the chief turned around and said, I told Dan Nash, you know, this is unacceptable. Well, that's not the point of being unacceptable. It's a contract. If you're in violation of the contract, then so be it. We put that guy tonight through the torches of hell, the poor guy at Wendy's over an outside thing, and here a multi-million dollar company comes in, and they can walk around and do anything they want. Take the money after six o'clock at night. Tag people improperly. I won't say illegally, improperly. Another guy was in the loading zone. Tag a guy who's legitimate in a loading zone. It's wrong. It's wrong, Mr. President. It's just plain wrong. You guys can do whatever you want, ladies, but all I know is, I'm moving on the question, strongly suggesting to the mayor to terminate the contract ASAP, and behalf of the taxpayers of this community, because of their failure to abide by the contract as amended, and that's it. You know, another thing, you know, and I think it was you, Adam, who came up with, and rightfully so, the suggestion about the signs, okay? It was a violation of the contract and the signs and this and that. And now because of that, you don't see any of these signs up. If you go and you talk to them and they say, well, it's the city's fault. The city's fault for what? That you've got the wrong signs up and you're not, and you've not been putting the proper signs up, and you haven't changed the two hours to three hours in certain parts of the city. And you have certain parts of residential neighborhoods that have kiosks in front of them that don't belong there. And don't buy it. With all due respect, Mr. President, I'm going to move the question. MR. PICARDY.
[Robert Penta]: Whatever the cost is, yes.
[Robert Penta]: Well, there are violations in the contract that have to have offsets to it.
[Robert Penta]: I'd rather give him the direction rather than sitting down, but again, I've had enough direction, but before this group, as I say to you, I get I get these calls all day long.
[Robert Penta]: For the contract, I think it's a 90-day clause, and then they have to work it out.
[Robert Penta]: I heard what you said. I heard what everybody said. That this is what I get every single day between phone calls and dealing with people. And the fact of the matter is that that guy over there says nobody's complained. Well, if nobody's complained to him and we've all heard the complaints, either by phone calls, letters, people getting tagged signs going up. There was nothing. There's no honoring that for which the contract says they were supposed to be doing. I'm not going to continue to go on. There are more important things to do out here. We have a resolution coming up talking about potholes in the city. That's going to be huge. It's going to be so huge. That's just one of many things. And the mayor's worried about having his community day, having this and having that. I'm more concerned about how this city should run according to every single day. You know, you can talk about the snowstorm all you want. What's a snowstorm have to do with somebody doing their job? So if there's an embargo on there because of a snowstorm, okay, nobody got your tickets?
[Robert Penta]: I'm saying, no tickets on the snow emergency, we understand, they gave tickets, whatever it is.
[Robert Penta]: But putting that aside, that should not stop life from going on, from them to do their job, like they're supposed to. I shouldn't have to speak to the chief every time, and he tells me, I spoke to Dan Nash, they're supposed to be doing this, they're supposed to be doing that, When people get a ticket, and this is what did it for me today, yesterday, when people get a ticket, and they're parked legitimately, and they have to go and appeal the ticket, and take time off from work, knowing that they were in the proper spot, and then the guy has, you talk about being arrogant, that's the bottom line, being arrogant, not even I'm sorry, when it's supposed to be eight to six. And they're still collecting money out of the machines after seven o'clock at night. When you, Councilor Caraviello, on January 2nd talked about having the fascia of the machine in good shape, and it's still. We asked to put a light on top of the kiosk so people could see something at nighttime. And what about somebody coming into the square late at night or in the afternoon? How are they supposed to figure out that that box way down the street, I've got to go get a ticket and walk it back to my car? And who the hell didn't remember their number plate? and put the quarter in, and not put the quarter in, and the credit card. No, I'm sorry. I hear what all you said, but you know something? I say it, I do it every single day. As far as I'm concerned, the mayor can do it, doesn't have to do it. You guys can vote on it, don't vote on it. This is how I feel, and this is the direction I want to go.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, it's quite obvious the Baker administration has done something a little bit different than the prior administration. They're holding cities and towns accountable, they're giving them deadlines, and they're indicating it's a use it or lose it program. And at the same time, with our council making the request the administration take a million dollars out of free cash. This, I think, works hand-in-glove with the street restoration program that I offered here some weeks back, that every single taxpayer in this community should identify their particular street, either by phone, by taking a picture, sending it in, and hopefully getting something that's time-stamped and dated, either from the clerk's office or from the Department of Public Works. That way, they are showing some authenticity as to what they're doing. Again, anyone who might be watching, news media that's out there, anyone that has a problem on their street, a crack, a road depression, a sidewalk or a curbing or whatever it might be. If some damage took place during this past winter, take the picture, make a request, put it in. And I think that needs to be something that the city council should get a handle on as to how many requests came in and how is the city going to make its determination. The $143,000 is a limited amount, as we can tell, but I think it would be something that gets the ball rolling, knowing that we have that to start off with. And I know we have another million dollars, hopefully, that the mayor will go forward and expend for the purpose of the streets. There isn't one street you can't go down that there is not a depression, a pothole, a sinkhole, or whatever it might be. Front ends, cars, tires, and everything under the sun has been attacked this winter, unfortunately because of the storm. It is what it is, and that being the case, Mr. President, I move forward on this. And I like—we haven't gotten a report back, and I think we deserve a report back on the request that the Council made and to have an idea just what this administration intends to do over and beyond the $143,000, since, in fact, we asked for a million dollars to be taken out of free cash to be used for something that's desperately needed on a daily basis. And this is like a subject matter that I was talking about, you know. The parking enforcement, you know, you could talk about that. The problems are still going to be there. But this is something that's happening every single day. It's in the face of the single taxpayer in this community. And they don't deserve to have their streets turned into a battleground territory, unfortunately, because of what happened during the winter. We have a responsibility to these ratepayers. They pay taxes in this community. They pay the salaries of everybody in this building. And they deserve their streets to be repaired.
[Robert Penta]: This one was jam-packed. In all the years that I've served, I've never seen so many people attend That was really a heart-throbbing particular day. But I couldn't help but think when I looked up into that ceiling and I was hoping that that ceiling did not fall down. That's a disgrace. That's been like that for almost two years now. It's patched. You're right, Councilor Dello Russo, the whole building is a disgrace. The unfortunate part about it, this place was marred. Mr. President, will you get an answer on this? Find out, are they going to repair this or not? You know, this is the city, this is the people's chambers, and this has been two years. The top of the roof, right? God, I don't know what he's thinking on a daily basis. Maybe he just doesn't care what's going on, but there were people here that do care. Madam Vice President.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Councilor Penta wishes the records to be recorded as speaking as a member of the Mass. Municipal Association. Board of Directors and not as a city councilor. If you go to 17.22 on the tape, that's exactly what I said.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I want to be as exact as can be.
[Robert Penta]: And all I added on is was as a member of the Massachusetts Board of Directors and not as a city councilor, because that's exactly what I said. 17.22 into the minutes.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no, no, no. No, the action on the paper was actually to be to be advised And to report back from the administration any plans to increase the charge of the plan for the employees. So there was action? It was a request, yeah, to get information.
[Robert Penta]: You know what I'm saying. I understand that, but my speaking, I wanted to be recorded as speaking as a member of the Mass Municipal Board of Directors and not as a city councilor. My vote might have been a city councilor, but my speaking was not. Whatever.
[Robert Penta]: – They support G.I.C., yeah. This goes back to 2009, when this council voted on it, they talked about it, and they discussed it.
[Robert Penta]: If it's an accurate reflection, then you get to watch the minutes of the meeting.
[Robert Penta]: There's a motion for approval on the record.
[Robert Penta]: Wait, wait, wait. What are they? What are the words? Read it. The way he presented it to us. Read it. I don't have it. Read it. What is it? You have it. What did he give you? It's the same thing. What is it, Eddie? Just read it, please. I don't have the records in front of me.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. You said you accepted before wishes to be recorded as speaking as a member of the Mass. So then we go back to the original one.
[Robert Penta]: Not asked to be recorded. Wishes to be recorded.
[Robert Penta]: And I said that. That's exactly what I said that day.
[Robert Penta]: You have to read it. Read it. Nobody's reading the words. You have it, Mr. Clark. What are the words?
[Robert Penta]: I'm going by what you had last time. It says Councilor Penta wishes to be recorded. speaking as a member of the Mass Municipal Association.
[Robert Penta]: That's the motion.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. Counsel Penta. I think the idea was a good idea, but I think I'll take you up on the second part of the suggestion. Councilor. Um, I think, um, what's necessary here is to, um, see what comes out of tomorrow night's meeting, just see what we have. And then look at the ordinances that might be out there. You know, the governor has an opiate program that he's embroiling on a statewide basis. And maybe, once again, looking at making contact with him. But since seeing that resolution on there, there's a lady you might want to add to your list. And her name is Joanne Peterson. And she's the founder and the executive director of Learn to Cope, Inc. It's Learn to Cope, Inc. And they have been pretty active on all of this. Also, I was contacted by parishioners at St. Joseph Parish for anyone who right now is embroiled with some type of an addiction in your family, or the addiction yourself being the individual, that on every Friday at 11 o'clock in the lower chapel of the church. They have an addiction program that runs anywhere from 11 to 12 o'clock on, and it's open to the public for anyone, no matter what. It doesn't make any difference what you are. They're there to help anyone for solace or for whatever it might be. That's ongoing. And if you want to check them out, that's adoration24sj.comcast.net. Speaking with some of the folks in the governor's opiate program, and they're taking this, as you know, very seriously. This is his number two priority when he came on. And I think we can get a wealth of information not only from them. I think to put the ordinance together, right now it just might be just a spec premature because the direction that you'd want the ordinance to go in, is it going to be basically a conduit? Is it going to be a person that's actually going to be able to resolve the problem or not? It could be a two-pronged approach. And I like the idea that we're taking the first step forward, I think maybe after a couple of meetings, once you see what's on the table, I think you can have a better idea of making the audience become more forceful. So I would support that. But again, once again, that lady is very helpful as far as this goes. Thank you, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Whether you want to put this as a B paper or not. Um, when Councilor Camuso mentioned NACON, I believe that that was brought up at the last time we met here. And I believe that there's already been a niche, a first meeting that's taken place between fire EMTs and police folks on this matter. So could we get an update just where is the city of Medford on this issue of NACON and are they going to provide it for the, Police, fire, and emergency services here in the city. Not cam, not cam. I think that will be part of our committee. Well, I want to make this a separate paper because if this is already something that's ongoing in the works, I think we should be apprised of it. All three of them, emergency responders, fire police, and EMTs.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President and council colleagues, but more importantly, our subscribers within our community, we're dealing with the end of a 10 year contract that Comcast has had here with the city of Medford. And as everyone knows for the past few months, if not for the past, a couple of years in particular, this Medford City Council has been actively requesting more information, not only on Comcast, but also as it relates to our public access channels here in the city of Medford as to what's been going on. Most recently, and it's kind of like disturbing, there have been accounts coming out of the courthouses and all across the Commonwealth, but as it relates to public access channels. For example, there was a judge regarding the Saugus Community Cable Television. It was now put a stop order against the Saugus Community Cable Television because of their refusal to allow the local board of selectmen to discuss certain aspects of public access and telecasting over there. The Attorney General's Office, just this past week, is now suing the Lynn Community Access Channel. And they're alleging that these defendants abused their positions of power and were responsible for the misappropriation of charitable funds from this non-profit, said Attorney General Healy. Actions such as the ones alleged here cause financial harm to the charity and its mission and undermine the public's trust. We hope that through this action we can recover the money rightfully owed back to the charity, which is the non-profit, which happens to be the public access. We have here in the city of Medford, dating back to, I believe, July of last year, a multiple request of the Medford's TV3 public access channel who supposedly filed a resolution of dissolution just past September. But it was our city solicitor who, at that point in time, sent us a huge packet of information demanding certain documents to be coming forward from the people who were managing the public access channel. And he gave them a time deadline for which they did not respond. I believe also, too, our city solicitor indicated that, I think it was either July or August of this past year, that, in fact, that if they did not respond, that he would pursue other legal avenues. I don't know what those avenues have been. I don't know if any of those avenues have taken place. But we are now here in March of this year. I've just received on my desk here right now tonight, I think we all did, a letter dated December 18, 2014, delivered to the Honorable Michael J. McGlynn from Thomas Kelly, director from Xfinity. Last paragraph, sentence in the last paragraph, please. We believe this renewal proposal substantially meets the community cable related needs while taking into account the cost to individual subscribers in accordance with section 626 B and C of the cable. Best part, the city has an obligation under the formal renewal process to either accept or deny Comcast proposal within four months or no later than April 18th. We, this has been in city hall since December 18th. This is now March 17th, with less than a month and a day to go. And we're just finding this out now. The mayor, I believe, has a responsibility, as he did some 10 years ago, to have a public hearing allowing ratepayers, citizens, anybody who are proponents or opponents to the renewal of the contract. We have asked, I believe intimately, over the past few months, when is this contract renewal public hearing going to take place. We received no responses on it. If you go to page 26, and this is just a quick perusal to this thing, on the top it says, in the event that the issuing authority or other PEG access user elects not to fully program its channels with original PEG access programming, the licensee may reclaim any unused time on those channels. Now, I don't know where we're going with all of that, but that tells me that if the mayor of this community refuses or so chooses not to engage public access anymore in this community, that in fact, Comcast can take over that Channel 3 and do whatever it wants, and the city would not be able to get monies that they have in the past on public access. Looking at this real quick, I could be wrong, but I think that's the way it reads. Also, and more importantly, why would we even want to engage in another 10-year contract? Look what's happened with our rubbish contract. We're engaged with them for 10 years. We just got embroiled with a ridiculous 10-year kiosk program here in the city, you know, a meter program. And now we're looking at a renewal to a public acts strike that to a cable contract for 10 years. But the difference on this cable contract from the last one is this. The technology has become so advanced out there right now that we really don't know within the next 10 years if new technology can supersede that for which Comcast is giving to us. My advice would be, and since the mayor is obviously not having his public hearing, I have no idea why. He has got one month and one day to pull this off, which is a period of time to get intelligent people down here to talk about this. But rather than go forward with a 10-year contract, I would probably make a recommendation that we have a three-year contract, with a two-year contract possible for renewal, at that point in time, just to see where we're going with all of this. It makes no sense to say, yes, we're going forward for 10 years, when you're not having a public meeting and a public forum, for which I believe—I'm not—don't hold me to it, but I believe that that was part of the licensing. and the relicensing process. And, you know, unfortunately, just getting this tonight and trying to peruse it, I mean, that's one part of it. The other part of it is we haven't still gotten any accounting of monies allegedly not found or misappropriated or what have you. We haven't gotten a full accounting of the inventory that was down there, if it's been sold, if it's been used or what have you. And here we are engaging ourselves, if this be the case, with a potential 10-year contract, and then looking at surrounding cities and towns where not only the attorney general has stepped in, but you also have it with Lynn. You have it in Saugus. You have it in Bolton. And you have it in Rehoboth, where the guy got eight years, eight years in jail for misappropriating funds. You have problems with Wincambe and Winchester. These are things that are just surrounding us. And we're living right in the middle of all of this right now. And we can't get answers to satisfy what we have, never mind going forward. So I look at this as a three-pronged approach. Number one. We have no public hearing for which I think we should have. Number two, we still don't even have anything resolved as TV3 and the city of Medford. Accountability not only from inventory, accountability from records and for tax filings, for bank accounts and who's on them and who's allowed to them. And also, getting involved with a 10-year contract that's right around the corner, I don't think it would serve the rate payers of this community well. I think it would serve them a lot better if they had an opportunity to maybe have a three-year contract with a two-year renewal, if that be the case, to see where we're going. The state and the art of technology is so advanced today that who knows where we're going to be able to be at that point in time. And if we get locked into something that we can't get out of, it might cost subscribers more money in the years 7, 8, 9, and 10, or 6, or whatever it might be, than what they could possibly get with a more advanced contract. It shocks me how this city just runs itself with these 10-year contracts. And nobody is looking for a 10-year contract other than Comcast and the mayor of this community who is allowing this to go forward without even having a public hearing to have any kind of a discussion on it. Some two weeks, I think it was two weeks ago this past Monday, going two and a half weeks ago, I spoke with the attorney. He was representing the city of Medford on their public access information and legalese stuff, whatever it was. He told me as of two, two and a half weeks ago, He has had absolutely no contact with the City of Medford on its renewal with Comcast. So I don't know where we're going with this. I don't think anyone behind this reel knows where we're going with this. But I really think that we need to send a message to the mayor and behalf of the subscribers that something needs to stop on the tracks and we don't need another 10-year contract. I think we need to have a real look and see, a public hearing, and have some open and public discussion.
[Robert Penta]: In the second paragraph, it says that the city is getting $350,000. I believe the prior contract, the city got $450,000. Rick? So we're going down $75,000 on what they're going to give us. They're looking for another 10-year contract, and we don't even know what the hell we're getting.
[Robert Penta]: Rick, I think the question that you're really wanting to ask, by what law are we required to sign to approve a 10-year contract? That, I think, needs to be the question rather than— Let me say, because what happens after April 18th?
[Robert Penta]: Just rescind the renewal period until such time... No, we can't rescind the renewal.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Councilor Penta. To you, Councilor Camuso, I hear what you want to do, and it sounds like it's a good idea, but this is a renewal, and I don't have anything in front of me that says that a renewal becomes automatic by the mayor, because if that's the case, what are we even discussing anything? That's number one. Also, in one of the pages that we were received here, you know, there's a whole list of what the peg access provider needs to do. It's different than the original contract, or it's an addendum to the original contract. So that in and of itself talks about being different. Mr. Clerk, not to put you on the hot seat, but the only thing that disturbs me with this whole thing is it says CC here, City Clerk. Do you ever remember getting this, December 18th?
[Robert Penta]: Let me finish my comment, please.
[Robert Penta]: So wait a minute. It goes to the same point. So we heard the clerk say that. But if this has been sitting there since December 18th, because it definitely went to the mayor, and it did go by UPS, and somebody upstairs in his office, and now we're a month and a day away from the four months. Something's going on because there's no public hearing being held or anything.
[Robert Penta]: Well, point of clarification, Mr. President, the city clerk is aware of it. He just got through explaining to you how and why it got there. It's a document that CCs the council. It's addressed to the mayor. It's regarding a renewal process for which we're talking about. So this is a very important issue.
[Robert Penta]: Now, wait a minute.
[Robert Penta]: Also, can we amend that for it?
[Robert Penta]: Can I move to Councilor, I want to amend his paper. Councilor Camuso.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Camuso, on your paper, can we amend that one step further as it relates to, you want the city solicitor, likewise to report back. But at the same time, remember, Comcast used to be Time Warner, and before Time Warner was another one. So we have an interloping of three different cable providers here in the city during that period of time. And I think when you change from A to B, that's going to cut the thing to Time Warner. Also, I'd like to amend it to ask the question, when and if the public hearing is going to take place on this renewal? So amended by Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: Move to rescind, Mr. President. Last vote. He can move to rescind all he wants.
[Robert Penta]: So you're going to tell me I can't speak on the motion now?
[Robert Penta]: Well, you didn't even let me finish the reason why I just said before that. No, no, no. He's so quick. He thinks he can read my mind. Let him take his vote. I'm not out after you at all.
[Robert Penta]: No, listen, no, because he thought he was so smart. He knew what he was going to do.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Since last week, I received, I think it was 14 phone calls from folks who thought this was a good idea. I believe that they have spoken to some folks in the highway department who also thought it was a good idea, which would be helpful to them. Subsequent to last week, and I want to thank our city clerk, Mr. Finn, he sent me in a direction that brought me to a town in Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, that engaged in something quite similar, not exactly the same, but quite similar as it relates to groups of citizens getting together within the community, finding storefronts, vacant spots, spots that need to be rehabilitated, going to the landowners and to the city and working out deals as it relates to, once again, bringing their streets back to life. This whole idea of the street recovery program includes curbing, the lights, paneled sidewalks, and parts of the city and parts of the sections of the business districts that are just not getting any life at all. It's a master plan that I believe should work hand in hand with the new Department of Public Works building that we're having built for $15 million. Also, at the same time, it's, I won't call it an adjunct, but it runs itself similar to the Mass Department of Public Transportation on their new Mass Highway Street Identifying Program, where I think they're up to over 300 folks who either sent in pitches or sent in locations where there are potholes on the major highways here of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So I think it's a catch that we can take advantage of. Like I said, it's something that seems to be getting good response. On another issue, liking to this, in downtown Medford Square, in the heart of your business district, you have five lights out within, five street lights out, in the major part of your downtown area, and they've been out for almost three to four weeks. I mean, you're not gonna have people come in, I don't know what the mayor can't see on a daily basis, but when you let your street lights out, you're losing visibility, number one, but you're presenting a public safety matter. And this is something that it's inherent in this whole idea of the Street Recovery Program. And bringing it up for the 14th time, I will bring it up, and that's the parking lot behind St. Joseph's Church on Route 16. No lights, a definite public safety problem, and it doesn't offer anything for the people of this community after five o'clock at night when it gets dark. Now it's a little bit lighter, but all winter long, and as I explained before, we had a couple of incidences over the year where there was a drug deal that went on in one situation, another lady got afraid to go to her car because there were people in the parking lot, and still nothing has taken place. We've been told by the city that they're responsible for it for the five years that they have the contract. I believe the contract is up. I don't know what's going on after that, but again, it's a public safety issue. But I just want to bring attention to the fact that again, I want to thank Mr. Finn. Uh, you sent me in a direction that sent me in a further direction, uh, which has been very helpful. I'll just continue to bring on more and more information. And I would hope that the mayor takes advantage of this and jumps on board with this because the citizen road recovery program, you can go down any street in the city. every major pothole that's taking place. And Department of Public Works folks, I mean, they can't see every pothole because it's obvious, there's a lot of them. But the people of this community, there's 57, 58,000 of you, you could be the eyes and ears of every street, every corner, every sidewalk, every light, every manhole cover, whatever it might be out there. It would make a great inventory to start with for the Department of Public Works to go forward and take back and rejuvenate these city streets and sidewalks that are just in desperate need of repair. So I just wanted to, bring that to the attention of the council. Well, that's part of it. The other thing is the mayor going to respond back on this, because if he's not going to do it, I think it's another issue that the council needs to address.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, not since I believe, I think it was, I see somebody from the audience sitting over there. I think it was in either January or February last year when we met, is the last time we had any discussion on this issue of the Craddock Bridge. We've received no updates from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And now from what the reference, and I have a whole folder here, and from what I understand, and this is just scuttlebutt because I haven't gotten it from anybody, what was supposed to have been started last fall is not happening. was supposed to be starting this spring, and it's right here. It's not happening. And nobody has any idea when this Kratik Bridge is going to see any kind of resurrection or what have you. But taking that also into consideration, this idea that it would take over a year to remove or to move all the underground conduits that represent telephone lines, electricity, and everything, that's kind of hard to believe. Because when you speak to other engineers in other cities and towns, and you explain this to them, They just can't understand. I mean, with the technology that's out there today, why does it have to take a year? But not only that, this bridge has been there for well over 100 years. It's not sinking. So I guess the better question is, why do we have to get ourselves even involved? And it's now up to over a $13 million bridge as of last year. For maybe the bridge just needs a pavement, a reconstruction on the top portion of it, rather than going through this multi-million dollar extravaganza. The businesses in Medford Square cannot handle another setback and an opportunity to go forward. Bad enough, there's no reason for anyone to want to come to Medford Square at nighttime, other than two restaurants. Name it. There's no bookstore, that's gone. There's no movie theater. There's nothing there for the kids. There's no arts and crafts that are taking place. It's a professional office community in downtown Medford. And banks, and banks, excuse me. Banks, pizza parlors, and hairdressers. But they all close at nighttime. So, you know, we talk about rejuvenating Medford Square. Under this administration, he's talked about it three times, and three times, this is what you have. Stores that are continuously being empty, nothing that fosters good growth and good development, and there's absolutely no diversity in the type of businesses that are in Medford Square. And now we're still dealing with the bridge that have people still concerned that if the bridge goes in, what happens to their business, or how is it going to affect traffic, the public safety, and the bridge that's on the Route 9. You know, here's another thing. When you go to Medford Square on Main Street, the overpass there, the lights are all out. They're down to one light. There used to be six lights, and they're all out. You call up. It's not us. Call the city. The city says it's the state. The state says it's DCR. I don't know whose responsibility it is, but it's a public safety issue. And as this continues to go on, the Craddock Bridge seems to be the culprit, so to speak, because everything revolves around what's going to come out of the Craddock Bridge. All kinds of monies are supposedly tied into the Craddock Bridge. Mr. President, I think we need a response back from the Commonwealth of Mass, not from the mayor, not from any other politician, from the Commonwealth of Mass. It's on their agenda to do. We need to know, and I think all the businesses need to know, when they're coming into the city and they're going to begin business.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I guess it's now starting to escalate to the point that people are willing to acknowledge what's going on. Today, having an at length conversation with Medford Pediatrics and Medford Square. and with a three and a half page memo that was sent to me by the employees. And I have the names that they are acknowledged and are willing to have made public. These are people who come there with their children. These are senior citizens. This is the doctor that runs the place that's in charge. Excuse me, this is the nurse who's in charge. It's just an ongoing saga that just took place over the past couple of days, starting off with a senior citizen, A husband and a wife went there and they were just so upset as to how to handle the kiosk that they had to come into the office of Medford Pediatrics to get some help as it relates to that. Also, I believe somebody from Medford Pediatrics made a request to the mayor concerning some of the concerns that they had and they never got a response back from the mayor. Also, parents having to go back. We have a situation here where a lady came in with a stroller and with her kids, not realizing that the kiosks were there. We have pictures here that the kiosks were there. And recognizing that the kiosks were there, she had to go back out and she had to leave her kid. And while the kid was in the, as everybody knows, if you have a little child, especially at a young age, the kid was screaming and yelling. The kid didn't want the mother to leave. And unfortunately she winds up getting a ticket, not knowing that she had to go back out there and put the money into the kiosk. Then we have another situation where the people who put the change in didn't have an exchange, and they had no credit card. They always came paid by a check, not knowing that the kiosks were there. So having no money to put either change or whatever, they had to go, once again, ask the people in the method pediatrics if we could have some change to go out there for which they were gracious enough to do, but at the same time, unfortunately, once again, they got a ticket. And by the way, the gentleman in the little white car that goes into that pocket, and by all of these people, have been represented as being very rude to the people and their concerns. Also, today, I believe, mother's name is Kim Ruane, not accepting coins, and that was giving out the wrong receipts. So as she went in and put her money in, another lady came in, not realizing that she had to put the money in, and then she did put the money in, but the receipt was not the right receipt with the right registration for the right person.
[Robert Penta]: Medford Pediatrics in Medford Square on the corner of Riverside Avenue where the city-owned parking lot is.
[Robert Penta]: Mystic Valley, I'm sorry, Mystic Valley Pediatrics. Okay, thank you. Okay? They were given the wrong receipts after they put in the right number. Then there was a lady who parked her car on, where is this one here? Okay, here was a car, she pulled up to the spot, and once she pulled up to the spot, she was going to get out of the car and to go to the kiosk. And the guy was giving her a ticket. Okay, and she said, I'm going to the kiosk to put the money in, and she got the ticket. And not only did she get the ticket, She put the money in the ticket, and she came back, and she says, look it here. He grabbed the receipt from her and gave her another ticket because there was no money. Because look it, that's the wrong registration on there. Because he probably thought, for whatever it might be, she was lying, or whatever it could be. So she winds up getting two tickets. And this seems to be symptomatic for three people. Then another lady in Mystic Valley Pediatrics went in after her, showed her receipt, and the receipt had her registration number on it. This is not making any sense at all. There's a dentist in Medford Square where a person went in to have some work done in the dentist shop. And while they're in the dentist shop, one of the ladies that were in there said, I have to leave. What do you mean? I was an employee. I have to leave. I have to go put money in the meter. It was just around lunchtime. I have to go put money in the meter. She goes out putting money in the meter, and she left the poor dentist in the shop with a lady sitting on the chair that she had to get another secretary to come in and help her out. Okay? This is not making any sense at all. It's a whole bunch of things. No, these people are coming forward, and what they're upset about is that they addressed this to the mayor's office with absolutely no response, and that's just plain rudeness, whether you agree to disagree to the whole nine yards. I just don't know. As we continue to go, and here's the pictures of the parking lot. against the wall where Mystic Valley Pediatric Center, you have these two kiosks, and you have people parked almost 250 feet away who are basically coming here maybe for the first time, not even knowing what's going on. We do have a sighting section. Again, another violation of the contract on page 11. It says, operators' vehicles, the rear of all vehicles shall have a sign warning of frequent vehicle stops. Here we are again this week with the location, same truck, same vehicle, in the square, and no sign on the back making stops. This is a clear violation of the contract. We've got it now three weeks in a row with pitches. I don't know what the mayor thinks that This is great that he thinks this Republic company from Tennessee is doing a wonderful job, but I don't think so. And if you're starting to get people like this from Mystic Valley Pediatrics willing to come forward and use their names and they're not afraid of it because they're upset and they're really PO'd that the mayor would be disrespectful not even to respond, that's starting to tell the story and it's starting to escalate throughout this entire community. And I would hope that anyone who has a concern about this keeps on bringing them in, keeps on expressing them. You know, how do you put your money into the machine, and how do you get the wrong number to come out? And I think it was a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday, somebody put money in the machine, and they got more money back than what they put in. So where's that meter at, you know? Well, you know something? Whether you're for it or against it, it's that one lady who wanted to do what she thought was the right thing to do—it's probably going on three weeks now—went to Medford Square, went to go put the money in the meter, fell on the bank, and got rushed to the emergency room in the Lawrence Memorial by ambulance because she didn't want to get the ticket. To me, that, to me, is the whole story. This is more than the whole story, but this is just symptomatic as to what's going on. Councilor Caraviello, you said 60 days. The 60 days, I believe, is up. Okay? I don't know where the report is, but I can tell you this. I know what I'm going to do once that 60 days comes in. So, apparently, they have no respect for the resolution of the Council ER request. This is now the 17th, and, you know, this isn't me talking. This is all information that can be backed up. I mean, it's there. What can I tell you? It's anti-business, and if this is what Mayor McGlynn wants, to tax the people to death with another bogus tax the people, beside everything else, that's a damn shame. Yeah, my resolution is that, number one, I would like to have Councilor Caraviello's resolution of the first 60 days reported back as to revenues, and I think also, I think they need to come back and reappear before us, Republic, As to what all these inconsistencies and these happenings, I mean, how are they going to address them?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I got no problem with that. And also the fact that you have a violation of the contract. The cars are still not properly identified, as the contract says it is. Also, I believe you have people that will call up and tell you that they're getting tickets for parking on permit streets that still haven't even been identified by Republic as being updated and corrected.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, um, I think during this past winter season, we've all seen, um, the problems that exist not only here in the city of Medford, but out throughout the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And as a result of that, and after speaking with the folks at the, uh, Massachusetts department of transportation and going online and reviewing some things across the country, as it relates to streets and neighborhoods, sidewalks, curbs, and a whole host of things, where the money might be coming from. And after noticing that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts just had this new identification program implemented, asking people on any state roadways, if you see something that's dangerous, please take a picture, send it in, and identify a particular location. It gave me the idea that here in the city of Medford, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Just drive down any street in the city of Medford and you have potholes all over the place and desperate need to be filled, you know, potential damage just waiting to happen on any car or truck that may be driving down the street. But that also leads to another host of issues as it relates to the good weather and the good times and how are we going to handle certain things such as Um, viruses that seem to be emanating, um, from certain drains and soil systems, um, as the West Nile virus has presented itself. Um, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ran a survey last year of the 351 cities and towns, um, for which 229 of them responded on a major road survey. And unfortunately, and I don't know why the city of Medford did not respond to this. And this was in regards to Chapter 90 roadway funds that could be used for local communities had they sent in a description of what their needs might be for Chapter 90 roadway needs. And it comes especially in light of the fact that this administration, Governor's administration, Charlie Baker, has made a commitment to Chapter 90 roadway funding. But unfortunately, where the city of Medford falls in this, I don't know. They didn't do the survey, and the survey methodology wasn't complete. It was complete for 229 cities and towns. We have here in the city of Medford a brand new building for which we are spending approximately $15 million for a new Department of Public Works building. And in that Department of Public Works building, it would be hoped that we would have the men, the equipment, and the wherewithal to handle all the things necessary to look at our streets here in the city of Medford and as we continue to go forward and into the future, making our city better than what it has been and what it could be. As a result of that, I'm going to be asking in a two-part layered program that if anybody out there, whether you're on your own street or you see a city street, private way, and you have a concern because of a pothole, take the picture of it. Take the picture of it, ID it, send it in to the city clerk's office or the Department of Public Works, where you would at least get a, hopefully a system would be set up. You would get something that would be timed, dated and stamped and identified as to where the location might be. This could also be representative of if your street is in desperate need of repair. This is also in regards to when NSTAR and any other utility comes into the community, digs up a street, And six months or a year after the fact, there's a big concave in the ground. There's a hole in the ground. And that hasn't been addressed, and it doesn't take place. And that turns out to be a hole in the street. I think when you're asking the taxpayers of this community to recognize $15 million is now being put into a new public works building, I think you should also be asking that issues such as this need to be addressed. And they shouldn't be put on a burner saying, we don't have enough money to do it. We don't have the equipment. or we don't have the men to do it. I think we need to stop looking at where we're going with this type of rehabilitation that's needed here in the city of Medford. A most recent law passed by the state legislature will now allow sewer systems and drainage systems to have lava sides be placed into their drainage systems. Lava sides would be something that will be able to address Westphalia West Nile virus and any other potential that might be out there that has been out there. In the past, um, that has not been allowed because of, I believe the pesticide content that might be, have an environmental impact, but because of this inbreeding and the extension or the acceleration of, of West Nile virus and other, and other issues related to that, um, this year, um, department of public works, um, and city engineers, um, will be allowed to use lavisides into these particular locations. We have in excess of $6.5 million in free cash. I would hope that approximately $1 million of that money would be used to get into this city restoration street program. We all know that some monies may not be all, but some monies will be coming back from the federal government because of these storms. I believe it's a two-phase application from MEMA. And as a result of that, I believe The state administration feels comfortable approximately 35% of that, if not more, will be forthcoming on the first round, not knowing if they're going to accept the second round, having it to be identified as an emergency. And hopefully it will be identified. This is the first time in many, many years the weather has done what it has to the Northeast region in the area. So taking that into consideration and also recognizing that the new MS-4 permit that we talked about last week is now a real bone of contention. I went to a meeting last week up on Beacon Hill, where the Mass Water Resource, not MWRA, the Mass Water Resource Association, which comprised about six individuals that deal with water and sewage and drainage and EPA requirements, are on board with this because they know that the cost, which is going to be anywhere from $800,000 plus per each community to implement an MS4 system, is also going to have an impact on roadways and sidewalks and streets, curbings and machinery. They're asking not only for a delay to this, but they're also asking, as we had asked last week, our city engineer, to ask a pushback in an educational program for educating not only our community, but all the communities, of what this is going to entail and the cost impact. We know also on an annual basis that we have approximately a million dollars or thereabouts that comes back each and every year on our budget because of expenditures that don't take place, excise tax revenues, and a whole host of other things. So I think our commitment should be upfront relative to doing the streets and the potholes and doing them correctly. There are ways of doing it rather than just getting a shovel and taking it off the back of the truck and throwing it into a hole and let somebody drive over it, as compared to taking the time, putting it down, pounding it in, and making sure it's going to stay there for a reasonable period of time. Some streets are going to just need to be done completely all over. And I think one of the things, and I think this council has addressed it on numerous occasions, we keep giving licenses to NSTAR for whether it's gas or electric, whatever the diggings of the streets might be up. And I believe we have a $10,000, I think that's it, Mr. Clark, isn't it a $10,000 bond that they have to put up? I think we really need to start holding these accountable. I believe the last time that one of the utilities came here, we asked that it go back in six months. And if not, we were going to take that money. So we have the mechanisms, we have the avenues to do this, but I think this not only bodes well for our community, I think it puts ourselves in the right direction, because all the streets in our city are in desperate need of repair, and some shape, manner, and form. So in essence, in a nutshell, it basically is asking any person in the community to go out there, whatever you see that you might think is a hazard, take the picture of it, or if you don't wanna take the picture and you can't, make a phone call, either to the clerk's office or the highway department, and hopefully they'll set up some kind of a situation where you call on a particular day, you get a number, and that's it. It goes to the highway department, and they start addressing that this spring. It would be a shame to have the city administration say, we don't either have the equipment or the personnel to handle this, because that's not what they voted for when they voted for a $15 million building to upgrade the Department of Public Works, who claimed, or the city claimed, hasn't been upgraded in years, and they were working in a substandard building. We need to understand that if we're going to be paying monies to upgrade buildings and refurbish them or whatever we need to do. We need to have the equipment, the men and the tools to go with it, to handle what our city needs might be. So with that being said, Mr. President, I move the question, ask for a roll call vote and welcome any opportunity for comments. Thank you, councilor.
[Robert Penta]: That a million dollars be taken out of free cash.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. On that matter, from my understanding, the first — Point of information, counsel. Okay. Okay. There were four snowstorms that we're dealing with. I think what the state is trying to do is put the first three in together because of its closeness in time and calling that the major storm. If, in fact, that goes through, a larger portion of federal monies will come back to the state. If they take them separately or individually, it'll be a lesser portion, and each will have to be argued. There are two avenues. You're right. One is for snow, and one is for potholes. It's a priority. It's the second priority on the agenda of the Baker administration, so I'm quite sure you're going to see something come out of this. We'll see some action. Councilor Marks.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Naylor, maybe I'm confused. Are you talking about side streets or off main streets?
[Robert Penta]: I've got no problem with that. I think I'd like to just divide that into two parts. The first one, we've had construction companies and utility companies dig up our streets. And if the cost has to be attributed to them, and maybe we should, again, getting back to, as compared to the legitimate cost of a city street, maybe just break it down in two ways. That which and how the city's been dug up, it's caused the problem. And if it's a legitimate city street that we own outright with no other interference from an outside vendor, be it an instar or a contractor, so be it. And I think we'll get a better handle of what the true cost would be.
[Robert Penta]: That's part of the key. And the other part of the key is going back to a council of marks of literature, I mean, if we're building this new building, and we don't have the equipment, and we don't have the men, or whatever it might be, we probably need to be looking at something that's going to cost us a few more dollars. And that's what our free cash is for. You know, they have a special machine that's called a pothole pounder. I don't know if anyone's ever seen it. It comes out of the Midwestern part of the country. And what they do is they go up and down the streets, and in the middle of the truck, where where the hot tub is, it's hot, it goes into the ground, and then the pound, it just goes down, ba-boom, ba-boom, like that. And it's perfect. And it goes ba-boom, ba-boom. It pounds itself right in. And it might cost a few thousand, $100,000, a couple of hundred thousand, whatever it might be. But you're looking at the long-term effect of this. And that's what the whole thing is. We're not looking for 10. Yeah, right, we could borrow it to see how it works.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to make a point of, just a point of correction. I believe in, and when I gave my comments regarding the street recovery program, it was the Mass Municipal Association that ran the survey for the Commonwealth of Mass of the 229 cities and towns. I may have missaid that wrong, but that's, that's who did it. So I just want to let you know. And that's how they presented their chapter 90 budget because of the input that mass municipal gave to the state. And that's how they presented it. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: On that subject matter, I believe it was one of the topics that was brought up today at the Traffic Commission meeting this afternoon. I'm going to make a request on these boards and these commission meetings, just as an aside. There are a lot of people who would have liked to have attended, but they can't go at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. you know, either that or televise it or what have you, but to have it in an afternoon and knowing how important of an issue this is, and now as it is escalating into another part of the issue. Also, from last week to this week, once again, I happened to, again, have contact with people, especially in the West Method area, and I think they were the majority of the people at the meeting today, voicing not only their concerns but their objections to this whole kiosk program and how it's hurting their business. Um, and they can say whatever they want when the mayor makes the comment, he hasn't received one complaint. Well, they know that that's not true because either they've either called or they couldn't get through or that's nothing but good PR for what he wants to believe. Um, as of March 5th of this week, and once again, we have pitches of this wonderful Republic truck from Tennessee going out and according to page 11 of the contract, it states in Operator's Vehicles Part B, the rear of all vehicles shall have a sign warning of frequent stops. There's no sign indicating frequent stops. I don't know, each and every week, this has been going on since January, what does it take for this company, more importantly, what does it take for this man to understand that this company from Tennessee is just not doing what it's supposed to be doing? It's not honoring the contract, and it's not working out to the best of abilities for everybody. Councilor Marks, you asked, I think it was two weeks ago, when does 8-6 start? Has anybody gotten that answer yet? They passed it today. So 8-6 becomes effective when? So if that's the case, then when does the three-hour parking in the municipal lots go up? And when do all the signs that are bolted to the trees around the city, when do those things change? You know, there's a whole host of issues that revolve around this, and I'm not so I'll say it again, and as I said it before, I just think the whole thing is anti-business. I don't think it serves any purpose of doing anything to enhance business here in the city of Medford. The complaints are just too numerous. One lady in particular, unfortunately, two weeks ago or thereabouts, if not longer, falling down, trying to put money in a kiosk, getting rushed to a hospital. They parking in front of meters and hydrants, they can violate the law and they have to be told not to. And once again, you're right, Gene, you have to tell the chief. The chief has to go and tell them. These people know what the rules are and whatever it might be. And I think we're getting pretty close to the point that I think I probably would be moving pretty soon that we just end this contract. It'll be the best approximately $900,000 this city could spend to get rid of this company and then stick your head to the grindstone and figure out an enforcement program that makes sense here in the city of Medford, hiring people on a part-time basis, And I think people would acknowledge that. Or, and the alternative, as Councilor Camuso, you alluded to it in the beginning, if they put meters out there in the beginning, people would have understood it. They would understand seeing a meter, putting the money in the meter, and so be it. But it's too discombobulated. There is no uniformity. When they thought they were going to make a clean killing on Playstead Road from people from Winchester parking all day there for $5 a day, There's nobody there. Not one car. There's nobody there. So whatever they thought they were going to accomplish, they're not accomplishing. And changing from 7 to 7 to 8 to 6, it's 12 hours a week. That's 48 hours a month. Think about it. I mean, if I was Republican, I'd be running out of town and saying, hey, this isn't worth it for me. And that's it. So that's my comment as an aside to what you folks talked about right now. And it's obvious. Again, the problems continue to exist. with the McGlynn Traffic Enforcement Program, it's just not working. Thank you, Councilor Penta. Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: Quick. You just alluded to the word consensus, and I just want to highlight the fact that I thank you for bringing that up. I think the Mayor of Boston should be complimented. for him asking the citizens of Boston and anyone what their thoughts might be for the expansion or the upgrading of the City Hall Plaza down there. And that's just a great way to get people involved when you do that. What a shame that that doesn't take place in this community. And this administration is so close-knit on everything that they do. There's been nothing that talks about, nothing that talks about complete community interaction. So I thank you for bringing that up. And I would hope, you know, Wouldn't that be interesting if we put a budget item, a line item in the budget for community expansion by way of advertising. So when something comes up of a great magnitude, the people of this community, everyone will be notified in advance and they'll have a chance to participate rather than the clothes shop that apparently operates right now in a vacuum. It's a vacuum. Thank you. Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: Quick question. Yes, sir. You used the term, if we could do it and put it on Maiden Medford. What is Maiden Medford? What is that?
[Robert Penta]: Well, I would like to discuss the minutes of 224 if they're relative to me. If they're relative to something else, that's a different story.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Penta. Two questions, John. The first one is, you said there's about a hundred members?
[Robert Penta]: The question I would have, where are they going to park their cars? Where are they going to park their cars? Are they going to infringe upon the neighborhood?
[Robert Penta]: And is this a reintroduction of the old Italian club that used to be on Up and South? Pardon me? Is this a reintroduction of the Italian club that used to be up on South Method? No, not at all.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. If that is all Councilor Penta. And one last thing, John, uh, on your page that you have coming back from the department of revenue and the letter of compliance, I'm sorry, on the letter that came back from the department of revenue that was submitted, the indicate you have no withholding, no sales and no room occupancy. Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: But in that pipe that you filed, you're not being responsible for withholding sales in room and room.
[Robert Penta]: But what are you going to do if, in fact, in the future you said you folks are going to be applying possibly for a liquor license? Now, somebody has to pay for that. So are the members going to pay for that?
[Robert Penta]: I don't know. If you were to get a liquor license from the City and your members go there for an event, are they going to charge for the alcohol that they are going to be serving? Yes. Okay. Then you would have to come back and reapply for a sales tax provision as far as that part goes.
[Robert Penta]: Go ahead. Let him speak.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. This is one of the very few times that I guess I'm lost for words because it's maybe Councilor Camuso, maybe you hit it right in the head. The fact of the matter is, I look at this as the evil empire of a disease that apparently has come into our community and it's been neglected. And it's roared its ugly head to such a point that this demon of a disease now has brought folks who are dealing with this on a daily basis to the city council. And I think we all are. I'll speak for myself. In the family, yes, there is. So I'll just leave it at that. I have an understanding as to what's being said. But my opinion would be this. I think the city needs to make a full-fledged financial, educational, and social, and a budgetary commitment that if we're really going to be serious, we're going to take this right down to the lowest level of education, starting with the kids who are in nursery school, not nursery, what's the next level? First grade, and all the way up, and let them understand the danger of what this disease is all about. You know, Councilor Caraviello talked about his friend, 61 years old, Councilor Camuso, his age just a little bit younger. There's other folks even younger, and there are adults, mothers and fathers who sometimes become addicted. For why it happens, I don't know. But if this city has the good fortune to go out of its way to raise over a million dollars for a brand new peace garden, they can go out of its way to find the necessary tools to have a budget appropriation that's going to deal with this. as part of the medical justification why the city of Medford does care about its inhabitants, its students, its families, its mothers, its fathers, and anyone who might have an addiction. I think tonight is a big wake-up call for this city. For the folks that came up there and spoke, was it hard to do? It certainly was hard, but I think you're really relieved that you came up here and said it. because you've now got the entire council, I'll leave Councilor De La Ruza to himself, you've got at least six councilors speaking right now, and I think we're all in your court. New Governor Baker, his second commitment was the opiate problem here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So right from the governor's office all the way down, there is going to be nexus as to how this city and where this city should be going. I not only concur with you, Councilor Marks, I just think it's, you know, it's been laid under the rug for so long And how do you say it other than the fact, you know, enough is enough? The police department, I'm quite sure, can come up here and tell you case after case, story after story, arrest after arrest. It does have an impact in this community. And why should anybody be afraid to say that particular house or that particular part of the city, you know, there's drugs over there more than another part. There should be no drugs at all. There should be no drugs at all. And to get to no drugs at all, friends like Janelle, if you know someone that's on it, you've got to just turn them in and that's it. It's the only way you're going to save their life because no one else is either going to do it or they want to get involved. You know, we're seven adults here behind this rail. And I'm quite sure they will all agree on this one here. Do we want to see this continue on? No. Do we want to see it corrected? Absolutely. And the first step is, as Councilman Marks has his resolution going forward, but I honestly think it should be stepped up even further. I think a dollar amount should be put into the budget. I think there should be a social, educational, and a financial commitment. And you know something? The newspaper is here right now. And I'd like to have the newspaper report and make this its headline story as it relates to the Medford City Council recognizes the drug problem in the city of Medford, and they're going to demand from the city administration that action takes place to protect those that are either in the program or having drugs, and to protect the families that have children, unfortunately, who are addicted to this, because they need help just as much as the person that's addicted in the program. So with that being said, Mr. President, I would hope that you, as leader of our council, conclude by offering not only your support to Councilor Marks' resolution, but let's have the folks walk out of this audience here tonight and recognize they came here with a true and honest and a just purpose, and they did get results tonight. They didn't get lip service, they didn't get a press conference, and I thank you for Councilor Camuso. You did bring that up a few weeks ago. The mayor tried a jump shot, but he didn't do it. You beat him to the punch because you were legitimate. The issue was legitimate, and that's where it belongs. It has a smack of legitimacy that needs to be addressed. It's not a phony, come on. It's a true reality in life here in the city of Medford. And if drugs are out there, then the first thing to do is you have to recognize it, Address it and work to get rid of it slowly. And the only way you're going to do that is you're going to have to bring it to the attention of every single person, and starting with just your children at the youngest of age, to let them know that this is not good for their health, their mind, their body, and their spirit. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: A question. I want to go back to Councilor Caraviello. You talked about the D.A. program. Where did you want the D.A. program to go? Every school. Starting from kindergarten up?
[Robert Penta]: I believe also, Over and beyond the moving violation, there's another one in there. Unpaid parking tickets. What about them?
[Robert Penta]: Sir, you made your application out on December 4th of 2014. Yeah. And the question was asked, do you owe money for any parking fines? And the answer is yes. And do you owe money for parking tickets? And the answer is yes. I don't owe. No, but he's trying to, this was in December. You haven't paid since December. This is now March. And what is the traffic violation for?
[Robert Penta]: Did you pay that fine?
[Robert Penta]: Which city was that, sir?
[Robert Penta]: So you made your appeal to the city of Boston? Yeah. Did you have your hearing? Please? Did you have your hearing? No.
[Robert Penta]: Next week?
[Robert Penta]: Next week.
[Robert Penta]: And what about the parking tickets? What about those? How many parking tickets do you have? I think I have two. Mr. Chairman, before the license is granted, tickets, and if he's going next week for the hearing, can we hold that off until we get the results?
[Robert Penta]: The Corey check is basically for criminal background check. It's not for licenses and it's not for a ticket. So what the chief is saying is correct. And I think, as a city clerk has questioned seven and eight strike that. Well, six really wouldn't come up under the query, but seven and eight definitely would not come up under the query. And I think those need to be, uh, as council max alluded to, I think they need to be addressed. And I agree with council Caraviello, um, to hold us in the dance until both of these are resolved. But don't forget this application was made getting everybody. The chief responded on February 19th and this fellow made his application on January 16th. This is what I don't understand. He filed on January 16th, 2015. The last fellow that was up here put his application on December 4th, 2014. Why is there such a spread in time before these things get approved?
[Robert Penta]: No, December 4th. December 4th. The last gentleman applied December 4th. This gentleman applied January 16th.
[Robert Penta]: I understand that. But I don't understand the, both of them came back at the same time. to be presented before the council, and there's almost a month and a half spread between both applicants.
[Robert Penta]: A vote of five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Let the record reflect the reason why I, and I believe my council colleague, voted no was because of the impending review of the traffic law, I mean the tax.
[Robert Penta]: When was that supposed to become effective? Because that's the calls I'm getting. When does the 8 to 6 become effective?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta real quick on the convenience fee. I think it was, um, uh, mighty Walsh, the mayor of Boston who was trying to, um, and I believe they have the same system that we have there. They're negotiating for 12 and a half cents. I believe rather than 35 cents that's presently out there, but that's neither here or there. I believe we're dating back to January 16th of this past year. One of the members on the commission, um, Mrs. DeLorenzo, I, you know, I think it was subsequent to the council's request to change this to eight to six. And that was sent to, um, uh, council, you know, Mr. Rumbly on February 3rd, a solicitor did render an opinion and he did run her opinion basically saying that it falls within the purview of the traffic commission. But he makes a very interesting note on the second page of his, of his opinion. He states, as to the effect of the regulatory rate changes on the contract, quote, substantial change, that impedes or enhances enforcement may result in a negative or positive impact on percentage payments that may be due under the contract. The same is true for substantial reduction or increase on parking spaces. So, and I believe, again, the argument that was brought up, or our issue was brought up in discussion, And that from 7 to 7, you're going from 8 to 6. That's a substantial change in the contract. And I believe it was you, Councilor Caraviello, I believe, who asked for the review after the first 60 days. And within that 60 days, we're going to have an idea just where they're going, what revenues or lack thereof with the change of this. And if they consider this to be a substantial change in the contract, this is going to have to be reviewed a step further. I'd like to just bring one other attention to this whole issue. During this past week, I received the following points of concern from residents. There is a lady who walked in Medford square in the CVS and she went to go put the money in the meter and she fell down and she had to be rushed to the Lawrence Memorial Hospital because of, because of just trying to get to the meter where the snow bank was. Also in an area that we were told that Republic was going to be apprised as to what's going on, I believe during the past two weeks, There was a funeral that took place at St. Joseph's Church on High Street. And when the folks came out that went to the funeral mass, their cars were all ticketed and tagged. And apparently the good father over there had to go down to the police department or Republic to get that resolved. The subsequent concern that came out of that, because they do operate on a Saturday, the priest's concern was, what if there's a wedding? Are those people going to be tagged? that go to church on Saturday on a wedding. And I believe we were told by the Republic that once they knew what was going on, none of these people would be tagged. And here it is, they just got tagged two weeks ago. And then during this past Sunday, in the bulletin of the church, there is a notation as it relates to the collaboration of the churches between St. Joseph's and St. Francis. And because of the collaboration, they're going to use alternate dates, especially for the Feast Easter, but he indicates over here, we plan and underscore that the fact that we are now in a collaborative, but we also need to work around each parish's schedule and as well as the parking meter times that have become an issue of late. Now, we were told that this was not going to be a problem for the churches and for them to put it into the bulletin, having not only a problem already exist, it's obvious that Republic just has not gotten the message. Once again, last week I introduced pictures of Republic driving down the street, not having properly marked notices on their car, supposed to be in the back. All they had was, all they have now was just a P on the door. There's no telephone number, there's no identification of who they are or what they are. So I really think there are some serious infractions in this particular contract that they have here with the city of Medford.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. I have not seen anything there yet either. So why? I don't know. But the fact of the matter is now, I think it's now been bumped up and escalated. If you have one of the churches in our community expressing not only a problem, not only a problem with a funeral, potential problem for a wedding, and now putting it in the bulletin that addresses a community of over 9,700 people, which make up the parish of St. Joe's, and relative to the meat is becoming an issue, the lady falling down in Medford Square having to be taken by an ambulance. I just really think that this program really is not business friendly, it's not friendly to the community, and hopefully Councilor Caraviello, when the 60 days are up, we will have numbers to work on, and as far as I'm concerned, I would make a determination that we opt out of this whole program. It'll be the best money the city ever paid, and bring a city back to some sense of normalcy. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Caraviello.
[Robert Penta]: I would like to have my resolution on there also to, I mean, my amendment to that as it relates to the churches. So whether it's for a funeral and now for a wedding during the hours that they said that they weren't going to, uh, you know, and it's, it's obvious, you know, for them to put it in the bulletin, it's, it's presented itself as a concern. Also, Mr. President, you know, We were also told that at the parking commission, maybe three, four weeks ago, that all the city's parking lots would be three hours. Nothing has been changed. No signage has been changed to three hours. And you still have signs. You can go down Main Street. Signs are bolted to the trees. It's ridiculous. This company is just not doing what it's supposed to be doing. It's quite obvious that the mayor doesn't care. He just signs a contract. He really doesn't care what the impact is, and it's obvious. But I just really think that there is something wrong with how this whole operation is basically taking place. I had a lady turn around and tell me, I believe on Governor's Avenue, they changed, by Carlene's over there, they changed the two hours to a 30-minute parking spot. The Traffic Commission approved it in their minutes. A lady went out there, and the guy was coming around the street and was going to give her a ticket. I said, what are you doing? She's only been in. She's only inside for 10 minutes. No, no. Don't tell me. I mean, I'm watching. I'm right there with her. So how do they make this arbitrary decision of who's going to be there if there's no way to determine it?
[Robert Penta]: If we could, Councilor Pater. On the same thing, what Councilor Camuso just alluded to, whether it's 15 minutes or 30 minutes, you have spots in the city that's an hour or two hours, and there's no kiosks or anything there. So how do they make these judgmental calls by going down there and, you know, they're going to take the time and write every number down? You know, I saw something interesting the other... It's all in the sky. Yeah, I saw something interesting the other day. I was on Boston Avenue in the morning, and we saw the car going down the street. He was going down, how can you say, going towards Somerville on Boston Avenue. He was probably going down there to check out the people, and all of a sudden, he must have got a call, and he whipped his rear around, and he blew through that intersection at least 40, Councilman Marks was there, 40 to 50 miles an hour. He gave no credit, because going right back to what you said, they probably got a buzzer that went off, that the person in the two hours was already over and beyond, This makes no sense how they run this operation that there was no consistency and you know How do you give out a ticket to someone when it's not even? When it's a snow emergency these people should know what's going on They should read the newspaper or they should be tied into the weather report that talks about a snow emergency in the city It's just unfair On the motion of Councilor Marks as amended all those in favor.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I have a whole folder here on this whole idea of this MS-4. This has been around for maybe the last couple of years or thereabouts, maybe 2011 when it first came up. This mandate would put an absolute tremendous cost upon the city of Medford. And as a result of that, especially as the whole resolution recites itself, They're giving no help, no assistance. You're on your own. Whether the city of Medford, again, whether they want to join a coalition or not, it would be up to them. But I just think an $800,000, $900,000 hit on an annual basis for every one of the cities and towns to have to be looking at this right now, especially when we have unfunded retirement benefits that need to be paid. Just as tonight, just looking at the problem with the drugs and that's impact here in the city of Medford. But this is something I really think that the city of Medford needs to do, as other cities and towns are beginning to do. Send letters to the EPA. And they have an address in Boston. It's 5 Boston Square. But I also think that our federal state representatives, Catherine Clark, and Markey, and Warren, need to be on board with this. They're the first ones out there saying, oh, we've got to help the people and stuff like that. You can't help the people by giving unfunded mandates such as this. Absolutely, totally unfunded. And they have taken grants away that normally could have been used or would have been used for things such as this matter. So with that being said, Mr. President, I have no problem. It probably would be even more helpful if our city engineer was on board with this or our Department of Public Works. But I think at the outset, as a legislative body, as these other 85 cities and towns are doing, they're sending in these letters. And basically, you're just asking them to delay it until you're ready to put a practical program in place that cities and towns can take a look at and can see. The way this thing is set up right now, if you have a street sweeper that goes down the street, you can't even have that street sweeper anywhere near a gutter because of what it's going to be able to go in there, because that's part of the stormwater drain. So there's a whole host of things that are implied with this, like I said. This has been going on. I have all this stuff here. Uh, but this is really, that's the issue of the resolution is, is the gut of the matter. And, um, the point person, uh, well, the point person for the city would be the city engineer. Cause they're, and, and, uh, Paul gear, who happens to be the director of public works, but it's, it's an issue that the city just cannot handle. They don't have the personnel and they don't have the expertise. Um, they may be expertise enough to understand what needs to be done, but we don't have the tools to implement this thing. And we don't have any resources. that the federal government are now imposing upon cities and towns, where the federal government should be having these workshops, should be having cities and towns go there to understand it. And when you get your notice of intent permit, have it in more of a reasonable way, not 90 days. And then you have to have the whole program complete within a year. It's a cost. It's huge. It's 900,000 or thereabouts.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. So I have no problem to take the resolution. We can work with it, add or subtract to it. But the EPA is in Boston at 5 Post Office Square in Boston. And I believe that they are and they will accept comments as it relates to this. And I believe the more comments they get, They'll have an understanding that we can't go forward with this. But I think it's also beneficial, again, that our federal delegation becomes on board with this, too, because they can say, well, it needs to be done. A lot of things need to be done. But we've had so many unfunded mandates. Leave No Child Behind is one, which is an educational mandate. But this is something that's really huge. And this isn't just a one-shot deal. This is every year. You're going to have to deal with this thing every single year. And you're going to have to buy the equipment and the tools and everything that goes with it. I'd like to, um, I don't know. What do you want to do with it? I, I would just like to send the letter off to the EPA and then just refer it upstairs and hopefully that the city administration does what they're supposed to do.
[Robert Penta]: You could do that.
[Robert Penta]: So if we could, uh, legislative bodies, administrative and legislative bodies, we have a mayor, other cities and towns have city managers, but they have been soliciting, um, commentaries from legislative bodies, which is councils as well as the administration. So it just adds to the impact of recognizing that there is a cost involved in getting to that cost. There's just no preparation. It's onto the cities and towns.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, the Watershed Association has nothing to do with this. This is an EPA mandate as it relates to our wastewater disposal and how it's going through, and whether it's through the – just how it's leaving the city, or all cities and towns. And this is something where 85 cities and towns have now, either through a coalition or independently, are asking the federal government to put a hold on this and waiting until appropriate federal funding is available to ensure that these requirements don't translate into a financial burden. There's no workshops being held up on this. I'm quite sure that our city engineer is aware of this, but like I said, this is now coming through after meeting and having this discussion and reviewing what 85 cities and towns are now doing. So it's just, you know, we're not going to be novel on this. This is a direct approach of an unfunded mandate from the federal government.
[Robert Penta]: So on that motion and or the city council can take its own independent action after whatever she does.
[Robert Penta]: Counsel Penton? In June of 2014, Mr. Sano had his name placed in nomination for Retailer of the Year after he received the award of the Greater Boston. And the competition to become the Realtor of the Year put him into 15 real estate associations, and in competition with 20,000 individuals whose name came up for review for the particular purpose. If anybody does know Mr. Sano, he works at Remax in Medford Square, Remax Andrew Realty. He's completely dedicated not only to his job, to his family, but the whole idea of being a professional in this particular job. And I believe anyone that knows him, especially in that office, They will tell you on a daily basis he lives, sleeps, and eats, being a good real estate person for whoever his client might be. Also, he's also well known in the regional area of realtors and the greater Boston leadership because of commitment to doing this. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'd like to have Mr. Sano come before the council, receive the award, for which was given out, I believe, this past December by the vice president of, I guess, the State of the Professional Awards reception this past December. And it would be nice. You know, we seem to be blessed having certain business folks in this community. You know, most recently we just had Dr. Lepore receive a piece of legislation that was passed long overdue as it relates to wind instruments and helping to protect people not to get any diseases from using it. We have Victor Garrow, who made national acclaim by defending a person for 30 years and bringing justice to someone not being found guilty for a crime that he didn't commit. And here we have now a local realtor here in the city of Medford. We have three people from three different walks of life, and I just think folks like that need to be recognized. and let people know that in our city of Medford, there are many citizens of the year, and they come from many walks of life. So that being said, I'd like to have Mr. Clark, we can get in touch with Mr. Sano and have him come to a future council meeting.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. In that packet, we received a letter from the mayor uh, dated February 27th, as it relates to the, uh, um, the GIC situation that we discussed last week in the letter, um, they may have make some mistake on the right in the beginning, uh, plan design rest for GIC. There will be a voting on the rates on their upcoming March 3rd meeting. It isn't March 3rd, it's tomorrow, March 4th. And for those who might be interested in this March 4th meeting, which is tomorrow, and I believe it's at eight 15 or between eight 15, eight 30, You can attend the meeting, but they're not going to allow public comment. So that unfortunately seems to set another tempo here. Also in the letter, basically substantiates, I think, what we discussed last week, at least what I said. The unfortunate part of the GIC program, it's been intentionally underfunded for the past three years, and they never took it into any consideration. And when they were doing their budgetary process, the prior administration, They never took into consideration the additional people who were joining GIC and that the end of federal funds were not being forthcoming to the Commonwealth of Mass. So the cost of approximately $162 to $197 million is the cost right now, unfortunately, that GIC is going to be held accountable for to make whole this whole idea of those cities and towns that are in the GIC program. Another thing, another major change that they have made, it's going to go from an annual January to December to a fiscal year, which will be July 1st to June 30th. And one of the keys in here is as follows, and I think it just segues itself into what we talked about last week, which is the following. It states, the GIC members can only change from an individual to a family or a family to an individual coverage with the qualifying event, which is marriage, birth, adoption of a child, change in the dependent eligibility, divorce, pursuant to subject matter chapter 32A, eligibility requirement, death of a spouse, dependent or a spouse, or dependence and voluntary loss of coverage elsewhere. Now, by having that, that one-time event, and coupling that with Harvard Health and Tufts going from a PPO to a POS, the next part that seems to be an unqualified issue is the fact that anyone who's in PPO and goes to a POS, whether it be in Tufts or Harvard, if you have a particular doctor in a particular hospital that are not in it, you cannot go to it. You lose that doctor. You lose that hospital. So what was said before is, while the 85-15 might stay the same, there is a huge, there will be a 6% to 12% increase. That's what it looks like. The projection is going to be at tomorrow's event for them to take the vote. This administration, the Baker administration, I believe, is committed to offsetting by a supplemental budget, getting close to that $192 million, which appears to be the magic number right now. But also, with that being said, the issue of whether, in fact, monies are going to be forthcoming in the future as it relates to offsetting that, that's going to be another issue unto itself. I think what needs to take place, and if I understand the gentleman who came here last week and indicated we're locked in until 2017. Now, the only thing that we're locked into is the percentage rate. We're not locked into keeping the rates what they are. The city of Medford, as well as each subscriber, is going to have to wind up paying for this in some shape, manner, or form. So if you're a current employee, you're a retiree, a survivor, a school teacher, a policeman, a fireman, a municipal employee, are going to pay for this effective July 1st with the rates that will be forthcoming. One of the things that were brought up in discussion, and it was a point made really applicable by the Mass Teachers Association and the American Teachers Association, and their claim is quite candid, that they honestly feel that this whole health care cost, which is an outrageous cost, is being driven by insurance companies because The driving of these rates are going up because of the claims. And the claims are being predicated by people going to more expensive either hospitals or more expensive doctors. Now, when the program and the problem was being introduced, strike that, when the whole insurance issue was being introduced, I believe in 2011, for which the city of Medford jumped on board, effective July, January 1st of 2012, the whole idea was to reduce our insurance cost here in the city of Medford. Let's just talk about the city of Medford. And that would have worked very well, and I think everybody recognized the fact that their co-pays and their family costs were going to go up as part of joining this. But the city of Medford indicated that they would be saving approximately $25 to $26 million over a four-and-a-half, five-year period of time.
[Robert Penta]: No, this is the presentation of today, attending the meeting that the governor was at, and we had this discussion. You don't mind, do you? It's information that is forthcoming. And as a result of that, This information is very important. So anyone who was on GIC here in the city of Medford, Unicare, that seems to be the difference between Tufts Health and what's the other one? I just forgot it. And what is the other one? I just forgot the other name. Well, anyway, Harvard Health, Tufts Health and Harvard Health. So the tradeoff is going to be your fees and costs are going to be higher in Tufts Health and Harvard Health, but Unicare may be at an issue where they might either be the same or they may go down. But the real major concern is anyone who has their PPO is going to go to a POS, you are going to lose If you lose your doctor or the hospital associated with it that you had before, and the PPO, and it's not found in the POS, then you cannot go to that doctor. You're going to have to find another doctor in another hospital. So these are one of the diminishing things that are taking place. And now we're up to 60 communities, 60 communities that seem to be ready to jump on board. We were at 50 at the time. Now we're up to 60 cities and towns. And again, the argument is the larger the numbers, the lower the cost should be. But it's not working out that way. And one of the big stumbling blocks The Patrick administration, for three years in a row, underfunded intentionally the liability that was necessary to be paid in that GIC program. And that's where we're at right now. So what started off as a $320 million deficit, when the Patrick administration said they were passing a budget that's current and it's level, it's now up to, I think, almost $900 million, a shade under a billion dollars. And these are one of the areas, unfortunately, that are being taxed. Hopefully, the mayor who was the negotiator in behalf of this can recognize the wherewithal to do something that offsets before 2017 no further increases that we would have to pay here in the city of Medford. I don't know what the relationship is between Harvard and Pilgrim with employees, retirees, and survivors as compared to Unicare, but that does and that will have an effect upon the city of Medford.
[Robert Penta]: No.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, This has really been a tough week, as we all know, between the snow and everything else.
[Robert Penta]: I was just making a preemptory comment.
[Robert Penta]: I see the chief here tonight. Chief, is he here? Yeah. Okay. No, um, I have no, uh, chief, uh, this is my resolution. As you know, that it's on the agenda for this evening, but in no way do I want that to interfere with any comments that you might be having as it relates to the paid a parking program. So, okay. All right. So with that being said, um, I have no problem laying it on the table. You want to wait for Councilor Caraviello, because I really don't know when Councilor Camus is coming back, how serious he is, sick or what.
[Robert Penta]: Another question. Um, um, I'm trying to get the visualization. Is this on the side of the street where Colleen's is on? Is that the hole? The hole that was there?
[Robert Penta]: OK. If I remember correctly, too, on that particular hole that continuously started to sink, it was getting larger and larger. And the unfortunate part about it, I know some business merchants had called up until it almost actually caved in. And that's the place some months earlier, many months earlier, I believe the MWRA was there as they were addressing a water leak on that particular part of the street. I believe, on a connection, and it was filled in. And I think on this one here, I think, if I remember correctly, it's where the sinkhole is going next to the curb, but it was right by the curb, and it just kept sinking, and it kept going in and in and in. So maybe the better issue is you can get back to us when it was done, but just how fragile is that particular? A lot of work has been done in that area over there. And maybe if we can get just an update from DPW, if we can add to the resolution.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, to check that into the fragility. Is that such a word? Yeah, I think it's fragility.
[Robert Penta]: The fragility of the ground and the land in that particular area. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Long-Beaucourt.
[Robert Penta]: I like to, um, can we just move the consideration of the paper we laid in the table? I just like to bring that up. I want to do something different with it on the paper.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I'm going to, I'd like to move that the paper be withdrawn. And what I'll do is I'll just introduce it next week as a separate resolution on the motion that this paper be withdrawn by a Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, we all know that when this new implementation took place, going to a tiered rate system, there was some pushback as it relates to the tier 1, 2, and 3 setup that originally started off at 0 to 800 cubic feet, 801 cubic feet to 1,600 cubic feet, and then from 1,600 cubic feet and up. And there was a lot of concern that was, I believe, expressed here at the council meeting, and also, likewise expressed, I think, to the Water and Sewer Rate Commissioners. But through their staff, led by Ron Baker, who was in charge, and he is, I believe, he's the operations supervisor over this, the request was made not only by the council, but to the commission that maybe we should just look at on a percentage basis, just where are we going on this tiered rate system because, in essence, it did turn out to be a water rate increase for certain members. Most recently, at the last Water and Sewer Commission, there was an adjustment that did take place. I had made the suggestion that we should look at the first billing that goes out and just see how many people fall within that 0 to 800. Because at that point in time when they did it, it was an estimation of the same thing with tier 2 and the same thing with tier 3. They've now gone into a revised tier system, which now puts you into the tier 1 system up to the first 1,000 cubic feet. And tier 2 goes from 1,000 to 2,000, and tier 3 goes from 2,000 and up, which is a significant, not large, but it's a significant increase as it relates to giving homeowners an opportunity to receive a benefit as it relates to the increase. So if I understand that chart correctly here, the billing cycle as it will go onto this new rate system will be as follows. I believe you're getting to an approximate amount 76% from 66 to 76% of the single-family homes. Condos will go from 82 to 90%. And these are keeping the people in the 0 to 1,000 mark. The two-family will go from 76 to 85. The three-families will go from 79% to 87. And the four-family will go from 68. And that basically stayed the same at 68%. Taking all this into consideration, What it represents financially to the city is the following amount total. It's a savings of $69,230 and overall condos overall in the city will save approximately $39,363. Single families will come up to $21,881. Two families will come up to $6,888. And the three families, there's a saving of $1,096 total overall. With that being said, the opportunity is now increased for more savings. I believe, if I understand all of this correctly, that once you get to that zero to 1,000 mark, you go to 1,001, you'll only be charged a difference between 1,000 and 1,001 if you fall into that second tier system. And it would be the same argument going forward for the one to the two and the two and the two and the top. I want to thank Mr. Baker in particular and his working crew the board for recognizing the fact that we need a little bit more equity in this water and sewer rate structure, since in fact it's an $8.5 million surplus sitting over there, and since in fact the mayor has yet to present anything to us that talks about a water and sewer street construction or water and sewer improvements in this community, and as the law writes itself, it basically says it either has to go to that type of a component, a water and sewer street reconstruction or water and sewer reconstruction, or the money has to go back to the rate payers. So I would hope that this is probably somewhat of a first step at looking at where we're going with this excess money that we have. Also, with the tiered system that the council on numerous occasions has spoken to about, and now we'll have an opportunity to see it by increasing from 800 to 1,000 and from 1,600 to 2,000, the max on both, that's 200 cubic feet in the water, it's 400 cubic feet Tier 2, which is the commercial rate, and above that, it's everyone else that uses it. It's a high volume group and density. I think it's a good start. And once we get those adjustments recalculated, we'll have a better idea as to where we're going. But as it stands right now, I believe this will take effect. If I understand this, it's the next billing cycle, not the one that we just had. I believe it's the next billing cycle. So with that being said, I just thought They should be noticed out, and taxpayers should be aware of it, and people who did it should be recognized.
[Robert Penta]: I believe that's a separate issue as it relates to how the Water and Sewer Commission has now gotten into it. We did not have a tiered rate system at that point in time. The tiered rate system I believe came in October, November of this past year. As a result of that, and because of the pushback and the concerns from rate payers and taxpayers, their initial tier one, two, and three systems had somewhat of a concern with people as to the charges. So listening to not only the council, council members and taxpayers, they bumped it up to zero to 1,000 instead of zero to 800. And the 1,000 now goes to one to 2,000 and 2,000 plus coming up to be the max. There are representative percentages as it relates to your water bill that's coming forward, how and what the mayor is going to do relative to the 600,000 that the council cut out. We still haven't seen that and have no idea. And you know, as we know, each and every year for the last four years, there's been a million dollar surplus or thereabouts sitting in a, and that's how we get in our free cash. So, so maybe that's how it's just going to Peter itself out at the end of the year. I don't know.
[Robert Penta]: Let's go.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. You're right about the increase. I believe it was a 10% or 11% increase. That represented the $600,000 in the budget. And I believe that the four members of the council who voted to eliminate that out of the budget was because of the fact that we had an $8.5 million surplus. And because we had $8.5 million surplus, why should we be going out and taxing on that particular part? This here is something, apparently, that goes back, I believe, to April or May of 2014, when they first had a discussion on a rate system. I think it was Councilman Marks who originally brought up the issue on the more you use, the more you pay in commercial vendors. And I think this goes back to the former city engineer, who supposedly was in charge of whatever he was in charge of. I don't know. But to get to this point here, it's a combination of not only conservation, but I think it's also a slow way of maybe addressing any increase that might be taking place in the future. But this also has a component with the EPA, the federal EPA coming in here looking at a conservation method as it relates to water usage. And they have this broken down, what they think per person, whatever it might be. Of course, the argument to that is if you have two or three or four kids in the family, that's all down the drain anyway. But that's neither here nor there. So this is a beginning. This isn't a do all, be all. It's a beginning to not only do the conservation, but once again, we see what the numbers and other numbers come in. And if it works, it works. If it doesn't work, then we're going to have to look at it again. But it's better than going up with the rates and the cost. It's coming down to all four categories. Single family, condo, two family, and three family. Four families all stayed the same.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Honorable. Continue on that further? I was going to do that. That's my last point. So you just brought it up. So I want to thank you for that. I think, from what I understand from my involvement with Mass Municipal Association, cities and towns are now getting together just as it relates to that particular point. So maybe at the outset, and I don't know how to begin this, but maybe at the outset, maybe it should be City of Medford writes something to our state legislation or maybe to the MWRA and ask them for them to set up some type of a system, maybe during certain months of the year, knowing where there's a lot of snowfall, that a lot of that water may go down the drain. Because they can tell you the increase, the amount of the increase of the water flow. It's obvious that some kind of a consideration is given or some kind of credit is given or whatever it might be, because it doesn't happen all the time. It's only at this time of the year.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to echo your comments, Councilor, Mr. President. Monty Hilson, well recognized within the boys baseball organizations, especially, you know, with the younger children. And I just think it's a fine recognition for long years of service.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, Lieutenant Goulding, Michael Goulding is a fine young man. He's had many wonderful years here in the Method Police Department. And I know our chief who's here right now tonight is sorry to see him go, but I think he's, happy to know he's been able to be elevated to a like comparison to him being a chief of another nice community. And I just think it's nice to recognize one of our own achieving this type of a station in their life. And last night, the town of Western Board of Selectmen voted him in unanimously. So I just think it would be a proper, just to make a public recognition.
[Robert Penta]: Um, thank you. Uh, I thank Councilor Caraviello. Uh, we had a discussion on this earlier this week as it relates to this. Uh, I, I think it would be equally as important to have somebody here from, uh, Maura Haley's office as well. This was a 48 page decision. And I think it would be, you know, this council's been on top of this since day one. We've involved ourselves. We've had health partners, folks here. We had Mr. Sachs here a couple of times, whether he agreed or disagreed, what his comments were. At least they were there. There was a public, two public forums. But the key is not because of the Lawrence Memorial Hospital or the Melrose Lakeville Hospital. The key to this whole story is the one down the South Shore. And that was the telling sign. I have some of the documents that she has issued, Maura Healy, but I think it would be important to have somebody here because I believe that there are other options available to the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. It may not be as great as what Partners was going to offer, but I think something like that needs to be addressed. Also, the fact that not only did Mr. Sack retire when we were told that he was going to continue on and be in charge of the Melrose-Wakefield, no matter what happened to this situation here, So I think there needs to be some information, Rick, on why he retired so suddenly, you know, and you would hope it's not a million dollar balloon payout because they didn't get their way. I mean, and who's going to be left holding the bag here is going to be all the patients and the doctors and the nurses that don't have an opportunity to go to that hospital or won't have an opportunity to go to that hospital. And as we saw the amount of money that's being infused into the Melrose Wakefield Hospital, it's a pittance compared to what's taking place over here at the Lawrence Memorial. So, unfortunately, I think we're at the tail end of the stick on this one here. But putting that aside, I think the other part of the story is I respectfully request that somebody from Maura Healey's office be here. And I think to have them all here at the same time to explain it would make a lot — would make sense.
[Robert Penta]: Picking up on what Councilor Camuso just alluded to, the fact of the matter is that I believe it was Mara Healy, her position was integrated with a host of other hospitals, presidents and executives from other hospitals, who said that this competition would be devastating to them It would put partners in such a position that they would have some kind of a control that would take years and years and years to overcome. Also, there was no proven fact that the rates would go down as partners said that they would. And apparently, the documents that were submitted by these other executives from these other hospitals were enough to tantalize, let's put it this way, Maury Haley to the point of saying, hey, I'm not going to do it. But also, she did indicate that if this went through, she was going to sue the judge because of the decision that she made, and she felt as a result of that. Now, whether you agree or disagree with Maura Healy and why she's doing what she did, I don't think we can answer that. I think we'll have a better understanding when all the parties are here and they can tell us what their reasoning is and what their reasoning isn't going to be. I think Lawrence is the low man on the totem pole of all of this. There was the South Shore Hospital first, then it's the Melrose-Wakefield, and they're going to be taken care of, and it's us. But I believe that there is a game plan. I believe that there is a game plan. may not be as grandiose as they would have liked with partners coming on. In the 48-page decision that the judge wrote, she did say that there was a belief that the rising cost would be an estimated $50 million a year because of this merger. And because of this merger and the $50 million, and because of the opposition from other hospital executives and presidents, I believe that that probably weighed pretty heavily on making the judge make the decision or to judge making her decision after knowing what Maura Healey was going to do, if, in fact, she did pass it. So.
[Robert Penta]: Are there any, maybe you should also refer this to the Office of Community Development to find out if there's any proposed that's being scheduled for that area. Councilor Knight just alluded to something for which we all agreed upon on Locust Street. And you know, maybe it's always a sad situation, but maybe because of this building, it could stop the redevelopment of that particular area as it relates to, you know, where they're going, storefront signs, designs, sidewalks, and a whole host of other businesses that are down there. So I'd like to refer that to the OCD office as well to see if they might have a review on this particular subject matter.
[Robert Penta]: Question. Do you want these for all in together or do you want to do them independently? Because each square is different to each other.
[Robert Penta]: The recent passing of Bill Mumbo-Katt here in the city of Medford, I think really highlights the fact that he is somewhat of a baseball legend, probably. Medford has been blessed with many, many baseball players, but this gentleman did it at a time back in the early 50s when he was practicing with a fellow by the name of Gus Hennessey. And they would go down and play Stead Park continuously. And he would just pitch to them and pitch to them and pitch to them. And eventually, he finally made it. But he made it in a time and a period. Eddie Finn, you remember this. He made it in a time that there was only eight professional baseball teams in either seat. Now there's 32. But there was only eight American League teams, eight National League teams. And it was tough. And when he went into the minors, he just didn't come up right away. He had to earn his spot. And he has a very interesting baseball career. But one of his real major accomplishments, and I don't even think he realized it until it happened, they were playing against the Washington Senators on a particular night. And I believe he had struck out 17 baseball, 17 players. And the coach of the Washington Senators, his name was William McCauley, came up to him toward the end of the game. And somebody wants to talk to him. The president wants to talk to him. That's the terminology. The president wants to talk to him. And he thought it was the president of the baseball team or the president of the league and this and that. But it was Dwight Eisenhower. And Dwight Eisenhower was so impressed with him that he wanted a ball signed by him. And when the president asked him, where did you come from? And he says, Meffa. Meffa. And it was sort of like, and he says, why do all you people down there talk like that? I mean, what do you? And it was kind of like, it was a cool situation. But the night he threw his no-hitter in Chicago on August 1, 1962 against a veteran, a very good veteran pitcher, early win. That was a real highlight here in the city of Medford. No one had ever thrown a, no one ever came from Medford to throw it. And if I have my story correctly, I believe when he came back to Medford at that time, engine six drove him, picked him up and gave him somewhat of a mini parade here in the city of Medford, acknowledging the fact that who he was and how he was, you know, he was an all-star pitcher for the all-star teams for years. He played professional, he pitched professional baseball for 11 years between the Red Sox and the Yankees. And I guess his ending comment, which I happened to notice, and I'm glad that they printed it in the local press, he made the comment that he loved playing baseball so much that he would have played for nothing. And if people only would realize what that would mean to today's kids that are playing professional sports, okay? They're into the millions and millions of dollars. I believe when he was pitching, the year he threw the no-hitter, he was making $8,000, and I believe they offered him up to 12. the following year. And that's just craziness for money back then. And if you look at him today, what his statistics would have been and what he could have probably earned, it's probably just unfathomable. But it's baseball as it was then. That's what they paid. That's what it was all about. But I think it would be a great opportunity for the Medford sports kids to know that this fellow grew up here in the city of Medford. He worked this thing into the ground. He played it. He loved it. He used to come back and watch Medford High Baseball. He used to come back because of family members at Medford High School Hockey. He just really was a true gentleman to the sport. He wasn't flamboyant or anything like that. He was just a regular guy who just proved here in the city of Medford and any place else in this country, if you work hard enough at something that you want, it'd be great by today's standards. I mean, like I said, I had a whole list of 32 names of people who made professional sports through the minor leagues. But this guy made it in the majors. And he made it in such a way that nobody expected to happen. And he just made the city of Medford so proud to know that, you know, he could accomplish what he did for the city of Medford, for professional baseball, because he loved it. And like he said, he would have done it for nothing. And you know something? He probably did play for nothing, because that's how much he really loved the sport. And to his wife, Josephine, and the family, you know, you can be very proud of the fact that you had a great husband. who did the city of Medford proud, and you did him proud as well. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'd like to pass that on. Thank you, Mr. Councilor. Councilor Knight?
[Robert Penta]: He was a real personal friend of mine. I worked with him for many years. Unfortunately, he passed away. He has a wonderful family, Sharon, Sam, Sawyer. And this is a tough one, because sometimes when life pops up in front of you and things happen, you just sometimes you don't know what to say or how to react to it. He loved the outdoors. He was great with the kids. He was a coach. He was a great family man. But for whatever the reason that God decided to say, this is your time, so be it. But I would just like to let them know, and the Brown family, that their thoughts are at least with us. He was a good guy. He comes from a good family. His wife, Sharon, Sam Sawyer. I don't know what to say other than the fact that he was, you know, it was, it's one of these times in your life that something happens and you just can't explain it. And, um, but I'm not going to try to explain it right now. Other than the saying, I just wish the family well at this time. We all thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I apologize. He had three kids. I kept mentioning, I think I only said it too. It's Sam Sawyer and Sarah. It's Sarah, Sam and Sam. Wow. Sam, Sarah and Sawyer. I'm sorry.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, during the last snowstorm, not this one, the first one, We're all snowbound in.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, well, the first day of the first storm. Let's put it that way. I received a phone call from one of the president managing partners. And I had about a half hour conversation with him. He indicated to me that they are going to have five houses on the Medford side. There are going to be five houses. And with those five houses, I always said, I don't care what you're doing in Malden. I'm more concerned of what's going to happen here in Medford, its effect, and how this is going to play out. So he is concerned. He is aware of the fact. that there was a concern because of the five houses. So I don't think, again, from my conversation, my take was, I don't think there's been that much involvement between the city and him, other than the fact that they're having this meeting. Nothing is definitive, but at the same time, they are aware that these five houses, which are less than what the original amount was gonna be, I believe it was either, I think it was nine, I don't think the original number was. Seven, was it? Seven, so it's down to five, but there's. Right. So as a result of that, um, he is aware of the fact that Medford has a game, you know, a stake in this game and, and, uh, is that tomorrow night?
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Councilor Camuso. Councilor Penta. Quick question on this. On this cell tower that's going up, this is the one with the red beacon on the top? It's not going up. I mean, it's up. Is this the one with the red beacon that goes off? Are there other towers that, I mean, sell things on there like AT&T and Verizon, they aren't attached to that? Because if that's the case, we don't even know if they're being assessed, and that's tax revenue. So maybe we can get a further report back from the building commission to find out if- As amended, if they're producing revenue?
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to hear from the gentleman, the citizen first. Thank you. He's been waiting.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Chief. Councilor Penta? Chief, with all due respect to that decision that was made, the contract that was written on September 10th and then executed on October 7th with only a change of one word, both explicitly have a time zone in there of 7 to 7. The RFP that went out was 7 to 7. The three bidders that came in were 7 to 7. That's a material change to the contract. I understand what you're saying.
[Robert Penta]: I would think in all fairness to the other bidders and the competitors that they probably should be advised now that the city of Medford is changing. Because I don't even know if the city is opening themselves up to a lawsuit here. Because I think if I was one of the other competitors, I'd be very concerned over this. An hour in the morning, an hour at night, six days a week, that's how many hours a week? It's 12 hours of enforcement. OK. That's 12 hours that they're losing. That's 48 hours a month. Four times, that's four months out of the week. And if they all had the same opportunity to bid the same way, OK. Making all these other changes, OK. I think you can live with that. But that's a material change. That's a huge change.
[Robert Penta]: But that's not as much as the material.
[Robert Penta]: Well, they were up there today.
[Robert Penta]: You bring up a good point. I hope no city employee, is helping to shovel out any of those kiosks.
[Robert Penta]: Chief, there's a couple of, Mr. President, there's a couple of things I think that the taxpayers should be aware of as to what took place. I don't see anything wrong with reading them off and letting the people know what's going on, Mr. President. So if you don't want to read them, then I will read them.
[Robert Penta]: No, this is too important an issue. Don't start with the minute thing. We did. It's too important of an issue. The council recommendations regarding 15 Oh 22. It says meters must be shut off during non-enforcement time. The answer is that the meters will read no charge parking period after hours on Sundays and federal holidays. So they're going to change the meter to do that?
[Robert Penta]: Next one, it indicates that a 10 minute grace period be granted at the end of a time period. The answer is that per Republic parking, there was generally a five minute grace period from the time the vehicle takes note of expiration to the issuance of a ticket. This is due to the driver having to park his vehicle and walk to the sighted vehicle and then put information for the ticket. Now, is this for kiosks or is this for signs?
[Robert Penta]: Two points that we had spoken about before last time was having these kiosks in front of a residential apartment or a building. The one in West Medford, we had talked about putting it by the Brookline Bank, getting rid of the kiosks and putting a 30-minute sign period from here to corner and taking the one out in front of the apartment building.
[Robert Penta]: Right.
[Robert Penta]: You also have it on High Street here in Medford, right opposite the library. There's a kiosk in front of the apartment building. Makes no sense. There's a kiosk in front of the apartment building.
[Robert Penta]: Right.
[Robert Penta]: So then you would be penalizing any doctor or any emergency control type of person or a visiting nurse or somebody who doesn't have an opportunity or right to park in the building down below, not knowing about it. So if they park in front of the building, they're going to get tagged and ticketed?
[Robert Penta]: I mean, you know, you don't want to hear the story about the library right now. No.
[Robert Penta]: How do you figure that?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but they should be done intelligently.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you want to talk for two minutes or 43 seconds from the chair? Number three, Mr. President, um, tickets issued on January 15th and 16th to be waived. The answer is the individual has a right to appeal any ticket according to the lawful procedures. Again, I think it's totally unfair, because we all know what happened on that particular day.
[Robert Penta]: Right. They had nothing on there.
[Robert Penta]: These didn't have them on their chief.
[Robert Penta]: Add orange to the ticket color coded in an envelope. Republic says that they'll add orange to the ticket, but they're not going to have an envelope because it's, quote, it's sound environmental practice not to put an envelope. And that's kind of odd.
[Robert Penta]: Then it says asked to change the word from officer on ticket. And they're not going to change it. They're keeping the word officer.
[Robert Penta]: Then the next one on the next page is that reflective signs be placed on both sides of the kiosk. It says Republicans in the process of ordering additional all-weather signs to affix, blah, blah, blah. The next one, that the license plate reader technology be used for the police department. Purchase. Purchase. The answer from the city. As was mentioned at the city council meeting on January 20th, 2015, the council met with Republic earlier in the month regarding this. It is currently in the process. And as soon as more detailed information is available, you'll be provided with it. What does Republic have to do with this, with you people?
[Robert Penta]: Another,
[Robert Penta]: On that particular matter that Councilor Knight just brings up, Councilor Caraviello and myself had the opportunity to be at the MMA meeting and when there were five vendors there, as it relates to the model and make that we have here. And I believe it was the distribution company for Republic that we were dealing with. And we got the cheapest, lowest grade model of a parking meter. So I just thought I'd let you know.
[Robert Penta]: I think the question was both asked by us, just the two of us. What other options? They asked it to us. Weren't you shown these other options? And the answer had to be no. And how are you supposed to answer that? We were only shown one machine and that was it.
[Robert Penta]: Um, on the last two matters here, uh, you're working on having a debit card allegedly that could correlate to the, uh, to the car, but they're unable to do that. And then the last one detailed maps to be developed to show, Spots are available by type of spot in a residential or in a commuter business district. Now, I got a couple of phone calls from people up on Quincy Street at resident parking.
[Robert Penta]: So the three from that neighborhood all have the same issue then?
[Robert Penta]: But it also says that detailed maps are finalized and posted on Park Medford.
[Robert Penta]: So resident parking maps are not on there yet?
[Robert Penta]: But when you're doing these resident parking documents, maps or whatever they are.
[Robert Penta]: But some of the streets aren't all resident parking.
[Robert Penta]: So like you explained last week, um, Austin street, the number, it stops at a certain number. I mean, How are these people supposed to know?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but how does Republic know?
[Robert Penta]: One final thing. I'd like to, can we get a report back? You said the, um, the decision today by the city solicitor that you could change the hours.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to have a copy of that, Mr. Clerk. A copy of-
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to send a, um, the council send some congratulations to, uh, not congratulations, some get well wishes to Rick Caraviello, his father, who unfortunately is in the hospital right now. And, uh, thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I'm shocked that you didn't know four years ago. She's following in the good footsteps of Jesse Jessalonis, who won that for the city. And so we have an excellent tree history here in the city of Medford, you know? So, Aggie, continue on, and good luck.
[Robert Penta]: What are we talking about?
[Robert Penta]: My question I think would become curious to the point that since it's not included specifically, if this would need a public advertisement to change the zoning to include it rather than come under the guys quote unquote of other institution in your other institution of what you're saying is an adult daycare center, which is not found under, an exact terminology as another institution.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's what my concern would be, to give something out that wasn't properly vetted, so to speak, through rezoning. I've got no problem going forward with it, but I'd like to get a report back. as to whether this terminology, what are you calling an adult daycare center, since it's not found under the terminology of other institution can be included under the term other institution for the purposes of this particular vote.
[Robert Penta]: whether the zoning for an adult daycare center is legal terminology for other institutions, or does, in fact, a public hearing have to take place to make this become inclusive of other institutions?
[Robert Penta]: ordinance in itself, but all fairness to the council and anyone who watching and the petition is here. I don't have a letter that says that. So if the building commissioner is the, um, I won't use the terminology zoning authority to make this inclusive of other institution. I think we should have had a letter that said that because it's obvious that we're operating other institution by including the terminology adult daycare center, um, LLC to be, to be included here. I'm just protecting our interests, but more importantly, I want to make sure that the zoning is appropriate for this. And so nothing comes back and says, wait a minute, you know, it's not included. It's not the way it's supposed to be. I've got no problem going forward with it, but I want that letter that says that this adult daycare center can be constituted as a legal entity under other institution on the unit than the use of it.
[Robert Penta]: Two quick questions. Um, for people who might be watching, can you tell them where one-on-one Mr. Gav, what's that one-on-one Mr. Gav right now?
[Robert Penta]: OK. And you indicated you could serve as 100 clients. Is that on the spot, or that during the course of the? How many can you actually have on that location at one time? About 100. You could have 100 people. So your 25 to 30 people could handle 100 people at any one time? No matter what their problems might be. So if anyone has probably a somewhat of a psychiatric type of a problem, you can handle that?
[Robert Penta]: But how are you supposed to know that if somebody wants to apply?
[Robert Penta]: But this is for the purposes of anyone who might be watching so they have a better understanding.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, we all know that Dr. Lepore has an extreme interest in musical instruments because he plays one himself. But he started on this adventure a few years ago up at the State House when he had a bill introduced by Representative Paul Donato as it relates to the sterilization of musical instruments in schools. The bill, as reported out and signed by the governor on his last day in office, number 4384, states the following. Upon the issuance of a musical wind instrument to a borrowing student attending grades pre-kindergarten through 12 and any public or commonwealth charter school, the issuing school shall inform the parent or guardian of the student that while the musical wind instrument was sanitized, it may also be sterilized in order to ensure that all microbiome life has been eradicated within the instrument. Now, we all know that there was a tremendous amount of concern as it relates to using pieces of instruments that children use in the public schools or charter schools or public school administration. Through Tufts University, its medical school, and a whole host of medical individuals, the Federal Food and Drug Administration became very supportive once they recognized the fact that this has a legitimate concern, where they wrote, quote, we recognize that with respect to cross-contamination risks and the associated microbiological implications, musical wind instruments are not unlike other contaminated medical dental devices. It states that a valid public health issue consistent with the universal precautions adhere to in the medical dental settings relative to instruments contaminated with bodily fluids. And as such, this agency, which is the FDA, believes that the classification of sterilized musical wind instruments falls under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and is simply concurring with the conventional medical wisdom that sterilizing items contaminated with body fluids between uses is inappropriate. Now, we all know that if you went to a restaurant, it would be absolutely inappropriate to use somebody else's fork, spoon, or drink from their glass because there are strict sterilization issues. It's the same thing you tell your kids not to use somebody else's toothbrush other than their own. And you can go and you can start making all these analogies as it relates to the misuse or the abuse that somebody might find themselves in. because of the fact that something either wasn't sterilized or it wasn't brought to the parental attention for the purposes of letting them know that their children, to be safe, needs to have this stuff sterilized. Restaurants and hospitals follow strict public health rules and regulations and standards. And this was a long journey because it was sort of like virgin in the territories of people who just didn't understand this. Some 25 years ago, you would never think of going to a dentist. so to speak, and he or she would put their fingers in your mouth without gloves. And ever since the fact that they now wear gloves, you would come to your attention immediately if you went to a dentist, male or female, and they decided to stick their finger in your mouth without a sterilized, whatever the color might be of the glove that they have to wear. This is a real big issue. This isn't a requirement. This is a voluntarily encounter that a parent will have now with their child who decides to want to use this instrument, or whatever the wind instrument might be. I think it was some two to three summers ago, there was a story in the Boston Globe that identified some 30,000 pieces of wind instruments being stored in the Boston public schools. And as a result of that, having not been used for years, and as a result of that, and having the microbiological factor come into play, showing that the danger that these kids would have by blowing these instruments is something that basically, again, accelerated not only Dr. Lepore's interest in this, but also the state legislature. And I have to say publicly, if it wasn't for Representative Donato leading the charge in this on Beacon Hill, fighting this and introducing it each and every year for the last, I believe, four years up at the Statehouse for the purposes of educating his fellow lawmakers, and having the governor not only accept it when he first came on, he authorized a, strike that, he entertained a commission for the purpose of not only reviewing it, but they wrote a report in 100% support of it. So, what I'd like to do, Mr. President, I'd like to invite Dr. Lepore to come here, and I think it would be a great acknowledgement to, again, one of our own, you know, kind of like Fortunate, we have it in the medical field, We have it in the legal field. Most recently, we have Victor Garrow, who received a nationwide award for his position of taking on a case for 30 years and defending somebody, proving that the gentleman was innocent and not guilty. And here we have another situation here where we have a renowned dentist here in our community who also happens to be a gentleman who plays a wind instrument, who saw the need for this to happen. He saw the need for parents to be advised and become prepared. And he also saw the fact that an infectious disease, which is at the core of this whole thing, this is a prevention of infectious diseases, could be taking place and be corrected. I think that's a good thing for not only the city of Met, but for the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts and anyone who wants to believe in the fact that, you know, this is a good, it's a good bill. So with that being said, I move, Mr. President, that Dr. Lepore be invited to come at a future date and he be duly recognized for the having the bill passed. And you know something, I might even want to invite Representative Donato here, too, because this wasn't one of those easy bills that you can just get through. A lot of people sometimes couldn't understand it, don't understand the medical part of it, and you have a lot of new reps coming and going. So it took some time for the purposes of having this happen. And you had some opposition. Yeah, there was. I found it. But he worked himself through it, and the legislature finally, and the governor. The governor was on board right from the beginning, but the legislature finally saw through it, and it finally got itself passed.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, last week we had a, once again for the second week in a row, this is now running ourselves into the third week as it relates to this parking program that the mayor has initiated. But I think it's time we get a few issues straight right from the beginning because I don't want any misrepresentation to go out there before we get into our discussion as it relates to just what the council's position is on this. Councilor Camuso, you made some comments relative or earlier, that the council, on other occasions prior to this, voted, I believe you said, for a revenue, for a program. What the council voted for... Can I, councillor? Can I finish my position, please?
[Robert Penta]: I don't think it's a matter of point of information.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, continuing on those votes at the council took all the council was for a traffic enforcement, not a revenue enhancement program. And I think the records will verify that, but let's get right to the crux of the matter. On May 20th on May 20th of this past year, we received a letter from the to the president of the council from the mayor, but basically said that the parking management program, the authority intend to an agreement exceeding three years. Dear Mr. President, members of the council, the city of Medford has received proposals from various vendors in response to our request for proposals for a parking management program. It is the intention of the city to enter a 10 year agreement with the successful proposal pursuant to the site and section of the law approved for the contract that exceeds three years. Now, following that step further, the mayor indicated that I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30, Section B12, approve and authorize the city of Medford to enter into an agreement with the successful proposal for a term signed by the mayor. And at that council meeting on the 20th, those that spoke were Mr. Rumley, Mr. Stirella, and Mr. D'Antonio. That resolution was amended by myself at the very end. It states, amended by Councilor Penta, that the mayor and the preferred vendor meeting with the council to explain the program in depth prior to the final decision. But upon further review of the tape of that particular meeting, that was not the amendment. The amendment was as follows. It was to amend the motion that the council meet before the signing so that we have a complete understanding. So as amended, that having the mayor, whoever the vendor might be, present themselves before the council before the finalization of the contract, before the finalization of the contract. So why would the mayor want to, why would somebody want to come here before it was finalized? If in fact the mayor was going to sign it. Now we met on September 10th at a committee of the whole meeting. And at that point in time, there was business folks that and Councilors that pushed back from the contract that was being presented to us at that time from the people who were there. And at that point in time, The mayor decided to listen to all the things, left the room, and said he would come back with further. And when he came back further was with no vote by the council to discuss what took place by way of an amendment or by way of extras or what have you. As a result of that, there's been some, I guess, misinformation being scuttled out there as it relates to just does where this Medford City Council stand. This Medford City Council had two proposals that took place on that May 20th. On that May 20th, we had A, we'd bring in one of the three vendors, for which it happened to be Republic, and B, we would get a report back if the city was to do it on its own with the financial breakdown. We never had an opportunity to vote on that one way or the other. The council's position, other than the fact, saying that the mayor has the authority to sign it, he does have the authority to sign it, but we never had the finalization of what was being presented to us. So what I'm offering here right now is the following. It's a resolution that the Medford City Council take their official position as to whether they support Mayor McGlynn's pay-to-park kiosk revenue enhancement program with the Republic Company from Tennessee. Very simple. Either you're for it or you're against it so people have a clear understanding of where we all are. You can't one week turn around and say you're for it and another week you're against it. And I don't want to hear from Councilor Caraviello calling me up and telling me that the people are saying that I'm saying something about him. vice versa. It doesn't go that way. My comments have been pretty consistent and I'll say that in front of anyone that wants to challenge me to what I say. That's the resolution. There it is, Mr. Clerk. I'd like to have the council vote on it and then we can continue on talking about it.
[Robert Penta]: Just for the clarification... Took what vote, Mr. Paul? We didn't have no vote.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification. what the council voted for, seven to nothing, and I will agree to that, because that's what I voted on. That's what I, to allow him to go forward and to negotiate with Republicans. That's what I wanted to do, and report back to the council before it was finalized for us to review it.
[Robert Penta]: I'm talking about the meeting that took place on May 20th. To get those three vendors to come back, to get those three vendors to come back, you had to send the request out.
[Robert Penta]: You didn't even know about it until September 10th, when you got it for the first time.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, Mr. President. I move the question, Mr. President, please. Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: I'm asking for the clerk.
[Robert Penta]: Let's do this one first. And then we have 022 before us. I am taking out of my resolution. I'm filing this motion out of my resolution.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification. Wait a minute. I'm not arguing that we didn't. We took the vote. We all took the vote to go out for an RFP, and we all took the vote for the mayor to go forward. We never took a final vote, as you voted for.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President... The resolution's very simple.
[Robert Penta]: That's the reason- So like I said, Mr. President- Well, ask Councilor Caraviello the question. You even said you thought you were coming back to take a vote. Did you not say that? Councilor- Thank you very much. There he is right there. He just-
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Caraviello, point of information, Councilor Panto. What Councilor Camuso is saying is only 50% true because the RFP that went out also included the RFP on questions that came back from the three vendors. We as a council had no way of knowing what those questions and how they were going to be answered. Councilor Knight rightfully brought up the fact of the private vendor making the signs when that's a contract issue here with people who work for the city. But the dual part of the story is that we asked for the city to make its presentation if the city, in fact, was going to be the person that was going to put the kiosk or whatever it might be. And that's the reason why this Medford City Council voted seven to nothing. And I'm quite sure the clerk in his minutes that took place in the executive session will attest to that. Councilor Caraviello?
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Councilor Penta. Those votes that were taken were for traffic enforcement, not revenue enhancement. Read all the resolutions.
[Robert Penta]: point of personal privilege. Since you mentioned my name, let's get it straight. I don't think the clerk has got to go down. You've already identified the fact that an RFP went out. We have no argument with that. You also identified the fact that the mayor asked to go forward with one of the three vendors. So those are your two votes right there. Those are the only two votes that this council took on that. But the amendment, the amendment to the vote to go forward was predicated on bringing in A, the city's cost of what it would be, and B, a finalization before the council, before a contract was signed.
[Robert Penta]: Listen, you don't have to. Mr. President. All you have to do is watch the tape, ladies and gentlemen. It's as clear as the bell.
[Robert Penta]: Just mention my name again. If he has a vendetta, if he has a vendetta out for me, why don't you just tell the public that, okay? You're a lame duck councillor, so your words, you can say anything you want about me. It means absolutely nothing, okay? Well, you can do it all you want in election time, okay? And I'll do all I want during this period. And I know what I'm saying because this does not lie. And if you watch a councillor, that doesn't lie. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't mention my name. You certainly did. You just said Councilor Pantus. I said Councilor Pantus. It's my resolution. So could you tell him to please be quiet and let somebody speak? Rick, not for anything. If everybody was so opposed to it, then according to Councilor Camuso, we should have never ever voted for it. So, you can't have it both ways.
[Robert Penta]: No, we didn't.
[Robert Penta]: We kind of get duped into something that never came to for a final vote.
[Robert Penta]: And there's the answer right there.
[Robert Penta]: Question.
[Robert Penta]: Then the question is this, as a member of the chamber, did you vote for this or not when the board of directors voted, yes or no?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. I want to, I want to get to your question. You just said,
[Robert Penta]: Point of information? Yeah, point of information. Point of information, Councilor Penta. There are two opt-out positions in this. After 90 days, if this is not working out for either party, there's opt-out provisions, and there's an opt-out provision at the end of the first year. So I just thought I'd let you know we don't have to live with this for 10 years.
[Robert Penta]: And I'm quite sure there's going to be a whole host of legal questions that are going to arise that maybe Republicans are not going to want to entertain, because maybe they're just going to say this isn't worth it.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Councilor Penta. Mr. Nash, question. Tony, I'm sorry, this is... I'm following this conversation as it relates, I believe he's alluding to using a kiosk, but if I drive down the street and I see a sign that says two-hour parking, and there's no kiosk, there's nothing, How are you going to know who got there at what time and when? You're not going to. That's the whole point.
[Robert Penta]: So they all work the same way. No matter what it is. If I drive down the street and I see a half-hour parking area, and there's no kiosk, there's nothing, just the signs, there's a half-hour. How are you going to know what time I got there? Because you're driving around the city doing all this other enforcement.
[Robert Penta]: But, Dan, I mean, I could be sitting there for an hour or two before you eventually get there. Of course you can.
[Robert Penta]: Why would you want to sever it? Why don't you just include it? Because when you have the discussion next week, you'll have your answers.
[Robert Penta]: Well, all you're keeping open is the conversations you're going to be able to have. That's what the resolution would say. So I would be willing to. That doesn't make sense to me, Councilor. Oh, why doesn't it? I have some amendments that I'd like to put forward. Well, then this will be tremendously amended then. Well, whether it's amended or not, what difference does it make? It's part of the ongoing discussion, Fred. It's all there is. Yes.
[Robert Penta]: No, just table it until you get the answer.
[Robert Penta]: We've had many resolutions that are amended on the floor.
[Robert Penta]: With a number on it. And then I said, as amended. As amended, and I handed it to him.
[Robert Penta]: Let's withdraw it and see how the answer is. Before we go any further, before we get to that, I want to go back to the amendments that we're discussing here right now. I want to go to indicate that on, is Mr. Nash, you're still here? Dan. Are the cars, the two cars that you have right now, are they lettered yet properly? Are they done? Pardon me? Nope. Okay. And have they been used? recently for the purposes of issuing tickets? Nope. Okay. And when we met, I believe it was on this past Friday, you indicated that the cars would not be used for that particular purpose. They would just be driving your drivers around and they would be getting out and doing what they're doing.
[Robert Penta]: I move that the dates of January 15th and January 16th, any tickets and issued You amend the amended further with another amendment, further amended by Councilor Penta that the tickets issued on the January 15th and especially January 15th where the cars were unlicensed, unregistered and unserved checked and unleaded, uh, not be, uh, be waived. And same thing for the 16th. Um, and also number two, there was no clarity into what you just said. Councilor. Yes. You can't understand it. And the 16th, the same for the 15th and the 16th. Any tickets that they issued be invalid, because they were used in a car that wasn't properly marked, insured, registered, and inspected.
[Robert Penta]: What day were they insured, Dan? I don't have that documentation. You don't have it.
[Robert Penta]: You had a cardboard plate that said Tennessee on the back of a white car that did not have a Massachusetts registration. It wasn't inspected. And it wasn't leaded and identified. That's what the contract says you were supposed to do.
[Robert Penta]: Therefore, with that being said, tickets given on those two days, and they're still unalerted vehicles, but I understand what he's doing. They're just driving the people around. So the tickets that were given on those two days be waived. That's all.
[Robert Penta]: But you had to use that vehicle, Dan, to get to where you were going. If the chief of police drove down the street and saw my car that was uninspected, unregistered, and didn't have a Massachusetts plate on it for the purposes of an unleaded, he would stop me and give me a ticket. He didn't have it.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you would have not been able to get the information, Dan, from the orange things on top of those vehicles from the guys driving down the street. Correct?
[Robert Penta]: But Dan, he would have never been able to do whatever those violations were on that, at least on the 15th, on the 15th, if he didn't have, if the car was properly, it was like it was supposed to be. Point of information, Mr. President. We could have.
[Robert Penta]: On that matter, how can you override something without coming to City Hall? You can do that where you're at? Well, with your permission, I'll do that. OK. I don't know which way you want me to do it, and you don't want me to do it. I hope the council agrees to give permission to avoid the tickets, OK? the council is not authorized to do so. Okay. But he can do it. Second thing on the tickets, is there any way instead of having a paper ticket, you can put a color ticket on that? Um, yes, that's already been brought up in work. But I just want to know, cause it's not part of the resolution. Yes. I like to make a part of the, there are a couple of solutions to that.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. I like to amend it that the, the, the violations be color coded. So, and not, and not in paper council and not on paper.
[Robert Penta]: Last two points, to get it corrected, because this is the question that was asked. Once you give a ticket and somebody appeals the ticket, do they have to pay the ticket first or do they have the appeal and after the appeal it's taking place? No, they do not have to pay the ticket first. They do not have to pay the ticket in advance. And the last thing, Chief, did you realize on the ticket they have the word officer? Why are they using the word officer? Can that word be changed?
[Robert Penta]: It says officer on it.
[Robert Penta]: Anyone see the words officer gives a representation of a police officer, and they're not. They're not supposed to give anything that represents the city of Medford Fire, Police, or any type of representation.
[Robert Penta]: No, I think the urge is to have, after 90 days, they should have been prepared for this. That's the urge.
[Robert Penta]: Well, they had them for 30 days.
[Robert Penta]: Chief, they had 90 days to get them. They said it in their contract, 90 days, Fred. 90 days. I amend the motion that the word officer be replaced on the tickets.
[Robert Penta]: And also that the ticket, if somebody gets a ticket, it's color coded. And would you say with the return address envelope?
[Robert Penta]: So let's wrap it up. Wait a minute. You want to rush? Relax. This is too important of an issue. All right. Number one, after seven o'clock at night, Dan, you indicated that you're going to have a special team go out after seven o'clock at night. What does it say that in the contract?
[Robert Penta]: I understand the seven to seven, but I don't understand how they can work after seven. I mean, and as far as their, financial windfall that comes out of all of that, number one. And number two, how are you going to read in the dock? How are they going to read number plates in the dock?
[Robert Penta]: But when cars are parked close together, Chief, what are they going to get out of the car?
[Robert Penta]: I think it was mentioned at the Committee of the Whole meeting that it cost about $30,000. Is that what it is for those things to be on top of those cars? Is that what it is, Dan?
[Robert Penta]: Well, since we have approximately $7 million in free cash, I'm going to move that the city's police department be afforded an opportunity to investigate what the cost would be to install them in your cruises.
[Robert Penta]: In the effort to eliminate redundancy, why don't we withdraw that amendment? No, I'm going to put it on there as an amendment.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, Jane, the thing that I appreciate the fact is you put a lot of effort and time and making a presentation of what you thought you believed in. You know something? But the city has a responsibility, too. So this is where I'm going to digress from Councilor Caraviello. I don't think you have to go out there and start and do anything. We have a community development office who's yet to even walk these streets here in the city of Medford to find out a knock on the business doors, like the mayor, failing to find out what's going on, what's the problem, what do you think would be a better situation here for the city? What would you like to see to be done? So with that being said, I think the city has a big obligation. It's bad enough they're taxing people to death with food tax, and sales tax, and excise tax, and water and sewer tax, and real estate tax. And now you have this new crazy kiosk tax. And now you want the business people to go ahead and create something that the city should be doing themselves. If they want development to take place, if they wanted to be proactive, they'd be out there, just like Summerville was proactive, just like Winchester's proactive. just like Arlington is proactive, just like Lexington is proactive. We don't have to be those communities, but we can be proactive between and amongst ourselves within our own communities. And a lot of people look at West Mefford, you happen to mention it, so I'll mention West Mefford. It's a close-knit group of people, they work together, they look out for each other, and it's a type of business where one feeds off of another. They're not Newbury Street, it's just a mom and pop type of community within our own city. But all four sections of the city are like that. Mefford Square is different. All four sections of the city are like that. And once the city wakes up and decides to figure out that they need to fix potholes, they need to understand that business people need to survive, and they can't keep taxing them to that, especially when you're sitting on almost $15 million of revenue surplus and a water and sewer account and free cash, and now you're trying to tax them again with this craziness of a kiosk tax. It's wrong. In my opinion, it's wrong. I think the city needs to wake up. And it's obvious that the mayor, listen, if the mayor had any respect for this council and for you, he would have sent somebody, he would have sent something to the president of this council and told them, unfortunately, I'm not going to be here. I'm on vacation. Could you please cancel the meeting for another week? But no, he didn't do that. He knew in advance, they knew in advance he wasn't going to be here. It was a wasted night, unfortunately, for all the people that showed up, but hopefully the chief got the message and got the idea that there were still concerns out there that need to be corrected. And I stand by my resolution. And when I introduce it next week, I do not support this. Because I do not think it's right for the city. It's not the right step to go in. And I think it should have started with the city taking on the responsibility first before we do anything by bringing in an outside company. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Yeah, Jean, don't go away, because my opinion is going to be a little different than Councilor Dello Russo. I wish he mentioned me by name, because that's who I know he was referring to. But I think government does have a role. I think government has a responsibility. When they tax the people in this community, or in any community, to do something and to be part of the community, they have a responsibility to go out there and work within the community. And when you don't see them, and when you don't hear from them, and when you see businesses closing down one at a time, one at a time, and one at a time in Medford Square, and you still not see city government going out there trying to find out what the problem is, what the reason is, that's the problem. It's government not doing its job. You can do all the job you want to help out. It's commendable. But you still need government to help you out. And if you don't want government to help you out, then you shouldn't even be standing here tonight, because it won't work. It takes two to tango. But before it takes two to tango, we have to remember one thing. Jim Silver and Smartco and South Metro, it was because of those people being persistent, being persistent. Because if the city was doing its job, he wouldn't have had to been so persistent. And thankfully, the chief was there on a particular night And he walked the neighborhood with them to see what was going on. He is an exemplary person as a municipal employee. If all the department heads acted like him, we'd have no problem. You wouldn't even need a mayor because everybody would be doing their job. The guy goes over and beyond the call of duty. This is not his job, though. His job is to be the chief of police, to make sure our community is safe. He should not have to be the parking commissioner, so to speak, whatever it might be. But unfortunately, the mayor God bless you chief. Why are you doing it? I don't know. I don't think you deserve it. And I just think there's a perfect example of government not being responsible for what they're supposed to be doing. This is the mayor's program. This is the mayor's program, not the chief or the council. This is the mayor's program. And if he wants to go on vacation for which he's entitled to, then we should have been given the respect that he wasn't going to be here tonight by the people in his office who knew he wasn't going to be here because everybody that showed up early tonight expected him to be here. And that's the message that went out. And that was the vote of the city council last week. Seven, seven to nothing. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, it's interesting because this Medford city council was in the forefront of wanting to be a surrounding community contender right from the beginning. And I think there is maybe five to six resolutions that were offered on there. Myself included along with council Longo current as it related to getting ourselves on there. And the interesting part about all of this, I think we sent resolutions to the Mass Gaming Commission, and I believe we also sent one to the Commonwealth of Mass. I think it was the Attorney General's Office that needed to go there. Bottom line to all of that is we had asked the mayor on numerous occasions to be part of the surrounding community application. Not only did he ignore us, but he also went forward and did whatever he did to subsequently reach, I think it was $250,000. and money thus far from the Wynn Casino group of people who made the application to the Mass Gaming Commission. Putting all of that aside, we now have a situation. We have, and I don't know if this is called mitigation money, I don't know what the proper terminology is, but if we have the ability to have $100,000 come to us, whether it be for use for the Wellington area, whether it's the First Street, whether it's for flooding. Once again, I'd like to amend the motion that the mayor consult with the council as it relates for the purposes of using this money. There's no sense in you being on the committee, Rick, that the mayor just appointed you to, if the money is going to wind up going for whatever he wants to do. All you are going to be doing is a conduit to bring the money into the city. And again, it's another example, if the mayor doesn't want to participate with the council in our request, then it's for naught. We're just giving him carte blanche to do whatever he wants whenever he gets this money.
[Robert Penta]: We'll make the specific thing for the Wellington neighborhood, whether it's for the rotary intersection or to decrease the water.
[Robert Penta]: Well, the multiple issues got to come from the council.
[Robert Penta]: We're talking about this $100,000. Right. Okay. What do you want it to do? Councilman, you brought it up. What is your suggestion? Mike?
[Robert Penta]: February 2nd is right around the corner.
[Robert Penta]: Well, the council resolution go forward as amended.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Point of information. Councilor Marks, I mean, Councilor Knight, brings up an interesting point, but the city some years ago did apply for that. And they put a request in the budget. I think it was for, I think it was almost $80,000, $90,000 at one time for the purposes of having a transportation, I won't use the word consultant, a transportation person upstairs. And I think we got the idea because of what Somerville was doing. And at that point in time, I believe Somerville had 14 people in their office of community development and how they were getting so efficient is they hired an outside professional person to be their transportation consultant. I think that's one of the people that made the takeoff of the piece of property over there. I've got no problem supporting them there, but these are all, I think, budgetary issues, because if you take that money from the $100,000, you've got to keep that position going each and every year. I like the idea of bringing it up again, but I think it's just, you know, I think it's just something that this whole budget has to be looked at as to where we're going. Each and every year we wind up in the last four years with a million dollar surplus. So we know that there is money there to hire additional people. The school committee just got an additional two and a half million dollars this year, and they've hired many more administrators, more than we've able to do on this side of the street. So something's got to make the turn. that gets to where you're talking about, Councilor Knight, what Councilor Marks was talking about, where this city should be moving forward. Everybody's moving forward around us, and all we're doing is just staying still and becoming stagnant, and that's wrong. It shouldn't be that way. We're not a poor city. We are financially endowed right now. We have good money, and we should be investing it in good projects, not just keep increasing, taxing the people, and just keeping the coffers, and just filling them up and filling them up. It just doesn't work that way. And our best example is our sister city. Just look at Somerville. Years ago, people... Years ago, I wouldn't want to move to Somerville. Now, you can't even get into Somerville. You can't even touch the real estate in Somerville.
[Robert Penta]: On that account, I agree with my colleague of having that done, but I think we've, we've been talking about this for almost a year and a half. And I believe in the year 2014, while you were serving as president, and that was the number one priority of the Medford city council to have an account or something that would basically relegate itself toward addressing a police station. I know we have the chief of police here tonight, I know he would welcome that. I know that the members of the, uh, method police department would welcome it, but it still has to come from the mayor. And I just really wouldn't want this to be, um, some type of a, um, lip service going forward without having some kind of an agreement that money would be put aside on an annual basis or that we would put a yearly program together. And maybe by the end of the third year, the money would be there rather than waiting. As the mayor has alluded to, it'll be seven years before, and he's not going to be here in seven years. We all know that, you know, thank God. So with that being said, I think maybe a redirection as to not only setting up the account, but maybe taking a dollar amount, making a request to take a dollar amount, either out of our free cash or on the stabilization account, as we did to take money out of the account of our deficit as it relates to our retirement fund. It's in a total deficit. And we've asked to take each on an annual basis of $500,000. to at least start the ball rolling. The mayor is yet to respond from that, because it's obvious that it's not on his plate to be thinking about. And I agree with you. I think something needs to be done. I would rather put a dollar amount from a budgetary item in here to tell the mayor that we're serious about doing this, or your resolution is serious, rather than just making a request. So I would up the anti-jar resolution. To pick an account, take a dollar amount that we know we have over $7 million in free cash, we could take something out of there to get the ball rolling.
[Robert Penta]: I have no problem putting a dollar amount in there. We have other buildings. I mean, we can just look at that building right up here in City Hall. This has been going on for well over two years. Now what they did is they've covered the hole in the ceiling rather than fix the hole in the ceiling. And as part of the frame that goes around, it's still ready. We don't know whether it's going to come down or not. We can go to the public library, and we can look at the public library and look at the thousands of dollars that's needed over there in the public library. Councilor Caraviello, when he first came on, I think it was on his 11th month, he gave us a paper that had $1.2 million worth of needed repairs. and the new schools within our community. And during this past year, the schools, the city council passes a budget that gives an increase of over $2 million to the school department. And what do they do? They add more administrators and to an overgrowing need. Maybe that doesn't even need to be needed. Maybe we ought to be looking at teachers and more classroom things that are necessary. So the stabilization account, I've got no problem with that council, but I'd rather prioritize that because the council did make an agreement in January of last year, that the police station will be their first priority. I mean, I'm assuming that the council is still on board for this. Maybe we should ask the Councilors. I mean, what's your priority? Is it the police department or is it just for all municipal buildings as needed when needed?
[Robert Penta]: Well, two points. I think everybody has a whole host of good ideas over here. Um, I can see two points happening here. Uh, the history of the city for the last four years at the end of each and every year is accumulated a surplus of approximately a million dollars. So each and every year we've had close to a million dollars, anywhere from nine 70 to over a million, a million one that gets itself certified and free cash as a result of the end of the year. Now, if I follow what Councilor Knight has alluded to by maybe taking a percentage, maybe we can take an idea, following what you are saying, Councilor Camuso, put a dollar in to start it, and then take a percentage, maybe one, two, or three percent of whatever the surplus is going to be at the end of the year before free cash comes in, and that way you're not taxing the people because you know at the end of the year there's a surplus that it's not the people who are not going to have to pay for. That would be one way of moving the money around without having to put a separate account as Council Mark said a little too because he's right. It's going to come from the taxpayers one way or the other. So if in fact we're fortunate or the taxpayers pay enough into paying their taxes into the city and for whatever reason is unfortunately or fortunately each and every year in June we have a surplus certified by the Department of Revenue close to over a million dollars and that's how we get our accumulation of over seven million dollars. It was almost seven and a half, eight million dollars for which the mayor this past I believe November presented before the council a whole host of issues for which we voted $1.23 million from free cash to satisfy those requests that he had, which leaves us with approximately $7 million. So I've got no problem creating the count. That's all I want to do at this point. But to fund the account, I think it should come from the surplus, if any, in any particular year that the city council ends its fiscal year, June 30th, and whatever is certified as a remainder in free cash by the Department of Revenue and I think Councilor Lungo was right, maybe we should just go to a Committee of the Whole and come up with a percentage of whatever it might be. Following Councilor Marks' commentary, the Mayor's gonna be on board with this, and if he's not gonna be on board, you know, I mean, he doesn't talk to us about anything, so this is gonna be something that's gonna have to be creatively done between and amongst ourselves. So I would support your resolution, putting a dollar in there, a dollar in there, on the condition that we have a Committee of the Whole meeting for the purposes of deciding How we're going to maintain or put the money into that account, my choice, preference would be whatever the surplus is at the end of the year, certified by the Department of Revenue and Free Cash, then we have to decide amongst ourselves, 1%, 2%, 3%, whatever it is. That's a no cost to the taxpayer at that point in time, and at least it gets ourselves going, whether it's for a police department, whether it's for City Hall, or for whether it's the $1.2 million in school repairs that are necessary. It needs to be done. There's no question about it. So that would be my amendment to the resolution.
[Robert Penta]: I'm amending his resolution to say that I will support it to put a dollar in there.
[Robert Penta]: The council is going to have to vote on this. It's an amendment. It's his resolution. We have a resolution.
[Robert Penta]: Before we get the, before we even get into that, I think it needs to be understood that one of the reasons why we're doing this is because of a police station possibility issue. or of our public library, or our municipal buildings, or our school department buildings. I mean, we have a whole host of issues here that taxpayers are paying for on a daily, annual, weekly basis here. So my resolution is to establish, and it also is recommending to the mayor, establishing a stabilization account for the purposes of reviewing our municipal buildings. I would like the idea of putting the priority with a police station first. I mean, you can do what you want. And then go to a committee of the whole meeting for the purposes of how are we going to recommend further to the mayor where the monies would come from. And if we follow it, Councilor Marks is alluded to providing it doesn't come out of the everyday tax payers rate because we're dealing with surplus clarification, council, vice president.
[Robert Penta]: But what do you have? Tell me what you have, Mr. Quirk.
[Robert Penta]: OK. It says the same thing.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm assuming, but I think council, the intent of this is few municipal buildings. I'm assuming that's your priority here.
[Robert Penta]: But the council has made recommendations in the past, not a stabilization account. but for revolving accounts for which the administration has adopted.
[Robert Penta]: Right. Once approved, following the language that's written, followed by a committee of the whole meeting, roll call vote. And you have that almost a clip.
[Robert Penta]: Could the clerk read the motion out loud, please, as amended?
[Robert Penta]: And, uh, it's not, no, no, that wasn't what I said. Went to a committee, the whole meeting, you know, it's all, why don't you just refer to a committee that passed the main motion and delete as a police station and refer it to the committee, the whole meeting of the council come up with a criteria. So moved. All right. Your motion minusing out the police station. and we're referring it to what can be the whole. Yeah. Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: Also in the meantime, Council Max, he wanted to find out if in fact you're going to report back to us. If there already is an established stabilization account. The clerk will report back to us.
[Robert Penta]: Make that part of the paper.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, last week we had a four hour marathon discussion as it related to the mayor's new pay to park enhancement program here in the city of Medford. And as we all know, there was a full host of folks here, approximately 50 people who were involved, who had a personal interest in this particular program, came. Many of them spoke. A lot of people came to listen as to what was going on. As a result of that, there were many concerns that were brought up. Unfortunately, I don't think the local press has been able to pick up on all of it yet and their commentaries. That's neither here or there. Some concerns from last week to this week have developed. And I know the chief of police is here, and I know there was some continuation of changes that took place at the traffic commission today. But I have some particular issues since last week till now that I would like to bring up. The first one is the fact that this was supposed to be a major program here in the city of Medford, a major development that would have an impact on the taxpayers of this community. But if you'll notice very nicely, there was no ribbon cutting ceremony for this one. You didn't see a whole host of people coming out into the city while the mayor cut the ribbon for this wonderful new tax me to death program. You didn't see that, and you won't see it either. And last week, Mr. Chief, when you were here, two particular locations, one in West Method on High Street in front of a couple of residential homes, And on Boston Avenue, in front of a bunch of residential homes, those kiosks are still there. And the 15th is two days away. And if I understood everybody's comments last week, not only yours, but also the folks from Republic, they indicated that those were going to be taken away and removed because they were misplaced or whatever it might be. Thirdly, talking about the location where you go to get your parking permit. As of yesterday, from folks that I have spoken to, maybe it came in today's mail, but people who sent their applications in on the 1st of January, or the first week of January, looking for their resident parking permit, they have still to get in the mail the two passes for guests, whoever it might be, coming to their homes. And also, when they went to pay, they didn't get a receipt. So if any of you folks out there did pay, didn't get a receipt, so be it. But for the two particular folks from both parts of the city that went there, They went out there, and they got no receipt. A major concern is if it's not here in City Hall anymore. You can't come to City Hall and buy your resident parking permit. You have to go to the spot on Main Street on the Somerville Line. And to do that, you have to pay $10, same thing that you would have paid here in City Hall. But they're telling you, if you have a smartphone or whatever, or your computer, you can go online, and you can get it that way. But of course, They extort another 30% out of you. They charge you $3 more to do it that way. So by doing it that way, they're making another 30% on the fact that you're a resident of this community. You want to get a resident parking sticker for where you park, where you pay taxes. And now they want to charge you 30% for the sticker that normally costs 10%. Also, a validation program was brought to our attention last week. And it started off by addressing certain hairdressers in this community. One in particular in the West Medford area. And as a result of that, as we all know, a lot of these hairdressers have senior citizens and maybe younger folks. But a majority of the senior citizens that come there, they have a two or three hour window to do what they have to do. So the questions become, as I'm going around to six of them now I've gone to, And as I go to them, I mean, what are they supposed to do, get them off the chair, run outside? They can't move the car because you only can stay there for two hours. But they want to know how a particular hairdresser in a particular part of this community can get a special validation program so that person can give out numbers and number plates to the Republic people so on a particular day, They won't tag those people. I mean, this is absolute insanity on a particular day. What are we going to do? Play this game one day, one day at a time? Let one hairdresser know and another hairdresser not know? There's no fairness to that part of the program. Also, nothing has been presented to us that tells us there is a statutory law that allows a private for-profit out-of-state company to issue parking citations, which has historically been a police department job. That's a big issue. And I know, Chief, you may not have the answer for that. But I'll tell you this. If you do have the answer for that, then I think what you need to have presented before here is that your Metro Police Department took a vote to give up that part of their job to a private nonprofit out-of-state company. People want to know that, and I want to know that, too, because that's a huge issue in this whole program. Last week, it was Councilor Knight who brought up the issue of the signs in the city. There's a contract that says, Republic will replace and paint the signs. Rightfully so. It's part of the job that the Medford highway department have. And if the mayor abdicated that responsibility away from the highway department, then he violated his own contract with his own employees here in the city of Medford. And it's as clear as the bell. And I think it's in a section three of the RFP that went out this past spring. So these are a few issues that are going on. We're not a poor community. This is the funny part about this thing. You're sitting on huge surpluses of money, $7 million in free cash, $8.5 million in water and sewer, and just on the water and sewer account. Your water and sewer account bills just went up, and you're sitting on $8.5 million of your money that you keep paying more and more in each and every year, whether you have a stabilization account, a surplus account, whatever it might be, or your real estate account. This is a program. that had absolutely no thought process generated out to the entire community, never mind the business people, but the taxpayers of this community. This past Saturday, if you drove through Medford Square, as I did, and I walked through it, and you go through the downtown areas of West Medford and South Medford and North Medford, and you will start to see people not going into these stores. So I go and ask some of these proprietors, why? Because they're not going to go in there for five minutes, go in there to pick up a cup of coffee, or get a sandwich and put $0.25 in it. And if they can't get a spot there, they have to go look for a, what do you call it, a kiosk. And by the time they go to the kiosk and come back, and if they use a smartphone, pay $0.35 to put $0.25 into the machine. So now you're up to $0.60 for 15 minutes. It makes no sense at all. Republic comes from Tennessee. They're here for only one reason, and that's to make money. They're not your friend. They're not our friend. Their only friend is your money that you put into that machine. So good luck to them. They won the bid. The mayor won the bid with him. But the other part of the program is, if you're all going to be treated equally, then everyone that works in this city, in this building, the fire department, police department, school department, your parking spot that you get in this city is what you consider a perk. It doesn't go with your job. Now, he's opened up Pandora's box because there's an IRS rule and regulation that allows a perk. If you're getting a perk on your job, which is parking, there's a cost factor that goes along with that. And right now, as of the IRS rule and regulation as of 2014, it's up to $250 a month. And the crazy part about the whole story is up to $250 a month. So if an employee in this building comes here, we're now going to have to figure out what is the value of that free parking spot that they get here on this piece of property. But if you take a train or a bus to Boston every day, you get $130 a month. So where's the logic in between there of wanting to take cars off the road and use public transportation when they're giving you a higher perk for your job to park your car on an employer's location, which is the city of Medford, as compared to taking a train from the private industry? Those are some of my comments right now. It's just, this is just so hard to understand. And the poor part, the hard part about it is, you know, I know every business wants to make a go of it. But you can't have competition in one part of the city and not be addressed the same way equally in another part. You can't go to a market in one part of the city, and you can sit there all day long and go to another part of the city and go to a convenience store, and you get a 15, 30-minute parking spot. As I said to you last week, Chief, with all due respect, in South Medford, you have 15 minutes, you have 30 minutes, you have one hour and two-hour parking, all in the same block of stores. Now, that's hard to understand, and if you're going to try to treat everyone the same. Last week, one of the things that did resonate, I will tell you this, it's dark out right now. You go outside after 4.30, 5 o'clock at night, and you're driving down the street, and you're not used to what a kiosk is, or you can't find it, you can't see it, or the weather isn't clement, or whatever it might be, and there's snow. Either you're going to lose the customer, or they're not going to find the kiosk and get tagged, or more importantly, the city's going to have an obligation, because in your RFP in there, I believe the question was asked, I think it was you, Councilor Caraviello, asked the question, when it snows out, who is gonna be the responsible party to make sure that those kiosks are clean on the sidewalk for somebody to get to? So those are some of my initial comments, Chief, and as I said to you again, this is the Chief of Police, and I happen to like him, and he's my friend, okay? But he doesn't deserve to be up here. It's not his program. It's Mayor Michael McGlynn's program. He's the one that should be here answering the questions, And I know you're doing the job for him, Chief, but I just think it's unfair. That's just my opinion, and I'm saying it publicly. Thank you, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: There's just two of them in front of them. It's one in front of the apartment building and one in front of the two family house.
[Robert Penta]: Let's go back to West Medford. You said 418 High Street, where the residents are. But you can go right across the street, and there's a kiosk that's in front of a house that's residential on the top floor, a dentist off on the bottom, And there's two residential there, and then there's a funeral home. And there's one before the funeral home, and there's one after. Now, we won't get into naming other funeral homes. There's other funeral homes that have nothing. And you can park there all day. I mean, how does this work?
[Robert Penta]: We're not talking about generalities. I think the chief knows what I'm talking about, and I think Mr. Nash knows what I'm talking about, because we've had this discussion before, and nothing has changed. Nothing has changed for the locations. And as a result of that, we're taking a like subject matter, a funeral home. How come in one part of the city there's nothing and another part of the city there is? We can go to convenience stores and do the same argument. We've already done it with hairdressers.
[Robert Penta]: But who checked the report? Why would you put something in front of a residential home? Where's the logic to that?
[Robert Penta]: I hear what you're saying. How do you justify, if the contract was signed on October 10th, and this is now January, what, 13th? They had three months. They had three months to look at all these locations and saying, hey, wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. Why would you put something here in front of a house? How would you take one business and put it in front of one business and not another business? And then I think you made the comment last week. that this is just the beginning. There's going to be more to come as it relates to this. I mean, if this is just the beginning now, what's going to happen when you start hitting all these other locations? You can go from Salem Street, outside of Salem Street, all the way down to Medford Square, and there's nothing. There's nothing on the streets there.
[Robert Penta]: Just a point of further clarification. I agree with Councilor Camuso, you know, and it's right, we can agree to disagree. It was never brought before us, but have a member of the Mayor's staff go forward. That's just absolutely crazy. Further to the nonsense to all of this is the man behind our backs went and sought out one of our local state representatives and filed and had him file the transportation bill, $8 million to build the garage. And we knew nothing about it. The city knew nothing about it. The council knew nothing about it. It was a sneaky way to do an end run. Point of information made. clear, Mr. President, okay? This is very important. He brought up a very important issue. If this council is getting tagged for something that they never did, then it needs to be explained why they never did what they're being tagged for, because it was never presented before us.
[Robert Penta]: Council Penta when you say 25 spots, seniors only senior center use only senior center. So where do they get these? Where do they have to get these permits?
[Robert Penta]: Can you go back to the parking lot, the back wall, the big parking lot?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, you had to be down South Met for the other day, okay? When they had two of those so-called ambassadors arguing with people, people telling the people they had to put the money into the META. Councilor Caraviello, I think you're aware of it. Yes, sir. Thank you. So don't say they weren't. They weren't. They weren't telling people they had to put the money into the META, and that is absolutely false. Thank you, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification. Point of clarification, counsel. on that exact question. So if I'm a business merchant, take West Method, for example, and I have three employees, and I won't park in front because I want to turn it over, but I'm going to go park on the parking lot behind, and it's only a three-hour window. But if they have a business permit. So each one of them has to pay $100 for a business permit?
[Robert Penta]: Excuse me.
[Robert Penta]: So you're going to tell me that they're going to have to pay $100 there because they work at a particular store. Okay. Is that what you're saying? Everyone's treated the same because you haven't addressed that yet. And I can park down the end of governor's, I mean, playstate road on the Winchester line there by the for $5 a day, take a bus and go to Boston. What makes them any different than an employee working in a store? $5 a day would be $100 in a month. $5 a day is, you're telling that person they can stay there for $5 a day, but you're telling another person if they're going to pay $100, and if they don't pay the $100, they're going to have to pay, they're going to have to move it after three hours.
[Robert Penta]: You know, the gentleman brings up a valid point, because whether it's your building or other parts of the city where the same thing might be happening, there's going to be a real major concern as it relates to that. So, Chief, could you answer that?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. You indicated that you would be listening to what the people are saying. I am.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Under advisement, because I think he makes a valid point. I mean, unfortunately, you know, what if somebody is sick in the family? What are they going to do? Park? They can't park in front? And if there's no spots in the back, what's he going to have to do? Run out every two hours and move his car?
[Robert Penta]: On Saturdays, too? Saturdays?
[Robert Penta]: This is crazy.
[Robert Penta]: You know, tonight we've seen, uh, we started this meeting. The time is now it's approximately, uh, it's about 12 minutes to 10. We started at seven, probably around seven 30. This went on. We've seen a varied amount of people come before us of all ages and expressing what their concerns might be. Jimmy's Pizza, let's go with you. Let's start off with you, okay? You've been there a long period of time. You've worked yourself, however you worked yourself up to be a successful businessman, own the property, maintaining it. Now you're in a position that a stupid little meter, and I'll call it that, a stupid little kiosk in front of your store is going to stop people from coming in, going into your store, on all the other places that you have. And the reason why it's stupid because whoever thought by putting that kiosk there as a revenue enhancement for the city didn't realize it was going to be a business loss to the city because you and all your tenants are going to wind up losing customers and you're going to wind up going maybe in a bankruptcy and the city's going to wind up having another block that might become blighted because people are fickle. And when they're fickle over something like this, it isn't the quarter, it's the whole idea of I'm now having to pay for something that I never had to pay for before. When all this was supposed to be was revenue enforcement. Councilor Marks was on the committee, as so was the chief of police. It was submitted on September of 2009. They worked on it from 2008 to 2009. And if you read what the mayor said publicly, what did he turn around? We've been working on this for five years. If this is what he's been working on for five years, and this is the best he could come up with, with no ribbon-cutting ceremony because it's a quiet program, well, then shame on him. That corner office definitely needs to be replaced. It needs new leadership. It needs a new vision. It needs to have an idea to understand. that if I'm a businessman and I have to go to work in the morning, I have to know what it means to open the door, turn that key, and when I put that light on, I'm paying for electric, gas, workman's comp, workman's unemployment, sick, vacation, okay, and everything else that it takes to run a business. That guy in the corner office doesn't know what it means. He makes $142,000 off the taxpayers of this community. He has absolutely no idea what it means to make a business work and survive. And that is the problem. And the problem further is that he took five department heads, not one citizen, he took five department heads and came up with this program. And now it's being changed and being changed and being changed. And while it's being changed and changed, you know why it's being changed? Because the people are responding. And if they had an opportunity to have this introduced to themselves well in advance, well in advance, and each little square was addressed independently of each other, because each square is different from each other, then you'd be able to understand what the problems, what the concerns might be. And you, Mr. Chief, you probably wouldn't have to be here three weeks in a row, strike that two weeks in a row, to know they're going to make these changes because had the mayor done his dutiful duty, this would have all been addressed ahead of time. Maybe just a few little nuances at the end. And maybe, as Councilor Camuso alluded to, if you really wanted to get into this program and make it fair and equitable for everyone. You should have put a parking meter in front of every single spot that people can understand what a parking meter looks like, not a kiosk, and then everybody will be treated the same. But the reason why they took them out over 50 years ago, because it was hurting business and they weren't being enforced. Do you realize how great this city would be? It's the only city. You go to Winchester, who now is putting these crazy things in, you go to Somerville, you go to Malden, you go to Everett. If we were the only city come to Medford for free parking, do you know what that would do to the business community? All the chief would have to do with his police officers, and I say that with all due respect, because there's money in the budget that the mayor won't give them. This council has been supportive of this police department each and every budget and each and every year that I've been here. But if you had that, all you'd have to turn around, you would have time constraints in each one of the sections of the city, and you'd see the turnover take place. And you know something? And the people would appreciate it. Why all of a sudden we changing from two hours to three hours? Because the people complain. The young lady that just came up here who said she doesn't come on, she's not going to come on Thursdays anymore. She might be in a dentist's office. Quite true. She could be in a dentist's office, could be in a doctor's office. You don't know what's going to happen. It took a hairdresser, because of her relationship to the city hall here, to scream loud enough, because she didn't want her business hurt, that it introduced itself to all the other type of hairdressers and businesses in the community. One of the reasons why it's bumped up to three hours. You go up Governor's Avenue, biggest abuse in the city, go up Governor's Avenue, on the right-hand side it's two hours, on the left-hand side coming down it's one hour. Where the logic to that came from, I have absolutely no idea. But I really think we can have resolution after resolution after resolution. The only way this thing is going to be resolved is that guy in the corner office is going to have to come here. and squash it. I think it's Mr... You live on Gill Street? Is that what you said you do? Yeah, the gentleman from Gill Street. I believe it's $900,000. You can buy yourself out of the contract. I believe your boss was here two weeks ago. He came before the podium. Within the first year, if it doesn't work out, there's an opt-out provision. I'd rather spend a million dollars now to get rid of them because the damage that this is going to do in the long run will be worse than anything that's ever happened. I'm supporting, I'll support anything this council has to do with making this thing be better. But all we're doing is talking. It's the guy in the corner office. You've got to inundate that office. You've got to tell him we don't want it. Get it out of here. You know, it's kind of like interesting. Whether they read a report, the Walker report, is that what you call it? The Walker report? The Walker report that this company, Republic from Tennessee, went by, I think it's 900 or 890 spots. But you had three months to locate the spots and to see if these spots were going to make any sense. Why are we talking about this after the fact? This is symptomatic of leadership that doesn't work. There is no leadership in the city right now. It's reactionary. You know, three hours in the parking lot, if you go outside here, that side over there on the name of the street, I don't know, there's one little kiosk in between the city's building and the parking lot over here for which half of the parking lot is private. So who's going to make that determination when they pull in there? And I think it was you, Councilman Oxford, you said it originally in the beginning. Nobody knows where the beginning and the end of it ends when you see a kiosk. A lady called me up this afternoon and she indicated, I have no idea where I'm supposed to go. I mean, am I going five spots, four spots? And if it's a big, long stretch, what are you supposed to do? Who's supposed to know that? I don't know that. None of us know that. And to get the ticket, and there's the other lady, I don't know if she's still here or if she's gone, that talked about if she's five, maybe the first hour should be free. And what I don't understand, and I know you're here, Mr. Nash, and you're a good guy because you're from Republican. We've had our conversations, but you're here to make money, and I understand that. But we were told it was going to start off with two cars that are going to monitor the city. So the question is this. Can you come up here, please? Is it still going to be two cars that are going to monitor this whole city with all these issues? Yes. So you're telling me in the course of a two-hour span, All these concerns and all these little exceptions to the rule, you'll be able to go from A to B, you're both cars, and address every single one of the locations in this city. Is that what we're saying? No. Oh.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Camuso. Thank you. Councilor Penta. I just, you just said something. Is it possible that you guys could get a van and put five or 10 people in it and just drop them all around neighborhoods?
[Robert Penta]: Well, more than two people.
[Robert Penta]: Who makes that decision?
[Robert Penta]: So the only reason that you'd be doing that for a follow-up and what Councilor Camuso was saying is if your revenue is off and the revenue is going to be off because you don't have enough people on the street, you'd be going to the mayor and asking him for that permission and the mayor would be agreeing with you to meet your goal to get to that revenue number that you need to make.
[Robert Penta]: And one other thing, legally. You made a comment, and I don't know if you meant to say it or not, but when the question was asked about the appeal process, and I don't know what councilor asked the question, you know, if there got to be too many, you indicated, used the term, well, at that point in time, we'd probably jump in to help out. I don't think you can, because there is a legal contract here that's going on, and I think that's another thing. And when we get to these things that are being negotiated after the fact, and the council's not being apprised of it, I think we've got some serious problems here. Because the fact of the matter is, we've got two contracts, one month apart from each other, 9, 10, 14, 10, 10, 14. Only one word, two words would change in the whole contract. And it's very explicit as to what you guys can and cannot do. And for them to come out with a post-press release and turn around and saying that the first year of the $300,000 we're going to get, you're going to give $250,000. It's going to go back to the business districts. That was never negotiated. That's not part of the contract. That's after the fact. So you've got a whole host of issues here that are just running amok because it just wasn't — this was not vetted out properly, as far as I'm concerned. I know you're here. You got to do a job because this is what your job is. But I've got a job, too. And I've got to make sure I'm listening to the people. And I haven't found — there's only one person. I'm up to — I got to apologize. I'm off by a few. I gave a different number on Sunday. It's 376. As of tonight, 376 emails. Only one person in the email said, I can't tell you whether it's bad or good. Maybe we should give it a chance. But probably, if you give it a chance, and the way the temperament is running, it probably won't work anyway. But what the hell? That's the only one. Everyone else has been against it. And you know what the major reason is? A, they weren't advised. B, business districts did not meet between and amongst themselves to discuss it. And C, it seems kind of odd. that the city council is discussing this after the fact, not before the fact.
[Robert Penta]: Do you don't want the citizen to speak? What incentive is there for a Metric police officer to write a ticket knowing that the money isn't even going to come back to the city? Because it has to go to Republic first. They've got to get to a certain dollar amount before the city even gets any money.
[Robert Penta]: So if Republic only is going to have two cars on the road during the course of a day, correct? You're only going to have these two. I'm quite sure they have to take coffee breaks. They're going to have to take their lunch break. So at some point in time, there may be only one car on the road.
[Robert Penta]: There you are, you're taking it away from the public. Have the mayor come to a council meeting where he belongs. Not in a committee of the whole meeting. Councilor Penta, if I can.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if he's not going to come, he's telling the people, he's slapping them. He doesn't care. He doesn't care. And they'll do what they have to do in November. They'll either vote him out or vote him in. One or the other.
[Robert Penta]: And then, and then we will discuss it again at seven o'clock and then we'll discuss it again at seven o'clock at the council meeting. We'll discuss whatever took place. And the poor people that have to come down here are going to want to know why.
[Robert Penta]: But everybody has to work. People have to work. They have families they have to deal with. They know 7 o'clock Tuesday night is a council meeting. It's an open public forum. Anybody can come here, including the mayor.
[Robert Penta]: That's not our fault that the mayor chooses not to come here, councillor. I don't know what he's afraid of. Well, then let's move the question here. Move it that he appear before the Medford City Council, not the Committee of the Whole. Invite him to the Medford City Council next Tuesday. Do we not want a Committee of the Whole meeting?
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'd like to have them appear before the council. What are we going to do over here? Be third party to repeat back?
[Robert Penta]: Who's going to place on the agenda for next week that this discussion continue?
[Robert Penta]: Yes. Move the question.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I'm really, I'm confused with this resolution here now because as Councilor Light alluded to last year, he said in December, he was working with the city clerk going back to last June, going over some of these positions and then, The biggest position that we have on the council agenda on our council forum is president and vice president, because they're the ones that have to set the tempo for who gets these positions and how we're going to get to there. And neither one of those were vetted out. But now, all of a sudden, we're going to vet out other positions. And I just don't understand that. I'm not going to support this, because there's absolutely no — there's no rhyme or reason to this. Because if that be the case, Mr. President, you've got no authority to make any appointments right now to any committees, because every one of those positions need to be vetted out. And every other position that comes under the state statute for which a council member is eligible for, it doesn't seem to work. There's something behind this, and I don't know what it is. I just think it's unfair to the entire council that we would be talking about something like this now. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: The difference, Mr. President, between the mayor presenting them to us is because the council requested it. You know, we're a small group of people here. And if you've been working on this since June of last year, And this is all that you can come up with, and so be it. The other part of the thing is, then maybe we should have vetted out your opposition. You were only here three weeks, and you voted yourself a pay raise. And you voted for it, too. I did not vote for the pay raise. You voted for it. Check the record. No, you voted for it. I don't care what the record says. I know what I voted for and what I didn't vote for. You voted for it. But that's not it. And that's the whole thing with the problem here. Mr. President, whoever serves up there as the president of the council has the right to make the introductions. to whatever the positions might be. Just as Councilor Caraviello, he made a request of the mayor to be on a particular board. He went there, and he did what he had to do. These are all political positions. When, all of a sudden, now we have to put a resume in to become a chairman of a committee or something, or what we've done, or what we haven't done, I thought the answer to that was the people. The people would vote us out.
[Robert Penta]: The people would vote us in or vote us out for what we do. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Pantano. The best possible people to serve in these positions should be vetted out starting with the president and the vice president and we should just go through that and that's probably what the council should have done this past year to find out who the best person, not the number one vote getter, not the one who's been here the longest or the shortest, who's accomplished and done the most on the city council, who would make a good representative. Not because of the political path.
[Robert Penta]: What are you talking about? What votes? Votes to get the votes.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, I didn't ask to become president or vice president.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't ask for it. Well, no, no, you didn't. You didn't have the votes.
[Robert Penta]: This was a notice sent out from the Department of Public Utilities for a hearing that's going to be forthcoming in January. And then there's a whole other bunch of locations. They're going to be in Worcester, and Dedham, and Keith Middle School, and New Bedford, Plymouth, and then one in Boston. The rate increase of 37% I think we've all felt it in our electric bills. And the gas company basically gets their money or their proposals that are associated with the sale of the company's appliance business and their operation of home heating protection plans. It goes like this. During the winter months, if you use 160 therms of gas per month, your bill will increase by $25.90, which will be a 13.1% increase. And then during the summer months, if you use more than 31 therms a month, your bill will increase by $8.38, which is a 19.6% increase. The 8% was wrong. It's wrong. It's more than that. So I guess between, unfortunately, I took the increase from the summer months rather than the winter, put it together. The fact of the matter is this. The rate increase is going to go up. In your winter bill, it's going to go up by a minimum of $25.90 a month. And in the summer, it's going to go up by a minimum of $8.38 a month. And on top of the 37% that you're being charged for the electric bill, it's just crazy. As I said before, when we were talking about these electric rates, the top administrators from the president town received in excess of $1 million bonuses while they were enacting these rate increases. We have no choice over this. It's a monopoly that NSTAR seems to have over our gas and electric bills. And the only one way to stop this is if cities and towns just respond back to Mr. Marini, the secretary, so he would have that in front of him before the State Department of Public Utilities makes their final decision. And I would hope that our state legislature would likewise be on board with this because, you know, people are just getting taxed and taxed and taxed and more taxed to death. And here's a situation where there are two companies, gas and electric, where the people who run it are just making hundreds of thousands of dollars in their salaries over and beyond that for which people are struggling just to stay alive.
[Robert Penta]: Right. He rolled out. Right. I'll tell you one thing about this governor. The first day in office, what he did is he took $100 million that the then-governor, Patrick, wouldn't do, and he put it back into road and bridges in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And that's a big plus. And he's keeping his commitment to local aid, which is something that Patrick wouldn't do. So those are two big pluses right now. for cities and towns.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Yeah. Federal.
[Robert Penta]: You tired. Go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no, no. I want the original motion.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I do want it to go there. That's the amendment.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. That's the main motion.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, we got a document here tonight from Mass Development as it relates to Tufts University making a request for $100 million in tax-exempt bonds to do a project. It says here that they financed Interior to Robinson Hall on the Medford-Sumnerville campus and the Biomedical Research and Public Health Building on the Boston campus, including relocation of the Information Technology Department and the Sterns Wing and the acquisition of an apartment building located at 119 College Avenue, Somerville, near the Somerville campus, as well as the other routine Capitol level. I think what's concerning to me is, if I remember correctly, they appeared before the council some time ago looking for, I believe, an easement to cross over a street down on the Somerville line. There was no mention at the time of their expansion to include buying an apartment building at 119 College Ave. So could we get an update on 119 from Tufts? What is 119 College Ave? How many students do they intend to put in there? 119 College Ave.
[Robert Penta]: It's a combination.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, it's on the Medford-Sumner line. So I just don't know. We could send that to Bob Arubel's office. Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: No, all it says that the acquisition of an apartment building located at 119 in the Somerville-Metford slash Somerville-Metford-Boston and Grafton campuses, the bonds financing the property acquisition will be used on a taxable basis.
[Robert Penta]: On that motion. On that subject matter, I believe it's incumbent upon somebody in the city. And it's obvious that the administration maybe doesn't want to handle it. It doesn't want to talk about it. But the fact of the matter is, We have two particular cases that I wrote standing. One is the West Method Little League Hillside, and the other one is Channel 3. And Channel 3 has a large duty of obligation to the rate payers who have Comcast television, and now for those folks that have Verizon television. Because on a monthly basis, a fee has been taken out of your Comcast and Verizon bills for the purposes of giving you public access TV. Why the mayor decided to choose to put it up at the high school, a place that's not convenient, and centrally located as was suggested by the that the mayor commissioned back in January, which submitted their report this past March. I mean, April, excuse me. Um, I don't know why, but the fact of the matter is it's going up there. But during that period of time, there's a lot of new folks that are here. So you might as well hear it for the first time during that period of time, since December of 2000, um, 2013 till now, uh, the city of Medford has amassed over 356 million, $356,000 of your rate payers money. And we haven't had public access TV during that period of time. Now, there's an approximate cost of, I believe, in the booklet that we received two weeks ago, of a cost of approximately $300,000, I think, and $26,000 to refurbish a particular part of the vocational school to have public access be up there and running. I may be off by a few dollars, but I think that's the dollar amount. With that being said, you know, it's a step. Is it a step in the right direction? Hopefully it is. But the fact of the matter is that the old board of directors and the members of Channel 3 have been unaccounting are unaccountable for all the monies that they had not only in their inventory of assets, but also in their inventory of cash and deposits minutes to the meeting. And as Mr. Viglione indicated, um, our city solicitor has made numerous requests of those folks to submit the returns, um, to give our cash balances. What's the name of the bank accounts? And we have yet to receive that. I know that they filed a petition of dissolution back, I believe, in October of 2014, in 2013, excuse me. And to this day, we still have nothing. What it's going to take, I don't know. I would hope that the mayor would have been more aggressive in going after your money, because it is your money, as a rate payer. to a cable TV subscriber, Comcast, and now Verizon, that's an awful lot of money. But we haven't had it for a while. So, I think if I understood the gentleman at the podium correctly, these are things that are part of our municipal government. And when you attach the name of Medford on anything that a governmental entity or a non-governmental entity might do, but to take advantage of the city's name of Medford, I think there is a sense of responsibility that we do have. And I would hope, Mr. President, under your leadership, there would be some sense of a committee meeting that would direct ourselves by way of maybe either policy or directing of the mayor to report back as it relates to these entities that use the name of Medford to their advantage, but to the disadvantage of the people who are using, are playing, or a cable subscriber that unfortunately has the name of Medford attached to it. So I think before you receive it and place it on file, there is a common understanding I think that needs to be made to cable TV subscribers, because I think if they knew each and every month, Mr. President, that money was coming out of their cable bill since December of 2013 until now, and if they realize that the city is sitting on $356,000 of their money, and there was no public access station for all that period of time, I don't think that they would appreciate it, and I don't think a lot of people understand it, because it's just That's a small little notation on your cable bill, but it's there each and every month, whether it's 97 cents or a dollar something, whatever it might be. But I just wanted to say that.
[Robert Penta]: There may be a new committee you may want to find. You may want to eliminate some committees.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, one quick point before the citizens speak, and I think it has to be made clear. The Medford City Council did not vote for this paid park program. The council agenda of 14472 on May 20th of 2014 read as follows for the purposes of supporting the mayor to entertain or to engage in a 10-year contract and then report back. But that resolution was amended. And this is the exact words. And if anybody doubts what I'm saying, you can get a copy of the tape and watch it. The exact words are as follows. And it's not the exact words that are in the minutes of the meeting. It says the following, to amend the motion that the council meet before the signing so that we have a complete understanding. And at that point, I was interrupted by city solicitor Rumbley, who then indicated by saying that he thought it would be a good idea to have the company and also show the council certain things about the machine and of end of quote, then I continued on to say, so as amended that having the major, the mayor, whoever the vendor might be to present themselves before the council before the finalization of the contract. Now, That is officially on our records of our meeting. September 10th of this past year, the Medford City Council met for the purposes of looking at a contract. right here, we've got two of them. One we got in September and another one in October. The exact same contract a month apart with just one difference. The Medford City Council at that meeting on September 10th was met at that room by Medford citizens, certain members of the council, and questions as it relates to the contract that was being presented. The Medford City Council never ever took a vote to finalize or giving the mayor the final authority for the purposes of engaging in this pay-to-park program. So what you have here right now and what you talk about right now is completely the Mayor McGlynn's pay-to-park program with no endorsement from the City of Medford's Council or any other elected official. It's his program and he owns it and unfortunately you're here tonight but whatever we can do to resolve it, this is the intent of the City Council. Unfortunately I wish the Mayor was here to listen to you Like Councilman Mark said, it should have gone around to the entire community. There's a whole bunch of issues, and pitches don't lie. I've got a whole bunch of pitches, and I have comments. I've received 106 emails from business people throughout this community in the last two days, because they're starting to find out about it. But I'm willing to stay here all night, listen to whatever your comments are, and Chief, with all due respect, I think this is a bogus plan implemented upon the citizens, the business community, and the taxpayers of the city of Medford.
[Robert Penta]: Just as a point of clarification, Chief, you said for years and years we've had a lot of what, free parking? Yes. On the streets.
[Robert Penta]: But we've also had an extreme lack of enforcement, and we wouldn't be here if the enforcement activity took place.
[Robert Penta]: Chief pointed further clarification in the report that you folks submitted. on page number two. Third paragraph, first line, if parking is a major problem in the city, then a necessary first step in taking that enforcement needs to be seriously taken. Last sentence, what was realized was the steady, consistent enforcement was necessary where all violations and violators were treated the same. That's 2009, this is 2014, that's five years later, this mayor's been here and for five years he's done nothing about traffic enforcement. Now he wants to beat the people up and make this a revenue enhancement program and that's
[Robert Penta]: All the council voted for was to authorize the mayor to go forward and look into a 10-year contract because we had three people come. All three of them had a 10-year proposal. It was over a three-year minimum for which the procurement officer said these are what the people had to come in with. and the council voted with an amendment that the council meet before the signing so that we have a complete understanding. And I further amended it by saying that having the mayor, whoever the vendor might be, present themselves before the council before the finalization of the contract. So before the finalization of the contract to me means before that contract is signed. And if we don't agree or something has to be changed, we never have the opportunity to take the vote or discuss anything about a finalization. And, I tell you, it's on the record. It's clearly on the record, as clear as the bell. Thank you, Councilor Padgett.
[Robert Penta]: On that particular issue, excuse me, I have pictures of every tree that was bolted by a sign. If the mayor was on top of his game, they would have known right from the beginning never to put a sign on a tree to start off with.
[Robert Penta]: There was no communication, not even with the mayor to them. I'm not yelling at you because you know something, this is such a disruptive piece of legislation that we shouldn't even be discussing this. The mayor should be in here apologizing and saying,
[Robert Penta]: You're telling me in that loading zone up on the hillside, somebody goes in there, they're going to have, and they want to get some paint and they have to stir the paint and shake it up. They have to be out in five minutes. They're going to get a ticket. Five minutes.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's the whole thing about being reasonable here.
[Robert Penta]: It's a loading zone. He just said for commercial and residential purposes.
[Robert Penta]: You have three different time limits in that parking lot. How come there's no kiosks in there? You have a kind of limit against the wall on the back of Salvatore's. Then you have one for the business people on that wall. And in the middle, you have two hour parking. You have one hour, you have two hour, and the back of the wall parking. There's three different parking types in that parking lot.
[Robert Penta]: Why isn't there just something that's consistent? The clarification, what is it? How can you have one hour, somebody, because they parked their car parallel, somebody parking it horizontal? What difference?
[Robert Penta]: There's a corollary point to that. You go up Governor's Avenue. How come if you go up Governor's Avenue, you've done nothing with that? It's two hours on the right going up, and one hour coming back on the left.
[Robert Penta]: Are you saying that you already provided that to the city, but, and you're just rolling it out now? Is that in the contract?
[Robert Penta]: I have all your responses, but that was never explained to us. And another thing on the like venue, if I go online and I want to get a permit parking, a $10 permit parking, they're charging me $3 to go online to get a $10. That's extortion. 30% on a $10? On a $10? When people before could come down to City Hall and get it for nothing?
[Robert Penta]: We're talking about going online. to make it easier for the customer. Councilor Knight just alluded to the fact you have to pay 35 cents to put a 25 cent time period in. So you are charging 30% to buy a $10 to buy. Point of information, Councilor Camuso.
[Robert Penta]: It's not a 30% charge. Councilor, it's a nominal fee, but 30 cents. It's not, you know, listen, you guys are here only for one reason to make money. That's the bottom line. And we understand that, but I'm here to make sure that you don't make money and give the city back to the people. So let them figure out what they need to do.
[Robert Penta]: So if you pop was and leave that spot and go to another spot, can they go to another spot of that? Is that it for the day? You only can do two hours.
[Robert Penta]: Chief, I believe there's approximately eight parking spaces in the front of the senior center. And a lot of the times they will park across the street in the parking lot over there. Now, I have two pictures here that were taken at nighttime. You have two kiosks against the business wall of that parking lot. And here's a picture of the parking lot for which somebody would have to walk from the sidewalk, where those businesses are, all the way to the ring road. There's not one kiosk. How is anyone supposed to figure that out? And especially at nighttime, when it's dark out, you can't even see these kiosks.
[Robert Penta]: What are you talking about? At 4 o'clock at nighttime, it's dark out. And you can't see. How are you going to see these? Against the wall. And if somebody's coming in, And if they're a guest at the senior center and not knowing that they have to go to a kiosk, what are they going to walk, 150 feet to go put money in a kiosk?
[Robert Penta]: But that's even further away than the parking lot is here.
[Robert Penta]: When seniors, when they have their Christmas thing and whatever it might be, they may get 100, 150 people. And sometimes it might go to two or three hours, whatever the event might be. Why should they be worrying about having to come out and put money in a meter?
[Robert Penta]: But why wasn't this thought out ahead of time? This is the whole issue of not having meetings ahead of time to discuss these matters.
[Robert Penta]: But having always another issue is good to create the idea that had you had these meetings. These issues would be minimal now. These are major. And what's happening is the small businessman, who's the lifeline of this community, is at risk because they're worried about their customers, whether they come back or not, whether they have appropriate parking. And now, as Councilor Monk just alluded to, and I heard it earlier tonight, a special validation program. So what are we going to do? Take care of special people that contributed to the mayor's office and make sure that their tickets are taken care of?
[Robert Penta]: I'd just like to finish, so I can finish my train of thought.
[Robert Penta]: Chief, in all fairness, to this council especially, Hank Philippi Ryan came to this community and did an expose on its Channel 7. And they talked to the mayor, and the mayor was asked a question about the non-enforcement up in the metro area. for people parking there, and they did it for a month. It wasn't a day, a month, the same people, no enforcement. And the mayor had the audacity to blame the city council for not giving the money. That was absolutely not true. This Medford City Council has been most supportive of the police department and the fire department on every one of those issues. So taking that and coming forward, you have a tax bill, you have a water bill, you have an excise, you have a meals tax, and you're having business people that are trying to survive. You have a man that's never owned a business, doesn't know what it means to wake up in the morning, open the door, turn the key, gas, electric, employment, workman's comp, insurance, renter's insurance, trucks. You put, you, you, you. You put all that together, then you'll have an understanding. You'll have an understanding what the small little business man has to go through. Believe me.
[Robert Penta]: Do you remember a few years ago? Thank you, Councilor Penta. You know, on Riverside Avenue, when they shut down Riverside Avenue for the Ring Road, you put 39 businesses out because you took their front door visibility away, people that were here for years and years and years, and now what you're going to do is tell the small businessmen we're going to go to having a revenue enhancement rather than a traffic enforcement program. Start it small, see where it takes you.
[Robert Penta]: Point of order on that question. On that question today in South Medford, I got a phone call from a business person. The people from Republic were there telling people that they had to put the money in the meter. So, I mean, what is it, the 5th, the 15th? Why is Republic here? Why are your people telling people to put the money in the meter?
[Robert Penta]: So you're taking money in the meter. That's what you're doing.
[Robert Penta]: What'd you say? Enforcement.
[Robert Penta]: That's not fair. What are you talking about? You're taking people's money now. So you're having 10 days of free money before you even do any enforcement. To learn how to use the system.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, Jack, I think, excuse me, Mr. Skelton, I think you indicated when you folks were here that you folks needed to do approximately $2 million a year in business? That was the projections that were working off of, yes. You needed $2 million a year. And the city gets, after the first year, the city gets $300,000. And then after the second year, the city gets $700,000, going up to the seventh year. And then years eight, nine, and 10, it's a renegotiable too. So if the city goes from $300,000 to $700,000, that's a $400,000 jump in one year, how much do you folks expect to make between the first and the second year?
[Robert Penta]: So if we're guaranteed a minimum of 300,000 the first year, because you have to do the cost for the kiosks and everything else. And the second year it jumps up 400,000. So that's like 110% increase to the city, if not more.
[Robert Penta]: So if the thresholds are not met, Isn't that an allowance for the city to opt out of the contract likewise with you? The city has the option to terminate the contract at any time.
[Robert Penta]: And how much is the investment right now, so far, approximately? About $800,000. About $800,000? Yes. Well, $800,000, that's for the cost of what, the kiosks and the signs? Yes. all of the technology. Okay, all the technology and the science. this supposedly 10 year deal.
[Robert Penta]: It's relative to the money part of what he was talking about. It's a corollary, you know what those are? The corollaries go like this. The commentary was- It sounds like a run on sentence, councillor. It's an $18 million contract, but it's not $18 million for the city of Medford. This is an $18 million contract between you and the city and the city of Medford comes out of this. If we follow just your projections, if everything is met to $7.9 million, not $18 million as reported. If I understand that correctly, a guarantee of $300 the first year, $700 the next year, if everything is met for the next seven years, figure that out for the 10-year of the contract, it's $7.9 million, not $18 million.
[Robert Penta]: But the revenue projection doesn't come to the city. If we're getting $7.9, you're getting at least that, if not more.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I think maybe the city should really deeply investigate the fact that if we are locked into this for at least one year, we have an option to maybe look at this and maybe get out of it because I, you know, to be honest with you, that's an awful lot of money for you guys to think you're going to generate $2 million a year. And the $2 million a year just might not happen if people figure out, listen, I'm not going to go there and spend this money in the computer. I mean, in the kiosk, As Councilor Knight has alluded to, why am I supposed to spend 35 cents to put a quarter into the meter? That's another screwy thing. And if you have a validation program, that's only going to hit certain people to the exclusion of other, which is discriminatory as far as I'm concerned, every single business needs to be treated the same. And if they're not going to be treated the same, then the program can never work with equity. Thank you, Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta? Chief, at the outset, I probably should have said this right in the beginning. You don't belong here. The mayor belongs here. This is not your program. This is the mayor's program. And I'm involved. And you're doing his nasty work right now. That's number one. About three weeks ago, Dan, you and I, and I think a fellow by the name of John N. Candola, met at the coffee shop. I want to get back to your comment, Councilor Marks. We had a lot of conversation about a lot of the concerns that are out there. And I think you agreed and you said basically a lot of the things you and I were talking about, you agreed. One big issue, the appeal process. And what did you say? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll paraphrase you. You said, if there was one thing you oppressed upon the mayor, keep it out of city hall, get an outside independent person. That's what you said.
[Robert Penta]: No, you indicated at that point in time, it would be wise and advisable to hire an outside independent person That way there would be no conflict as it relates to the parking ticket and city hall.
[Robert Penta]: So your recommendation is almost the same, whether it be Springfield and Medford or what have you. Why should Medford be any different than Springfield? I think every city's different.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I think that's something that should have been discussed and finalized and included in the contract, but just for the type of terminology that you're saying, that if in fact it gets to a point in time, as Councilor Marksley alluded to, and then an outside independent person needs to come in if they want to start off small, but the mayor was adamant. So if the mayor is going to be that adamant that Diane McLeod is a lovely person, she does her job, she has a full-time job to do. So I don't know how she's going to be able to pick up and chief, even though you said she may get all the technological thing, it might go up to a hundred. I mean, a hundred appeals is a hundred appeals. That's a lot to take care of during a period of time. But all I know is this, that if I was a contributor to the mayor of this community, and I wound up getting a ticket, I'd be knocking on his door and saying, hey, what's this all about? Oh, you're not going to get another contribution from me. Because he kept it here in City Hall, which is wrong. It should be out of City Hall. If this program really wanted to work its way right, it would be completely independent to anything that's political. And if you have to work out these little things, Councilor Camuso, I probably agree with you in one thing. And that's this. Yeah. on this particular thing, and I think it's a big one. I think if you were going to put meters in the city, you should have put meters so everybody that drove up would have seen them, they would have been able to understand it, the signage would have said how long you could have stayed, and this would have relieved an awful lot, an awful lot of the grief that's here. But your inconsistencies are all over the city. I'm not saying you, because you guys are only doing as you said where the mayor told you to do. I don't understand how you can go down Main Street from Medford Square to South Medford and have blocks of stores, have nothing at all, and then go to West Medford where there are kiosks, go to Haines Square where there are kiosks, and then Haines Square, at the end of Haines Square come to Medford Square, as Mr. Dobbs indicated, have had the same blocks of stores, like businesses, not having anything. And if you're going to say you're going to roll it out further, there's another phase to this, that means there's going to be more anguish and more heartache to the people in this community. We're not Newbury Street. We don't have to get up at 7 o'clock in the morning. And Newbury Street in Boston is the only place where they did this experiment with the kiosk, because the other parts of Boston still have the, and Brookline, who had the kiosk, got rid of it, because it was damning to the business community out there. We're not one of these communities. We're a simple little community. Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: It's not station.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta has the floor. I disagree extremely with Councilor Knight on this because the past is the leader of the future. And if you can't learn from the past, the future will never have any value. The fact of the matter is this. There was no process. It never took place. And every time you keep saying, well, we have no recourse. Let's go forward. How can you go forward when you don't even know what took place? Because you weren't a part of it, when you were asked to be a part of it, when you were told to be a part of it. And you never voted for the finalization of the contract. The man took it upon himself. The bottom line to this whole thing is that there's a whole bunch of issues here. You guys are only here for one reason, that's to make money. You're not here to help the city of Medford, you're here to get your salary and to make money. So as far as that concern, you should probably sit down because the real questions that need to be asked, the mayor, he's the one that should be here. He's the one that should be explaining all of this to the people that's going on. So let me ask you something, sir. Well, I'm gonna ask him something, he wants to stay there. I like him, he's a nice guy. Let me ask you something. Yes. I have pictures here of you people bolting signs to trees. Why did you bolt the signs to the trees? Were you told to do that? No, we were not.
[Robert Penta]: Well, what about the signs in Haines Square?
[Robert Penta]: Well, didn't the mayor give you any instructions not to bolt signs on trees? Did anybody tell you that? It's against the ordinance to do that.
[Robert Penta]: No, did anybody tell you if you're going to put the signs up?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, because it's important. It's part of what this process is all about.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, I did.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's in your mind.
[Robert Penta]: That's why your mind and mine is entirely different. That's correct. Thank God. I have a pitch, Councilor. I have a pitch.
[Robert Penta]: In response to Councilor Knight, that's absolutely not true. If you read the contract in the IRFP, they made the commitment to put the signs up and to replace the signs that are there. That's part of the contract.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta has- Yeah, the contract and the IRFP and the three pages of questions that were asked for which you, Republic, indicated that you folks would put up the signs and you would replace- is that true or false? That you would replace and put up the signs that were existing. That's part of the contract.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you very much. Okay. Not the city of Medford. Um, we have a, I have a picture here of one of your kiosks in front of Oak Grove cemetery on the sidewalk. Can you please explain in the middle of a snowstorm when they go down the street to plow the sidewalk?
[Robert Penta]: You do this? You plow the sidewalk, Councilor?
[Robert Penta]: You do the plowing on the sidewalk, yes or no? In front of Oak Grove Cemetery, do you plow the sidewalk there? Yes or no? You're an expert. Yes or no?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. Yeah. Sure, it'd help if they asked. You have one in the middle of the sidewalk there. Is there any particular reason why I had to go there and not other places? And this spot also has $5 a day parking, so.
[Robert Penta]: Five dollars a day is a bargain, it's a steal to come to the city of Medford, take the bus, go to Boston, and to park there, five dollars a day. But if you have to go down to West Medford, South Medford, North Medford, or Medford Square, you gotta pay to put the money in the quarter, and the most you can do is stay there for two hours. So how is that a bargain for the people of Medford? It's not a bargain. No, I don't, I don't want an out-of-towner coming here for five days when a homegrown person's gonna pay more.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you for your point of information. Well, if we're agreeing, what are you yelling at me for? Because I love you.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, also, Dan, I have pictures here and up in West Medford, and I have pictures up here On the hillside in Medford. You have kiosks in front of residential homes. Why?
[Robert Penta]: No, this is across the street. This is on, these ones here are on Boston Avenue, opposite where Dunkin' Donuts and Nick's Pizza and all that. It's all residential on that side of the street. You have kiosks up and down the street.
[Robert Penta]: No. They park their vehicles on the opposite side of the garage, on the opposite side of the garage by the railroad tracks. That's where they park. Well, anyway. You don't put them in front of a residential. Then you go up to High Street, opposite St. Claude's, there's two residential homes there and there's a kiosk there next to an apartment. That's the one I told you, that's scheduled to be removed.
[Robert Penta]: Did the Council get a copy of this walker study? You got a copy of the walkers? Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: You're going to take the kiosk, the one on Boston Avenue in front of the, in front of all the, that's not my decision. Who made the decision to take the ones off of high street? The city. Was the city here chief? Can you get rid of the ones on Boston Ave? From the Sacred Heart Church going down on the right-hand side.
[Robert Penta]: How are you going to make that determination? Does an owner-occupied person have to get a sticker so they don't have to pay?
[Robert Penta]: The Old Sacred Heart Church chief on that side going all the way down. There are apartments.
[Robert Penta]: You have two parking, you have two kiosks there.
[Robert Penta]: But you have two kiosks there, so if you're worried about students who aren't owner-occupiers, then why can't you give them stickers like you want to maybe give to the seniors so that way they can be identified and they can park there and they don't have to worry about going to a kiosk and putting in a meter. Which seniors are you talking about?
[Robert Penta]: You said the seniors.
[Robert Penta]: You're talking about the old Sacred Heart Church. Forget it. Jesus. Also, you're losing it.
[Robert Penta]: You have kiosks. How are you going to identify these kiosks at night when it's dark out? There's no signage. Flashlight. There's no lights. There's nothing. So if somebody's coming into the square, somebody wants to park in this parking lot at the end of the ring road, how are they going to see these two little kiosks in the back of the building that aren't lit up at all, and the people have a huge 150 car parking lot without anything in it? How are we going to do that? I mean, how is that equity compared to a small little businessman who's got a sign in front of a store or a kiosk?
[Robert Penta]: So how do you do this? These things don't even get illuminated. So if somebody decides to come to the square, and they're four or five spaces away from a kiosk, what are they going to do? Are they going to get out of the car and go looking for a kiosk?
[Robert Penta]: I don't care about this parking lot. This is just an example of one spot. Take the other spots. You have a small little peak. There's no light in the top that goes along or anything. You said the thing is run by solar. I'm assuming it has a battery backup. Why can't you have some kind of a light on it? So people don't feel like they're getting sucked in if they get a ticket.
[Robert Penta]: How long do you think it's going to take, Chief, the people of this city of Medford who don't watch the council meetings, don't have a computer, or don't utilize it, don't read the newspaper, to get themselves acclimated before they start getting tickets all over the place?
[Robert Penta]: Well, if the learning process is quick, maybe the revenues will be down. And if the revenues are down, that's gonna mean businesses are in trouble because people aren't gonna do it. You know, we could have been the only community around that did not have paid parking. You know what that would have meant for business people? And you know what that would have done to the climate of this community? Just have enforcement for the hours that are there, whether it's a half hour or an hour or whatever it might be. You could have a self-medfit. You have 15 minute, you have a half hour, you have one hour and two hour parking on blocks of stores. How does that make any sense? I mean, how did they get to these numbers? One business has 15 minutes, another one has free parking for a half hour, another one's got a half hour, another one's got an hour.
[Robert Penta]: But Chief.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't build that garage.
[Robert Penta]: It was your friend, the mayor, that didn't help the poor guy that fell through the roof.
[Robert Penta]: The poor guy that fell through the roof that worked at the city. That's right. The mayor never went once to see him. You built the garage. Never went to see him. Go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to move that we keep this in a full-blown committee on behalf of the taxpayers of this community for the purposes of having a... There is no paper to keep on the floor. We'll make a paper on the floor. Make this the paper on the floor.
[Robert Penta]: What's he want? I didn't hear him. What did you say, Rick?
[Robert Penta]: Well, I don't want to wait 60 days. I just want to leave it open, so in case we have another opportunity. We have to give them some time to get it done. Well, we can talk about what took place here tonight. There is no paper before us. Well, then we move. Move the paper. Move the conversation. Can't come up for 90 days. You can move the conversation. I'm going to beat you with the rules, Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: I think the question is pertinent, because you just mentioned Salem Street. And if Salem Street, which is a smaller, maybe in width of a street, as compared to other locations. But every one of these businesses, at some point in time, has to have some kind of delivery. Right. So what I don't understand is, Why should these republic people even be giving those businesses citation? I mean, I think that's what Mr. Carroll is asking.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, if you're saying the other ones is going to, all they're going to be doing is giving, what, tickets?
[Robert Penta]: Why would they be giving a ticket to someone who might be making a delivery? That's what the question is. I don't anticipate that that will happen. Oh, OK. You don't?
[Robert Penta]: And the last part of the question is this. If I get a ticket and I have it appealed and I lose my appeal, can I take this to district court? Where does this appeal go? You have the option. What's the next logical, what's the next process after that if you lose your appeal? Court. Is it district court? I believe it is.
[Robert Penta]: What if a car, wait a minute, strike that. What if a car is illegally parked and the delivery has to be made, which forces the delivery truck to go up in the street? Does that mean the delivery truck is now going to get the ticket?
[Robert Penta]: No, if the vehicle, the delivery truck could not make his delivery because the car that was parked where the delivery truck was going to go is illegally parked or over parked. So that forces the truck out into the street. Does that truck going to get a ticket because of that car that's illegally parked?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but you only have two people to go around the city. You can't be at every place all at once. That's impossible.
[Robert Penta]: So when the rubbish truck goes down the street and parks in the middle of the street because there's cars parked on the right, and they're collecting the rubbish off the sidewalk, they will or they won't get a ticket, the rubbish trucks? We're not going to ticket any rubbish trucks.
[Robert Penta]: Chief. We chief question. Can you go back? I wish the guy from Republic was still here. Can you go back and ask them to change these things here? Because the residential permit needs to be explained. It's $10 and it's $3. If you go online to get it, that's $10. If you walk in, it's a $3 charge. If you go online and people need to know that.
[Robert Penta]: It's not in there. It's not in here. They need to change these. I mean, if this is going to be accurate.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you know something? Well, that's a shame. This is just monetary extortion by them. $3 to go online to get a permit.
[Robert Penta]: Two questions. I'd like to have the city solicitor come to the podium, please. I think point number one, I'm concerned about the legality of what's before us tonight. Um, how so? Well, maybe you can explain how you can continue a public hearing, how you can continue a public hearing.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, the chair was involved too. But my question is, revolves more around the fact that the hearing was closed. Did it need to be re-advertised again? Cause it was closed cause no decision was made.
[Robert Penta]: I believe the young lady that appeared before the council on that particular night indicated that she was willing to go forward with the meeting. And any further questions, she would refer them to Mr. Abruzzese, who unfortunately was not here that night.
[Robert Penta]: I'm not worried about the continuance. I'm just talking about the legality of it for any kind of a challenge.
[Robert Penta]: But that's not, I'm not worried about what you heard or what you didn't hear. I'm more concerned.
[Robert Penta]: I really don't think that's the issue. I think, you know, I'm not worried about what the public said to you or didn't say to you. I think I'm just more concerned.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't expect a dissertation. I just asked a very simple question that the council This is not a normal procedure in the council.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, it's very simple. When you postpone a public hearing, it's the advertising. If you're postponing it, does it have to be re-advertised because you postponed it?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Clark, what is the procedure on a postponement of a public hearing?
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to ask the court the question, please.
[Robert Penta]: When hearing is either postponed or laid on the table, what is the procedure? If the hearing comes to an end on that particular night and no decision is made, does it need to be re-advertised? That's the question.
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. I believe councilor, Mr. Brucey, I think, excuse me. I think, I think Mr. Point of clarity, it wasn't that it was to give the courtesy for you to come back to answer any questions, not to take a vote. That was the issue. And as the young lady was at the podium, that was her comment last time.
[Robert Penta]: The second question, um, is, is this, approval going to the land? Is it going to Panera? Is it going to the people on the real estate? Who's it going to?
[Robert Penta]: No. I'm asking her the question, please.
[Robert Penta]: I want to ask her the question. You don't keep interrupting.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you certainly do. You do a good job of interrupting. That's correct. Could you please answer the question?
[Robert Penta]: So why isn't Panera itself making the application?
[Robert Penta]: So if Panera were to leave that place and at some time in the future, that's an allowable spot for another drive-through?
[Robert Penta]: I believe special permits go to the applicant.
[Robert Penta]: I moved that to make that an amendment that it's Panera as the tenant is the only one entitled to this drive through on the motion as amended by Councilor Penta Councilor Marks.
[Robert Penta]: I'm just going to refer back to some of my original comments. I think when Smashburger had its appearance before the Community Development Board and the discussion was there and now we're into Panera. This is a lot of traffic that's going to be going into this particular area. And I don't think anyone denies the fact that development for the sake of development sometimes just doesn't work. I think we can just look at the development that's taking place in the city of Medford and all the traffic problems that we have. Wellington Circle's a perfect example. You know, and just because real estate is hot right now and you can buy and sell and make a pretty good profit, what is that doing to the people that are here that have to live with all this development, whether it's this young lady who just came up here and spoke or what have you? I understand that the owners of the property, the new owners of the property, they want to do the right thing. But I also understand the traffic. I was down there at 1243 this afternoon, coming off of the Fellsway, going down Riverside Avenue, trying to take a left into the stop and shop. And the cars, they were just queued already back. And this wasn't even prime time. This was just 12 o'clock, 1215, whatever it might be. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: So what does that have to do with it?
[Robert Penta]: Well, we can go there on any Friday night or any Saturday afternoon. Forget December 23rd, OK? And the traffic is there. So if you're trying to intimate that it's because it's Christmas, nice try, Councilor Dello Russo. The fact of the matter is there's a lot of traffic down there. Now, I feel that there's a compromise to this. I don't see a strong objection from the neighborhood, unfortunately, for that young lady. But the chief of police is here. And chief, maybe you should talk to her and find out what's going on in front of her house where she's trying to do the right thing with her children as a taxpayer. I'd like to move approval with a six-month review after the drive-through is open and to have it come back before the council just to see how this thing is working out. And I think that's a fair compromise. We've done this in an awful lot of other businesses through the years. We've had six months reviews, year reviews, whatever it might be. But this is a big traffic issue that's going to be coming before us. And if it's going to work, and as the young lady said, 10 cars in the queue seems to be OK. The other gentleman said four to six is normally what normally takes place. And you have the ability to put 10, then so be it. So that's what I'm going to move, Mr. President. I have no problem. I'll support it, but with a six-month review.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. First of all, um, last Thursday after the meeting that took place for West Medford, I met with the, uh, not only the project manager, but the district manager, I spent an hour with them at a local business establishment in West Medford. And we went at it through a whole bunch of issues as it relates to what's going on. The first one, let's talk about the first one, um, which is the Winthrop street that goes on place that road up to the main entrance to the cemetery. in on Boston Avenue, up by the park and garage where Tufts University has theirs. Now, they can sit there all day long for $5. So first come, first serve, you get $5, it's the best deal of the day. But you go to Medford Square or any one of the squares, you're going to have to put that quarter in that machine every 15 minutes. And you're going to be subject to whatever the penalty is going to be if, in fact, you don't feed the meter. So in my conversation with them, Their answer was, listen, I'm just telling you what City Hall told us to do. So that's number one. Number two, raising it from one hour to the two hours, that defeats the whole purpose of traffic enforcement. Just because business people might be complaining over the fact that we're going to be getting an extra hour, that's not what they were asking for. All business was asking for in this council, and as the report for which the chief is sitting in the back of the room, dated, I believe, September 2009, your introductory sentence, was a traffic enforcement plan for the city of Medford. Those people who were violating traffic enforcement during the time periods that the traffic time allowed you, whether it was one hour, two hours, whatever it might be, get a ticket. This wasn't out there to put money in a meter. It was revenue enhancement, revenue enforcement. Thirdly, as we continue on, why can't commuters pay more than a business person? The small business person in this community is the bloodline, is the lifeline within this community. You start cutting down their walk-in customers, you start cutting into their daily operating finances as a result of worrying about what they're going to have to pay for a permit, or making sure that there's money in the meter, or making sure that they can keep their part-time employee, that's going to hurt them. It's going to hurt them an awful lot. So I agree with the fact that commuters should be paying more. And for so many years, we've had people from Winchester hustle their way over to Medford, parking in spots, never mind never getting tagged, never even buying a pass. But those that do buy a pass, as recorded downstairs, so be it. I think that's an issue that needs to be looked at. Now we heard a little while ago in one of the newspaper comments, I don't know if the reporter is here, When he was speaking to the gentleman who was the president of the chamber, that gentleman of the chamber indicated that all four sections of the city are not the same, and they should be treated and looked upon as that. And then subsequent to that, there was a follow-up story in the newspaper, and for which the gentleman appeared before the council, and saying he never said that, to the reporter right underneath the press, and basically said, you know, we're all gonna work together, and we come up with a plan, and we're working with the mayor. Well, never once during this whole process from 2009 till today, 2014, has any one of the four squares individually and independently met with any group of people from the city of Medford as it relates to their business operation, what do you think we should do, how should we do it, give us your input, and let us see how we can negotiate something that's amicable and peaceful for everybody, if in fact we're gonna go forward with that. That's yet to happen. The gentleman that owns the lock company hit it right in the head. He has to let go a part-time employee. And if he lets that part-time employee go, unfortunately, because he can't afford to pay the $400 rate as it was, now it's been reduced. We'll get to that next. But the fact of the matter is, he lets that employee go. That means he loses a walk-in customer. That means he loses a sale. That means he loses some type of potential profit, which means that's going to impede upon his financial capability. to keep on going, if in fact he's got a business that's just marginal, or he's making a decent salary. But why should he be penalized for making a decent salary when he's given good service or service to the community? Now we get today this memo, the first memo that came out today from the Chamber of Commerce. Great news. We have wonderful news here. Things have been changed. The executive director says, I wrote a letter, penned it to the mayor and to the traffic commission, and lo and behold, on the same day, a report comes back that the $400 that I'm assuming that the traffic commission initiated, because that's what the republic said, has now been reduced to $100. Well, there's been no public advertising or posting in the clerk's office of a meeting by the Traffic Commission. And if the Mayor arbitrarily just did this because of a meeting that took place, that's wrong. And that shows you're right there with the power of this whole thing and where it's coming from City Hall. And then you get another email from another taxpayer in the community who has a concern. Your concerns will be taken up at the next Traffic Commission meeting. So you tell me, Mr. Businessperson, and anyone who might be watching out there, what this is all about. You can't have it one day, you go from 400 down to $100. Medford City Council's never been advised on any of this, never been brought into a discussion. The Medford City Council for years has been talking about this. The Channel 7 news that took place this past February, where the mayor blamed the council for not giving them the money for residential parking permits was absolutely wrong, it was a lie. This Medford City Council has supported the police department in all those issues, including that particular matter. Then we continue on, Mr. President, relative to the fact about just how lazy people are. A perfect opportunity for the Medford business people to park behind Route 16 in St. Joseph's parking lot on a daily basis, and they wouldn't have to be worried about getting tagged of their employees. All they would have to do was walk across the street. And if it's a lighting problem that needs to be straightened out, isn't that a lot easier to do than worrying about a merchant parking in front of his store, or worrying about his employees parking in front of the store, or worrying about the city's not going to get the revenue that it's supposed to be getting? Wrong. It's there. It's a municipal parking lot owned by the city. And when the city first took that over, I believe there was a transit trolley, because I was on it with another Councilor, and we picked up merchants in the square, and they went behind there, and they thought it was well. So when the wintertime comes, if it snows, gets out, or it's raining, you put an umbrella on, and hopefully the city would do what it's supposed to do. It plows and shovels, you know, their own municipal parking lot that they have over there. All businesses aren't the same in this community. You can go to one section of the city as compared to another. But isn't it interesting, when you go to the South Medford area, and you're certain blocks of businesses that have nothing, no signage, no kiosks, and you try to compare them to other parts of the community that have signage and kiosks, then you ask the question, as I did, and the answer was, we're being told what City Hall told us to do. We put these kiosks where we were supposed to put them. Well, that's not going to bode well, because you are going to have businesses now fighting against businesses, because while one business has to toe the mark, another one doesn't because of no signage and no kiosks. And that's going to be a real problem once this thing gets itself implemented. The unfortunate part is, and I don't know how the chamber ever got themselves hooked into this thing, it's not the chamber's problem, it's not the chamber's business. It's the city of Medford's problem, it's the mayor's problem, it's his program, it's his plan, and these public meetings should be taking place here. Not in the quiet zone of a chamber office, where in one meeting there was four people, another meeting there was 10, another meeting there was 12. That's not the true representation of all the communities, all the business people in this community. You can agree or disagree on what I'm saying, but the true fact of the matter is this whole parking initiative started in May in an executive session when the Medford City Council was asked, because of three people, three people who came in, and I have everything here, and I've got the tape, and I've got the minutes of the meeting, three people came in and they said they can only do a 10-year proposal. And the council went along with the 10-year proposal with one proviso. You go forward and negotiate with that person, but you also come back and tell us what it would cost if the city of Medford was going to do it, and then we will make the decision. And that decision never took place. The mayor just went forward with the one that he presented back in May at that point in time, which happened to be Republic, and he went forward with that. This is a City of Medford Mayor McGlynn Traffic Enhancement Program. But if you want some relief, and you want your voices heard, the only place that can seem to do it is to come before this City Council, and hopefully, hopefully he will listen. But I'm just astonished how in a period of less than 24 hours, you can go from a $400 fee down to $100. And you're only going to do it for a year, which means after a year, something's going to happen and change. But no vote ever took place. No commission meeting ever took place. No parking board ever discussed this. Chief, am I saying the right or the wrong thing? Did you meet between yesterday to today to reduce from $400 to $100?
[Robert Penta]: With all due respect, Chief, this is such a huge major change. Why wouldn't there have ever been a public meeting? and have this on a public agenda. I mean, anybody can call up. We can call amongst ourselves and pull ourselves.
[Robert Penta]: And $400.
[Robert Penta]: But chief, Medford city council asked to come in with an alternative if the city was going to do it. Forget the police department. It could have been private people, could have been retired people, whatever it might have been. You were part of that committee that went to five of the surrounding cities and towns.
[Robert Penta]: but when you go to Malden, Winchester, and Arlington with this free parking, because of the... Well, they may be looking into it, but the fact that... Point of information, Winchester's putting in meters.
[Robert Penta]: The difference is, and we're going to get into the issue of meters, but I didn't want to, but the difference is a kiosk and a meter, they're like night and day. People can see the meter and they can understand that. Well, when you're driving down the street and you've got to figure out five car lengths ahead and look at it, a kiosk, and then you have to remember what your registration number is and it's raining out and you've got a couple of kids in the car, you're a senior citizen or whatever it might be. It's not a simple meter issue.
[Robert Penta]: I think it's a hurt to the business community too. We're not, listen, we're not Newbury street in Boston.
[Robert Penta]: We can also have traffic enforcement, and if that's the case, then why did you increase it from one hour to two? Why not just keep the one, nobody's arguing about increasing the time.
[Robert Penta]: Chief, there are spots in the city where there's signs that say, one hour parking. Now it's going to be increased to two. The signs are already up.
[Robert Penta]: The signs are already up. Are you going to change all the signs?
[Robert Penta]: There's a lot of one hour parking. And how do you justify a $5 all day parking on Playstead Road and on Boston Avenue?
[Robert Penta]: Well, then if that's the case, why don't you just have every parking meter in the city go to $5 a day? How can you turn around and behind car lanes and that parking lot?
[Robert Penta]: And in that parking lot, Chief, As the gentleman said, Mr. Nash, who said from the company, we'll give a $25 ticket. And they'll sit there all day, and they'll only get one ticket. Well, what have they accomplished? They go to Boston. They don't have to pay $40. Yes, they do.
[Robert Penta]: Want to make a bet? Speak to Mr. Nash. I'll give you his number.
[Robert Penta]: And with that being said.
[Robert Penta]: But with that being said, Chief, and you're a reasonable person. And I think seven members are reasonable over here. This should have all been discussed ahead of time. There should have been public meetings to listen to all and what possibly could be the concerns. That gentleman in the back who started this thing tonight, he shouldn't have had to got himself all worked up over the fact that it started at a $400 clip, and then all of a sudden, within 24 hours, it's reduced to $100 because enough people were complaining. That young lady shouldn't have to come up here and be worried about not only the business and the enhancement and where the money's going. This only started off as a revenue, Not an enhanced—revenue enforcement.
[Robert Penta]: No, revenue enforcement is very simple. If their sign says one hour parking, and that's all there is, you get a ticket. Enforcement enhancement would mean you'd have to go and put the money in the meter for whatever it might be. And as I said to you before, there were certain elements on Main Street and South Medford that have absolutely nothing. And they are businesses that have absolutely nothing. No signage, no kiosks.
[Robert Penta]: Then how does that work, Chief? All businesses are supposed to be the same.
[Robert Penta]: With all due respect, I will show you two business blocks that one has more multiple businesses than the other. They have nothing. And the other one has a kiosk right in front of their business. This council voted on the map. No, the map subject to the- The map we voted on. Excuse me, Paul. The map subject to the gentleman- It's council, just as I respect- It was the Walker report that they're going by and what the mayor's office is telling him these are the spots to put them in.
[Robert Penta]: I'm just telling you it's unfair where the kiosk and the meters are going. There are certain parts of this city that don't have them, Chief, and you know what I'm talking about. And there are other parts of the city that do have them.
[Robert Penta]: I'm not saying that there is, but it doesn't seem to be fair for certain business blocks to have them and other business blocks not to have them. Councilor, if you want to expand the program, bring a motion forward. Nappies. There's a bunch of businesses. Well, let me ask you this, if you're so concerned. Everybody that works here in City Hall, why is City Hall being exempt? They're working here. The kiosks are right out here. They should put kiosks in here? The kiosks are right out here. Absolutely. Absolutely.
[Robert Penta]: No, the kiosk is the parking lot behind. Every employee here is like every employee that works for a business. If they have to pay, then employees at City Hall should have to pay. If it's going to be treated the same. It's not. It's not misinformation. And you're talking from the chair again. I've got one more meeting.
[Robert Penta]: You're the rudest person I've ever met from that chair, you know that? Do you have any more questions for the Chief?
[Robert Penta]: Um, two things. You guys went from 100 to 400 and then you had a telephone call to reduce it down to one.
[Robert Penta]: I'm talking about how did you get to 100? How'd you go from 400 to 100?
[Robert Penta]: But you got that with a phone call. There was no public meeting, so there was no traffic commission meeting.
[Robert Penta]: No, I understand that. I understand that. That's where it came from. But to make a change like that.
[Robert Penta]: So my question to you is this. Why would you want to make the change when If you can look at this and say, OK, it's $400. Maybe it's a little excessive. Maybe you can make it three or two. But if you're going to make the change for the business person, why can't you just allow all their people to work for them, give them stickers, and just let them come under that one fee?
[Robert Penta]: No, I'm saying, if you get the $100, say you were going to charge the $400, and all the employees that work for that particular company, they have a sticker that gives them the privilege.
[Robert Penta]: They have one employee, they have 10 employees, or whatever it might be. Is that a motion? No. I'm asking him a question. I'm just confused.
[Robert Penta]: So then how are we going to justify, if you're going to do that, going from $400 down to $100, so all these outer towners that are coming here, they're going to still be able to pay $100 a year? No. Or what are they going to pay?
[Robert Penta]: But you just got through saying you have out-of-towners, you have residential people, and you have business people. So how many out-of-towners do we have parking?
[Robert Penta]: So if they're out-of-towners, can't they be charged more for being out-of-towners?
[Robert Penta]: $5 a day.
[Robert Penta]: That's a bargain, $5 a day. Why can't they be charged?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but we discussed this before. This is not the first time that this has been discussed on the Council of Outer Towners coming in. So if you're telling me that I can park at the end of Placeton Road for $5 a day as compared to downtown West Medford or downtown Medford Square, and every 15 minutes I've got to put a quarter in there, I'm going to get a ticket. That's what the kiosks are there for. Well, yeah, if you're packing in the square. So I'll go hustle down the street and get the bus that takes me directly to Boston from West Medford, or from Medford Square, or Governors Avenue, $100. What have we accomplished?
[Robert Penta]: But what about up and down Governor's Avenue? No.
[Robert Penta]: There are no kiosks.
[Robert Penta]: But where's the enforcement?
[Robert Penta]: What about the parking lot in Medford Square next to the electric company?
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to just end. This is the only part that I don't understand. You started in a direction, and now you're just going back and starting from scratch. I thought the whole idea was to be a revenue enforcement, number one.
[Robert Penta]: Whatever you want to call it. Turnover of parking. Whatever you want. Turnover of the parking spaces, OK? I haven't heard anybody from the chamber, anybody, talk about that parking lot on Route 16 being a viable spot for all business people and all employees to park over there.
[Robert Penta]: I don't want to embarrass my colleague, but when we had this conversation a while ago regarding a parking garage, remember? What did you say? I'm lazy. I want to park right out in front. And that way there, I don't want to walk. Well, you know something, you can't have it both ways. If you're a business owner and you have employees and you know you have a spot that you can go to and it's a little bit of a walk, at least for this part of the square, that's number one. Number two, all the other squares are different. They don't have that same unique opportunity to have that huge parking lot all day long to park as an owner and employee.
[Robert Penta]: But who makes the determination what section and location of businesses in the city are going to be having a kiosk or a sign?
[Robert Penta]: But who made that decision?
[Robert Penta]: But you have other establishments from Main Street all the way almost back to Medford Square that are businesses that have nothing.
[Robert Penta]: Well, but how do you do it if it's a business person, Chief?
[Robert Penta]: If it's a business person, and I have the same type of a business as you, and one part of the city is competing, and I don't have nothing in front of me, and you do, I'm not going to sit there. I'm not going to sit there.
[Robert Penta]: Well, speaking with the two gentlemen and I'll conclude on particular issues that they brought up, they were told this is where you go from city hall and these are the places cause they've heard it from other locations, from other folks. Why aren't they having it? So they're being told what to do from city hall. And that's not fair. Who's being told what to do from city hall? Republic, where to put the signs, where to put the meters. Of course.
[Robert Penta]: You're talking about the Walker report. We're not talking about the Walker report as they've gone around and they've heard all these complaints.
[Robert Penta]: The whole idea was to listen to the business people for which they're listening to. And when they bring up corollaries or comparisons, they want to know how come in one part of the city someone has another part of the city and another one doesn't have it. That's all. I would suggest you make a motion and bring it forward if you think there should be additional meetings. You know, I think that the chief and the traffic, what do they call yourself now? The traffic committee? Commission? It's still a traffic commission. Commission is still the same name. They should entertain any complaint, or any concern, not a complaint, any concern that a business person has as a, you know, if the whole thing- One information, Mr. President. Chief, have you- One information, Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: I disagree.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification. Point of clarification. John, the council never voted for that. The council only voted for the mayor to negotiate up to 10 years and then come back to the council for a final vote in comparison to if the city was going to do it.
[Robert Penta]: Absolutely not true. That's not what the council voted for. Mr. Solicitor. That's not true.
[Robert Penta]: Absolutely not true.
[Robert Penta]: I believe that's not the intent. I believe the intent of the council. Where's the official minutes of the meeting? That's not no that was the resolution that was the mayor's document. That's the mayor's resolution was not amended It was most certainly was council cover yellow when I asked you the question Was it not your opinion that the final vote was have to come before the council?
[Robert Penta]: No, the amendment is right here. The amendment is by myself. It's amended by myself that the mayor and to prefer to end the meeting with the council to explain the program in depth prior to the final decision. And we did. We did not.
[Robert Penta]: I think the official records, I think the official records tell it. 7-0. Before a final decision is made, he was supposed to come back to the council. We did.
[Robert Penta]: You got a meeting in September when the council met him there. We also got a three page piece of document that says not for publication. It was confidential meeting. That was a different meeting.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. The clarification is this. We met in May, and we took a vote as seven members of the council to allow the mayor to go forward to negotiate what Republic at that time was one of three. And we were told not to say a word to anyone about anything. And then in September, we had a meeting when the first draft of the contract came back before us. And part of that resolution in May was that it would be explained to us prior to the final decision. The Medford City Council never took a vote after May.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address.
[Robert Penta]: That's how it gets up to 10. That's right.
[Robert Penta]: Go ahead. Some people don't have smartphones. Some people don't even have a phone. Some people don't even have computers. They probably don't have a car then either. Right? Some people don't go to the library. Can somebody come to City Hall and get the permit? That's the question.
[Robert Penta]: I started to allude to it when I was talking about it. Why does Medford have to start at 7 in the morning to 7 at night, when Boston starts at 8 in the morning? And some of them, all the other Saturdays, why are we 7?
[Robert Penta]: Well, could you make a recommendation to start at 8 instead of 7?
[Robert Penta]: That's absurd, 7 o'clock. It's bad enough these businesses are hurting. This hurts them even more, 7 in the morning.
[Robert Penta]: You know, it's bad enough that the rubbish is all over the square. The people put them out ahead of time and that can't be enforced.
[Robert Penta]: Wait, I want to amend it. Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa. Councilor Penta. Did you say 60 days?
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to amend it to 30, get a report in 30 days because... 30 days, they're not even going to be ticketing. Huh? 30 days after it starts, after the program starts.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, all right, all right, I'm sorry. I thought you, I thought you, okay, okay.
[Robert Penta]: The moral obligation that we have as a community is to recognize every single person, however they die, dastardly or not. We have many, many veterans that have died and they have never received this type of a recognition and they will probably die in the future defending our country, defending another person's land.
[Robert Penta]: We're talking about moral obligations in this Council Knight, you can have yours, I have mine. And I feel that my moral obligation is to make sure that every single person, however they die in this, whether they lived in Medford or not, or whether they worked in Medford, however they died, they receive like and type recognition. And you know, Councilor De La Rosa, you're amazed. How can you be amazed? You have your opinion, other people have their opinion. Maybe they don't see it the same way as you. Maybe the water fountain is something that we really don't need. You know, for $250,000, you know, You're still getting the park, you're still getting the ballads, you're still getting the recognition for not only the members that ran and Crystal Campbell and all of those. You're doing that. At the same time, it's kind of like interesting how the mayor can just go around and take a picture, and you were in the picture, we've had this conversation, for whatever the reason is, and presupposes the city council's gonna vote for this back in October. Pictures in the local newspaper, standing there with the big check for $299,000. We never even discussed this for a vote, never mind whether we wanted to do it or we didn't want to do it. And we talk about the money used for PACs. Most recently, I don't know how a guy does this. He went to a, I believe, a Schreyer Auditorium meeting most recently. Excuse me, the mayor went to the Schreyer Auditorium and he committed $5,000 to them to celebrate their anniversary that's coming up. Where was the vote on the council on that?
[Robert Penta]: Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: What does that have to do with dislikes of the air? You've got a financial obligation in this community to make sure how the money is spent. And for the man to go and make a commitment, whether it be $5,000 or $299,000 on behalf of this council, is wrong. It's absolutely wrong. It's unnecessary, and it's wrong. If any one of the members of this council went ahead and did that, you know where we'd be right now? We'd be brought up on charges. That's the way we'd be.
[Robert Penta]: You may have known about it, Lauren, but none of us knew about it.
[Robert Penta]: They want to fund it, but this hasn't been discussed over here to find out what's going on.
[Robert Penta]: But Lauren, with all fairness to everybody, he may have had his press, but this has never been presented until last week. But the council never took a vote on it, whether they forwarded it or against it.
[Robert Penta]: He's talked to several members of this council, including myself on this particular matter. Well, maybe he talked to you, but he didn't talk to me.
[Robert Penta]: Why should I have to pick up the phone? This is his project, not mine. Well, I'm proud to be part of it. That's all I can say. So let's get back to the issue. Excuse me. You had a point of information. Yeah, I do. I'm talking. Get back to the issue now. Go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: Why do you say, you're asking us for a vote. That's right. And if the vote is $250,000 less than what this is.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if the mayor says this is part of, this is not part of the million dollars, this is an, an excess of it, then let them go to win to get the other $250,000. All we're saying is, all I'm saying is- Why would you do that?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor, you made your point of clarification. I will vote for the park grant, but I'm not going to vote for the $250,000 because of other issues. You can place that pocket that's in desperate, desperate need of upgrading. And nothing, there's not a dime going over there.
[Robert Penta]: Go ahead. I'm not afraid of making a no vote on this particular matter tonight because I'm just, I don't know when it's going to stop in this community, but I am never going to have my vote be presupposed by the mayor of this community on anything. He's presupposed this council on linkage on this particular matter. He has presupposed this council on taking money from free cash without offering us any opportunity of our input. He has taken money by raising water and sewer rates, again, without no input from this council. We have so many issues within this community. that need to be looked at that have really presented itself with some taxpayer concerns, whether it's the new parking meters or whatever it might be, the buildings. Our own building right here, it could collapse at any day. We don't even know if it's going to happen. Well over a year old, not taking care of your own house that you live in. I just can't see it. And if the Campbell family is looking, I apologize if you think that this is a vote against your daughter, but it is not a vote against your daughter. I'm looking at the fiscal and the financial responsibility that I have before here. As I said to you before, I've got no problem in cutting this in half. As I said last week, I think there's a leftover $500,000, and you could build a beautiful memorial over there. But, you know, this is just another Huge event that the mayor is going to pull off, and it's just another place where he's going to put his stone there with his name here, Michael McGlynn, and memory of, and this and that. And that's great, if that's what he needs. If that's what he needs to survive. I don't need that to survive.
[Robert Penta]: I hear— Let me turn that on. Sorry. They've done their patriotic duty. Go look in front of Medford High School. You got a plaque over there that hasn't seen an ounce of restoration. An ounce of restoration. Look at all the names of the people on there from World War II that have died, that have never seen their names restored, that gave the ultimate sacrifice. This girl unfortunately died. She was murdered by a terrorist, and I hope he gets his due when he goes. but to spend a million three at this point in time, at that particular location with that kind of money, knowing, knowing that 250,000 of that could be used for anything else in this community.
[Robert Penta]: One last thing. Lauren, we went to the meeting and the mayor said the phone was coming off the hook. The phone was ringing. He only got $4,375 in miscellaneous contributions. $250,000 he took from when? The only other outside contribution was from Cummings, $100,000 that he earmarked. So where is all this money that the phone was ringing off the hook?
[Robert Penta]: So he got the $4,375. That's what he would have gotten?
[Robert Penta]: When did the mayor ever come before the council and say, listen, I'd like to do this in memory of Christine Campbell. I'd like to make an application. Would you guys support it? He has never one of these things here. He's coming for the council.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's the whole thing. He doesn't have to. He has to go to council now to accept this. So if he doesn't have to, then we don't have to either.
[Robert Penta]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
[Robert Penta]: We're in a clarification. Councilor Penta. And even though we know that, but this administration has been there for 27 years and they haven't put a dime on the table to get into funding that unfunded liability. And as you and I had our conversation and I put a resolution on here, we could stop by putting 500,000 a year out of our free cash. Is it a drop in the bucket? It's a beginning. Well, the thing with the beginning, he hasn't done anything. The administration has done nothing to reduce that fund. You're talking about the OPIP? Yes.
[Robert Penta]: I see this a little bit different. We had $7.9 million, I believe, in free cash a couple of weeks ago, two or three weeks ago. Then the mayor came in here with his particular pet projects for which the council has never advised or asked on any one of them. Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Councilor. Mr. President, I believe that the mayor came in with his pet projects that took money from free cash and reduced it by $1.2 million, and then took another amount of money as it relates to where he would want to go. Anyway, to make a bottom line to the whole thing is, for some reason or other, we've accumulated surpluses in two very large areas that belong to the taxpayers. The first one is in the water and sewer account. The second one in here is in the free cash account. Now, as Ann Baker has alluded to, maybe we've been fortunate over the past few years, whether they be the car excise tax. And I think in our conversations, again, you talked about Medicaid, too. We got some reimbursements back from them for which we didn't expect. So that's helped us out in our issue of having a free cash surplus for whatever it might be. But there is no projects that are pending that are coming here now before the council asking for council input as it relates to whether it be the police station, whether it be putting more police personnel on. And then to flip to all of that, isn't it interesting, during this past budget, the school committee wound up with $2 million more this year than they did last year, and they went out and hired a whole bunch of more new people, for which the council was never asked of anything on the council's side of adding on to this budget, or any things to be included. I'm glad I voted for the budget, because I voted for the budget to get rid of the $800,000 and the water and sewer that, unmercifully, the taxing the ratepayers in this community of. But anyway, sticking to this, I don't see any problem taking the million dollars out, and I'll tell you the reason why. Maybe next year we won't have the opportunity to do it, but there is nothing before me on this table right now that's telling me there is such a major project that needs to be done that we need that surplus, because that surplus has been there over and over. for the past few years. And we've been getting over and over for the past few years. We need to keep it in there to keep our bond rating up. Well, where's our bond rating going at the expense of the ratepayers each and every year getting an increase in their taxes? Now, Councilor Caraviello, you just asked a question on that single-family house. It's $48 you would save, correct? And at the present tax rate, he'd be paying over what? $150 some odd. And for a two-family house, Ed, and a three-family house. Figure that out and see how much they'd get. It may not be much, but at least you're telling the taxpayers of this community for once, after 27 years, they're not getting a tax rate increase. We have the money. We're not taking all the money. We have the money.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect, Anna, I've seen it in the city of, I've seen it in the city of Somerville. I've seen it in the city of Everett through the years. Tax rates have either gone down or been stabilized. But that's not the issue. You know, the fact of the matter, we've had a plentiful amount of new development here in the city of Medford through the years, a plentiful amount of development. And we were told when stations landing came in, that was going to be the panacea of new tax growth in this community. which would set the base. It's gone up and up and up. And since then, we've had four major developments of housing in this community, whether it be at Wellington Circle, whether it be on the Mystic Valley Parkway, whether the new one that's being proposed opposite the train station, or whether the new one down the street at the end of station, not stations landing opposite where the Tufts Boathouse is. But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is, we're not taking the last penny in the free cash account. If what Councilor Lungo-Koehn is alluding to, averaging out the last three years to take out a million dollars or 899,000, whatever it might be, it still leaves you with a balance in excess of $6 million.
[Robert Penta]: But the higher assessments that Mr. O'Neill's proposing comes up to $3,805,800,926. And in this year, in the budget, you have a new capital growth expansion of $999,941. That means the budget from last year to this year is expected in growth to increase by $4,805,867. And all the council is alluding to is if you knock off a million of that money by taking it out of your free cash and giving the homeowners a break. That's all. We're not saying take the whole thing out, but there is money there to give these people a break. You're getting new growth in revenue and you're getting new growth and business and you're having two more new buildings come on next year and that'll be more new taxes. So, To say that, you know, we tax each and every year is symptomatic. Well, if it's symptomatic, you know, we're all going to die someday, and that's symptomatic, too. But government can do something to help people rather than abuse them by saying, give me more money, give me more money, give me more money. And the only way you can give them more money is tax them to death.
[Robert Penta]: On that 2010, Mr. President, it was $544,000. We're sitting on $7,594,000. So there's a huge difference, even even if you did go into the negative field next year. We're talking about this year. You've got $7,594,000. That's a lot of money. And we're only talking about taking a million out. Thank you, Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: It might seem that way, but the Water and Sewer Commission just came out with their new rate structure, which is picking up during the course of the year, the difference for which this council voted for it, which is $800,000. It was $800,000.
[Robert Penta]: What does popularity mean? I don't know. There's a motion for approval on the floor. As you're referring to an administration. It's a very hard community. I mean, real estate wise, real estate wise. And well, we, you know, we just got through talking about the state legislature passing a budget and they passed the budget knowing there was a $325 million deficit in the budget. Well, that to me doesn't make them look like they're very, They have a lot of brains up there to figure out that they have a $325 million budget. Rep Donato's doing a fine job in my eyes. We're not talking about Representative Donato. We're talking about the state legislature.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, okay. That's in your opinion. Bottom line is this.
[Robert Penta]: I don't see a cake on the table here do you? Next week. Next week. Good. Bring it in. The bottom line to the whole thing is if you're astute as to what you're doing here and your local government and making sure that you're taking care of the taxpayers the best you can, Is this a borderline issue for you? Maybe it is. For me, it isn't. Because right now I feel comfortable in saying yes to getting rid of a million dollars because we're not down to the ground zero. We're not at 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 4 million, 5 million. We're at $6.2 million left. And with that being said, I've got no problem with it. And I don't think any taxpayer out there would have a problem with it either because there's nothing. before this podium, before this council, of a great magnitude that needs this money to be spent, other than the unfunded liability for the pensions and the OPED. And we haven't seen anything from the mayor, and that's been at his desks since September.
[Robert Penta]: It was you, Councilor Caraviello, on your first term. It was in the beginning of your second year of your first term, you produced a paper that said the school department was $1,200,000 in debt, and they haven't done anything to correct it. But they just hired $2 million.
[Robert Penta]: Can you call the roll, please?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. The reason why that that was ordained because everyone else was mixed into that vote. The council had a separate vote. You just read it. You just read it. You voted for the whole paper. You read it for the whole paper because other people in the city were waiting for those raises. You were the first one at the bank.
[Robert Penta]: President, I make a motion to sever the motion to allow Councilor Lengelkorn's motion to prevail.
[Robert Penta]: No, that will stay the same. That will stay the same.
[Robert Penta]: Move the question.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: You gave us, Mr. O'Neill, you gave us some examples of what the rate would be. I did some research as it relates to our sister city of Somerville, which is up to 35%, and I guess my question to you is this. If in fact the city decides to vote this either yes or no, is this one of, is this, one of the four things we're going to vote on that could be changed at any time during the forthcoming year? In other words, this has to be adopted now, yes or no? Or could this number three be put on hold?
[Robert Penta]: No, they're up to 35. They would have proved up to 35%.
[Robert Penta]: The question is this, if the council votes, however, they vote a number three, which is this one coming up. And this one says up to an extension of 20%. If the council were to vote to change that, strike that vote to accept the exemption, and change the number, 5, 10, 15, 20, 20%, whatever it might be. When does that become effective on the tax base rate? Would that be after July 1st of 2015, or would it be January 1st of 2016?
[Robert Penta]: No, you're not answering the question. If the council votes to do this after this vote tonight, at some point in time between January and June of this 2015, when does this become operative? July 1st or January 1st of 2016?
[Robert Penta]: No, you're still not missing.
[Robert Penta]: We're not voting for this right now. We're not voting for an exemption right now. Let's just say we discussed this and in either March or April, the council decides they're going to impose the residential exemption. When does that become operative in the budget for the purposes of the budget or the tax rate? Is it July 1st or January 1st, 2016?
[Robert Penta]: You're not listening.
[Robert Penta]: You just got through saying without a home rule petition, you can go up to 20%.
[Robert Penta]: But what happens if we decide we want to vote on this in April or May? What do we need? We need a home rule petition or can we just vote on it?
[Robert Penta]: Fourth time. Let me ask you this.
[Robert Penta]: Well, maybe you're not answering the question correctly. If you pass it right now, if you pass the question right now, yes or no, and the council decides in April or May they want to go to the exemption of 20%, which doesn't become operative, as you say, until January of the following year, correct? Do you still need a home rule petition for that or not?
[Robert Penta]: Then let me ask you this. If you wait until next year at this time when the council votes up to 20% for a tax exemption, how are you going to have that figured out on this night? Wouldn't you have to discuss this ahead of time and give us an example of what the breakdown would be and what the cost is going to be by taxes? I mean, it would be kind of stupid to come here on a night like tonight and all of a sudden vote for 20% exemption and not knowing what the rates are going to be.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, I'm talking about having a legitimate conversation, Ed. not just having a piece of paper thrown at us ahead of time.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you very much.
[Robert Penta]: Ed, you have a $546,300 base for 10% exemption at any house valued above that, correct? That's correct. Okay. Um, and then you, and you indicated that represents 1,279 parcels. And of all these parcels in the city, you said there's 2,309 non owner occupied parcels. Uh, that's the number you gave us.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, you gave us $2,309 non-owner-occupied.
[Robert Penta]: That's what I want to know. What's the value? How high?
[Robert Penta]: We get a break, but we haven't done before. We haven't taken from five 46 300 and gone forward to say between five 46 to 600,000 and then from 600 to 700,000 to get to that number of 1000.
[Robert Penta]: So if 501 was a break even last year, and it's been increased by 45,000 this year, because of the appreciation, that's a pretty, that's a pretty big appreciation to property value. Correct. Correct. Correct. So if a house between five 46 and 600, I'd like to move Mr. Clark, write this down, please. I'd like to get the breakdown. You don't have to do it for tonight between five 46 to six, six to six 50, six 50 to seven, all the way up to the minion that you said. And then I'd like to see the tax rate broken down to that, because I don't think it's as bad as everyone seems to think it is. I mean, if you have a house that's worth $600,000, $650,000, and you're going to pay a few dollars more, it's a lot better than at least you're giving something back to someone who can't afford a $600,000 house. And again, it's another way of giving a break. Which motion? I'm talking to him.
[Robert Penta]: No, he works for us too. Your motion to the clerk is? Is to have the assessor's office break down from 546,300 to 600,000 and $50,000 increments. Up to a million. Up to a million. And how that would affect the 1,279 taxpayers increase in taxes that they'd be paying. For example, do you have your calculator?
[Robert Penta]: So there's a little bit higher. So that's another $144,000.
[Robert Penta]: So if you can bring us that back in some kind of a chat, We can see it. Because there is some merit to that. It doesn't have to be $15, $20.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but how many people in the city can afford $800,000, $900,000 homes? $560,000 in Medford.
[Robert Penta]: Give us that one there, please. That 10%. The one that you have, the average is 546, 300. That's the cutoff.
[Robert Penta]: So that being said, even though it's 1,279 homes, You have to look at between the 5 to the 6, the 6 to the 650, 650 to the 7.
[Robert Penta]: Let me go ask you this. Now, let's go back to someone who has a house worth $400,000. What's the tax rate right now?
[Robert Penta]: But with a 10% exemption, they'd be paying even more than less. That's correct.
[Robert Penta]: So it has a value of one.
[Robert Penta]: But you're also getting at $2,309 non-owner-occupied And they're going to be paying at a higher rate, too.
[Robert Penta]: So for the year 2015, we could, we could still operate with these numbers.
[Robert Penta]: But for what you have right now, you could give us a sample for what I just asked for. If we would have, you know, it's kind of go up or down, whatever it's going to be next year.
[Robert Penta]: But you also have the non-owner occupied, and that's what we're trying to address.
[Robert Penta]: Right. So do that, Mr. Clark. You got it?
[Robert Penta]: On that last vote that we just took, I believe that vote was on my resolution for Mr. O'Neill. I didn't believe. We didn't get to you actually. I move reconsideration to have it reconsidered.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, I vote yes. Move reconsideration. I'd appreciate.
[Robert Penta]: Motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Two points, Mr. President. Um, on the section 50 dash 65, it talks about appointments and it says the appointments of the human rights commission, the mayor shall appoint. Apparently he's appointing all the members. Is it there anything within your membership? that would go out of bounds, so to speak, and you folks elect members for someone who might be. Why are these nine members all mayoral appointments?
[Robert Penta]: So who advertises for these positions, the mayor or the commission?
[Robert Penta]: You put an ad in the paper.
[Robert Penta]: So what would be the best since you're merging these two together? What's the background of the members who are on the commission? Um, are they here tonight? Any of them?
[Robert Penta]: They just come up, you know, this is brand new. Maybe if they come up and explain, their position, the people who might be watching.
[Robert Penta]: This is a major blend of two commissions.
[Robert Penta]: No. Could you just explain what's your interest and why are you involved? How did you get involved with this?
[Robert Penta]: Is there any, um, to the chair, is, is, is there any involvement, um, with you as being the chief or having a police person on the board and now with the merger of these two organizations together, And not to bring up a sour issue, but unfortunately we've seen what's happening recently throughout this country regarding the police department, whether you're for or against, whatever the action might be. Is it possible that this commission can take an attitude of just going out into the community rather than waiting for an issue to appear before it and just see what's going on and see what their attitude is and whether it's human rights for the purposes of social issues, police issues, educational issues. rather than just having a meeting at City Hall, going into the neighborhoods and finding out what the possibilities are. What are your problems?
[Robert Penta]: But wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity for which a lack of better terminology not for community policing, but for maybe community involvement. I mean, to me, this is big, merging these two commissions together to accomplish one goal. And I'm going to assume that the goal is to make sure that this community, you know, is looked upon favorably by all kinds of people for whatever, whether they're people of color, whether it's disability, whether it's a police issue, whether it's an educational issue. I mean, you can really run the gamut here and be such an adjunct to city government in such a way, I mean, you have terms here that run three years, two years, and one year. So you're not always getting the same individual because the person, maybe you have one year, maybe all done, he may or she may not want to come back. I just see this as an open door policy that can really, this city is changing so much. And I think this is an absolute unique opportunity to get into the bowels of every corner of this city with this commission, committee, whatever you want to call it. And this is what I would be expecting. this committee and commission to do.
[Robert Penta]: So that's one of the objectives of this commission?
[Robert Penta]: So the membership of the commission, how many?
[Robert Penta]: And how many of the Human Rights Committee? I mean, you merged the two together.
[Robert Penta]: But you're down to nine now. You're having nine members. Yes, we're keeping it at nine. But how many did you have between the two altogether? How many were there?
[Robert Penta]: Before you merged, the two commissions separately— We're both nine.
[Robert Penta]: And what do you have, a one- or a two- or a three-year vacancy? Which vacancy is it?
[Robert Penta]: You also go to section 5066, meetings and quorum. And this is the one that I think I would make a suggested change. It says, when enough members are present to constitute a quorum, a majority of those present shall be sufficient for any action taken. So if only five out of nine show up, you're going to tell me three out of five and the decision? No, no, no.
[Robert Penta]: Right. But it also says a majority of those present. So if five show up, and a majority of five is three, they're going to set the tempo for nine members?
[Robert Penta]: Section 50-66. Right.
[Robert Penta]: But this doesn't say that.
[Robert Penta]: Those present. Those present shall be sufficient.
[Robert Penta]: But it doesn't say that.
[Robert Penta]: Maybe that should say that and not of those present. It says a majority of those present.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Knight. I want to amend that last line. After the word majority of, it should say a majority of the commission and eliminate the words and those present out of section 50-66, meetings quorum, that's the headline.
[Robert Penta]: Love to hear from you. Um, we've had many conversations about this as you know, and it's not that I'm opposed to the garden, but in part I'm opposed to the expenditure of this large amount of money. I also have an issue as it relates to how it's being dedicated. I believe, unfortunately, what happened to this young lady shouldn't have happened to anyone. But she and three others who the mayor has decided to nominate the dedication to be for, I think it misses the boat about all the people that really did get hurt and killed and some people damaged for the rest of their lives. Two parts that I don't agree with on this, as I attended the meeting in, what was it? The linkage meeting back in- April. April 16th of this past year. And the mayor at that point in time indicated, quote, that people are calling off the phone wanting to make contributions. And as we have indicated here tonight, with the paper that you've submitted, $475 on miscellaneous contributions. Now I look at the wind contributions of $250,000, two separate ones. It was this Medford City Council, I believe in January of last year, between Councilor Lengel and myself, who introduced resolutions on the matter of the wind casino being a community next door, having a preference as to, you know, what our position should be, who I believe there were seven resolutions between Councilor Lengel and myself, passed forward as it relates to the impact of that casino that was sent to the mayor, and the mayor never once responded back to this council, never once asked us in part of mitigation and as a surrounding community what we would be looking for. And if I remember correctly, he himself submitted a document to the Mass Gaming Commission indicating money to be used for the Wellington area for program study, for the traffic impact, and I believe there was another one as it relates to the Wellington Circle intersection over there. taking that and coming forward and now recognizing that Wynn has given us $250,000 and never once has the mayor ever come to this council and just saying, listen, I've got $250,000. I'd even like to use part of it at this park over here. What would you guys and ladies like to do with it? Nothing, never, no response, absolutely zero as it relates to that. And then we get the $100,000 contribution from the Cummings Foundation and that's all well and good. If he felt that he wanted to submit that, get the $100,000, so be it. But now you're taking the $475,000 from, which was originally going to be the mayor's water taxi park development over there on Clippership Drive, for which, again, council never, no public hearing ever took place before this council to ask for our recommendation. And as you alluded to earlier this evening, even though it's a federal grant, a lot of the times, cities and towns make the request and there's no votes that are taken. Well, it would have been nice to have a vote. I don't have the exact date in front of me. From my understanding, I believe that the mayor, our state representative, and yourself took a picture less than a month ago indicating that the city of Medford was receiving this $299,000 grant. A great presumption by this mayor of how this council would vote. And I think the time has come that this has got to stop. $1,300,000 $1,300,000 for this particular garden. This is all the mayor's doing. There's been no interaction with the city council. There's been no action for inclusion with the city council of what we would like. You know, there was another individual who unfortunately died in that bombing when it took place at the marathon. And in that community, we'll leave it nameless, in that particular community, that individual has a nice little grave with a nice little stone with a flag. and a plaque that identified how and why. No multi-million dollar peace garden. And when I think of this, and I think of all the veterans that are in our cemeteries, and the ones that are going to war now, and the ones that are going to be dying now, and the ones that will be dying in the future, they don't get this million dollar peace garden. And this is not even being dedicated to them. It's just being dedicated to how this memorial is basically being set up. It was the marathon of some two years ago. And as the gentleman tonight so nicely explained delicately where all these spots are going to be and the compass that's going to be used, you know, and the references to along the way, the 26 mile way would give you an idea of where the marathon took place. I want to make this clear, especially to the Campbell family, if they're watching and if they have any sense of understanding of what I'm trying to say. It was a tragedy and I understand that. And there's nothing I or anyone else can do to bring back your daughter. But this community, I believe, should have had more of an interaction. This city council should have had more of an interaction. This mayor should have been more interactive with us, rather than going on his whim of, I'm going to develop this million dollar peace garden. For which, completely, it keeps commentary, keeps coming. It's going to be mostly used by the seniors. Well, to me, that's not what the peace garden should be about. It should be mostly used by the community. It's at an intersection that's highly visible by an awful lot of traffic. but there's going to be no place for them to stop and park. And if it's going to be used by the seniors, sure, the memorial for the seniors, they're going to pass on. As the memorial that we have up in the high school on Winthrop Street, it's there for those kids to see each and every day to give them a remembrance of the fellows and the ladies that pass on because they went to war to defend our country and for the freedoms and privileges of other folks and other countries and other lands and for other opportunities. I think a scaled-down approach would be much more palatable. I think the monies, if this city has this unique opportunity, and you certainly do a good job of getting money for parks and recreation in this community, there's no question about it. But I think if the efforts could be geared into another direction for community use. I know you're dealing with a deficit. You have a very small office, maybe two people at the very most, two and a half. Go to your sister city in Somerville, and they've got 13 and 14. And that's the reason why they're way ahead of us as it relates to development and things to be done, because they can spread their wings and look at things. The Peace Garden started off as a priest garden. Then they said they didn't attach a name to it. Then now they're attaching a name to it. Is the gesture nice? Yes, it is. Is the remembrance nice? Yes, it is. of having the remembrance for this young lady, yes, and for the three other folks. But I don't think it fits the budget right now. I don't like to be presumed and have my vote presumed on any dollar amount in this community. And as a result of that, Mr. President, I'm going to make a recommendation that this dollar amount be reduced by 50%. And if they want to put something together, I think they can have enough monies to be put together to make a very nice memorial at a $500,000 clip rather than, and I think the money's already there to make the $500,000 meet the obligation.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification, Mr. President, clarification. Did you just say that? The $75,000 for the water taxi is not part of the 475?
[Robert Penta]: Just to point that further, Mr. President, how could you, why would you want to spend that much time, effort, and energy on something that, I mean, if this is another project of the mayor's, I mean, it's taking away from other projects that the city needs. And this council isn't even aware of that one.
[Robert Penta]: I'll move to amend the paper. What? I'll move to amend the paper. To amend the paper to 1.3.
[Robert Penta]: It doesn't make any difference, because I think as the rest of the dollars— We don't have to apply for the grant, because the rest of the dollars are there.
[Robert Penta]: You already have $350,000 from private people. All you have to come up with is another $100,000.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Marks, did you just, I wrote it down. Did you say October 27 and then left a transcript? There's a picture of the mayor accepting a check for $299,000.
[Robert Penta]: How could you accept a check when the council hasn't even discussed it for a vote?
[Robert Penta]: Two weeks ago, Mr. President, you said we already voted on this and we didn't. So you were proven wrong. You're going to be proven wrong, too, because this council has never voted on this.
[Robert Penta]: No.
[Robert Penta]: Not for this vote.
[Robert Penta]: Not this vote, Paul.
[Robert Penta]: This is a different vote altogether. It's a different vote, but it's been before us for a vote. The park vote has never been before the council. I was correct.
[Robert Penta]: You were wrong.
[Robert Penta]: You can't interrupt a roll call.
[Robert Penta]: I'm sorry. Motion to table. Oh, no.
[Robert Penta]: Why should you guide him to tell him how to vote?
[Robert Penta]: There's more on the agenda.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, as we know, we had a committee of the whole meeting a little while ago with the Water and Soil Commission as it relates to the new tiered water rate structure. And at that meeting, it was kind of like informative that there was some issues of concern that they were going to investigate as it relates to the tiers, whether it's tier one, two, and three. The one especially as it relates to tier two, which would be the rate set for the commercial business and the minimum of zero to 800 in tier one for the residential. And that's something to be looked at. The city council voted this past budget to knock out $600,000, from the estimated amount that the MWRA would be having to impose on the city of Medford. And as a result of that vote, for which was eliminated from the budget, the Water and Soil Commission then implemented the tier rate system, which will, in essence, not only recapture the amount of money, but probably more than that. My concern right now is the mayor not addressing that for which the city council addressed during the budget and at that last meeting. So I went back into my inventory, which is January of 1989, and there's a front page headline that talks about water rates pushing up again, and the mayor is quoted. I'm going to read his quote on the increase in the water rates.
[Robert Penta]: I was in the sixth grade in 1989.
[Robert Penta]: Should have learned something then. Bottom line is, With many residents getting water bills of between $400 and $600 for six months. Remind you, this is back in 1989. $400 and $500 for six months. The increase could bring the annual cost of water bills for a family well over $1,000. If the city's passed along all of the increased costs, Mayor McGlynn issued a statement saying, I am challenging the state and federal officials to And this is very important. We're going to go to page eight now. And this is the key part of the story. The federal governments have abdicated from their sense of responsibility to clean up the harbor. Commenting that the state and federal government fully expect us to pay an obscenely disproportionate share of the cleanup of these efforts, McGlynn called upon local and state elected officials to provide support to legislate proposals that would take the funding off the local communities and to work to bring about administrative action to the same end. And that's nothing more than I think what this Council, myself, and other people have been saying. We didn't have a revenue reserve fund back then. We didn't have, no, $8.5 million. We had all we could do to make sure that the people were paying these bills. subsequent to the enterprise fund coming under foundation. And here we have the mayor going back to 1989, back then, recognizing and addressing that the cost was not only going to be prohibitive, but cities and towns and the people who make up cities and towns are going to be paying for this. And here we have a chance, or here he has a chance right now, for the purposes of giving the break that he's talking about, that he was blaming the feds and the state for. So with that, Mr. President, this isn't me making it up. This is what he said. These are his quotes. So it's written in the paper in 1989. In 1989, as a matter of fact, we had a resolution on the council agenda on that same night to strip the MWRA of its powers because of obscene charging to cities and towns. I'm asking, Mr. President, that my colleagues make a request to the mayor to hold in abeyance this tiered rate system for one year and to find out and to let's just see, you know, where we're going as it relates to the savings in the water and soil count. We have $8.5 million, and now you're increasing the tax base even more for water and soil customers. Totally contrary to what the mayor argued way back in 1989, and at the same time, it's the same issue that's before us now, and we're sitting on $8.5 million of reserve. We had no reserves back then. Now we do. And again, to me, I think you're penalizing the ratepayers for this.
[Robert Penta]: It's not my article, it's what the mayor has said, and what the mayor was quoted as saying, not what I said. Quoted 30 years ago, Councilor. No, this is 1989, not 30 years ago. Yeah, so what's wrong with that? If you saw the light back in 89, you had no reserve then and you got eight and a half million dollars now, why wouldn't you want to give it back to the rate payers? So let's go back to 1939 and govern the city of Medford. You're making no sense at all. Where does it end? Where does it begin? That's the question.
[Robert Penta]: Well, then all I can say in response to that, Councilor, is simply this. Back in 1989, there was no dollar surplus. We were fighting to stay survival. And from 89 until now, and while your friend the mayor has been in office, he's accumulated $8.5 million in surplus of tax and ratepayers' money, and he doesn't want to give it back to them, and he wants to keep charging them more and more.
[Robert Penta]: We asked for a tiered rate system. We didn't ask to have it imposed as they did. We asked, and I believe the whole idea was to show us what it would be like not to implement it.
[Robert Penta]: It's the same thing with the parking meters. You've got parking meters all around the city. All we ask for the meter is to negotiate. Of course it is. We're referring back to 1989 now. We might have to. We might have to refer back to 1983 if you want. We can. We can go back. We can go back. History always tells us a story. What's the story that history tells us?
[Robert Penta]: What a clarification. The asking for a tiered rate system. It's true. I think we all asked for that because we wanted to know why we didn't ask to have it implemented. I think it was council max. It was the only one at the time that voted against the old, the new water rate, the new water meter system. And it was Councilor Marks who introduced the idea of having possibly a tiered rate system because of the commercial people in the city. And those that use more water would be paying for more, and that's not what's happening.
[Robert Penta]: And that was the recommendation made at the meeting. Thank you. OK.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Automatically.
[Robert Penta]: Right. So they are paying the high rate. But they're paying the second rate, the middle rate. Right. But they're not paying the third rate, which is the highest of the rates. That's 1,800 and above, 1,600 and above. If they use it, they will. If they use it, they won't. The commercial, if you went to the meeting, you would have heard what he said. Oh. Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: Read the message that went out to the people.
[Robert Penta]: How do you know she's making macaroni?
[Robert Penta]: The taxpayers do.
[Robert Penta]: The reason why I brought this up is very simple. Yeah, it is. History tells you the story. And if the mayor back then recognized the fact that the people were getting walloped for having high water and sewer bills, how does it explain today when you have eight and a half million dollars and you can't give the people a break? It's as simple as that. Can't have it both ways, as you say, Councilor Camuso. I don't like cake, so you can eat it, all right?
[Robert Penta]: You just bring up, and you just, she just jogged my memory on something. I was told that you won't be able to come. You'll have to go online and make an application to get them. If that's the case, everybody doesn't have a computer in this community. So if you don't have a car, how are you supposed to do this?
[Robert Penta]: No, I understand that. But if they don't have a computer, and if they're telling you that's the only way you can do it online, that's. I'm sure there'll be other mechanisms.
[Robert Penta]: It's always been a local receipt Point of information Councilor Penta and there's two separate accounts One that has a public access account that it has in excess of three hundred thousand dollars That's the that's the TV field TV three money, right? And there's another account where Verizon and Comcast pay a percentage.
[Robert Penta]: Okay, so they are two separate accounts. Right. They're not one.
[Robert Penta]: It doesn't make me too much, because the excise revenue.
[Robert Penta]: Maybe I missed it. Can we go back to number 10? Where's Anne? Number 10. under fees, it went from 398 to 609? Right.
[Robert Penta]: So let me get that straight. If in fiscal 2014, you had 398. Right.
[Robert Penta]: So then that got posted, what, in 2013? Yeah. On the same train of thought, can we get, for the years 11, 12, and 13, Comcast what they paid and what Verizon paid. Do you have that, Eddie? 11, 12, and 13 fiscal years.
[Robert Penta]: Now, it looks like, and this is like, these numbers are really tight. When you talk about Medicaid reimbursement, you're talking about less than $60,000? You go from 446, 628 to 447.
[Robert Penta]: And also under 23, which is miscellaneous. What number? Number 23.
[Robert Penta]: So all our prior debt for last year's snowstorms and everything have been paid?
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Can we just go back? Go back to that number 10, where you have Comcast and Verizon, and you have fees. We're going to get them for 11, 12, and 13. And can you also give us the amount of money that was paid by the city of Medford to Channel 3 during those years, too? Because I believe they have all the checks.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, to the Medford Community Cable Access.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, you're holding it, I believe, December of 2012. So all of 11 and mostly all of 12, you wrote checks, the city wrote checks.
[Robert Penta]: 11 and 12. Fiscal 11 and 12, okay. And then it stopped.
[Robert Penta]: No, we never got that. No, you gave us how much is sitting in the account, but I want to know what was paid.
[Robert Penta]: In other words, during the month of 2011,
[Robert Penta]: All right. You have that, Eddie? Yeah, we got it.
[Robert Penta]: Also on Locust Street, Lumineer, they should be coming on board too.
[Robert Penta]: Right. Yeah. So you get Lumineer, and then you're going to have the one at opposite station, standing where Mellon Bank is, and then you're going to have one further down in front of where the medical building is, and then, where's the fourth one? River's Edge, Middlesex Ave. No, that's what I'm talking about. River's Edge will have River's edge. We'll have one. And then on the front in front of where Mellon bank is on the baseball field, there's another 230 units going to be in the back at one cab at road, right? So you can have two 30, three 30, four, you can have almost 550 more new units. More than that.
[Robert Penta]: We'll see how long that lasts once the casino goes in, and what that does to the traffic, and to the Wellington area. Mr. President, I'd just like to get back and, are we gonna stay on that page, or are we going on another? Okay. We'll all wait until we get to the very end. There might be other issues, I don't know.
[Robert Penta]: One further correction, I think Councilor Longo's current motion is basically for the years 11, 12, and 13, how much did that represent a surplus in those years of city's budgets? All of it. The free cash.
[Robert Penta]: Two points. I think this is your first time here?
[Robert Penta]: You've been here before? Second. Second, okay. This council voted well over a year ago, and then again during this past summer on Terrace Road. Two light poles came down. And when National Grid went there, whoever they hired for contractor, what they did is they filled the holes and they never put the poles back up with the lights. It's a serious public safety issue. The council's on record on two separate times in voting for that. National Grid went up there, they marked the street, but they never put the poles back.
[Robert Penta]: Terrace Road.
[Robert Penta]: This has been brought to whoever runs the show over there in Malden numerous times, and they keep saying we're gonna get to it, and nobody's gotten to it. There are many folks that walk their children up and down the street in baby carriages and what have you, and that gets pretty dark at nighttime.
[Robert Penta]: Two poles.
[Robert Penta]: Terrace Road. And also, do you have any control over this 36% increase in the electric rate to bring back to your bosses? I wish I did. You got million dollar bonuses?
[Robert Penta]: It's a shame, because you know.
[Robert Penta]: It's just really unfair, you know? One year, I mean, you people are conglomerate. You've got gas and electric. So I mean, we have no control over anything. And the poor ratepayers are going to pay another 27% to 36%. And as the story goes, and as it's been advertised, all your bonuses of a million dollars plus went to your higher executives. And I don't know how they can justify that. It's just wrong.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. We know the rates went up. Why? I just think, I think if they're going to have the rates, I just think it's unfair that they would take million dollar bonuses in their contracts.
[Robert Penta]: Just one quick question. Councilor Penta. Councilor, Alango brings up a good point. Even though you're open, would you say to 1 o'clock?
[Robert Penta]: We have a situation on the parkway at Stations Landing, and because Kelly's Roast Beef is opposite the residential homes over there, she's right, they have to shut their sign down at 11 o'clock. That's their big sign, not the sign that's on the building. So I'm assuming that Wendy sign right there on the red brick facade, that's your biggest sign? No, on the facade, the red.
[Robert Penta]: As long as those signs aren't facing the residential homes, correct?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, as an update to the proposed parking by Republic, which now appears like it's not going to take place until January of this forthcoming year, There was something, and I have already responded to the chamber on this, there was something that was put out by the chamber basically talking about business parking implementation meetings. And they sent a memo out to their members, and it basically is saying that the chamber at 1 Shipyard Way in room 302 will hold four meetings, one for Hain Square, which is tomorrow night, one for the Medford Hillside in South Medford, which will be on Thursday, the 11th, and then next Wednesday, West Medford on the 17th, and then on the 18th, Medford Square. And then it says, next week, and this was issued out this past Friday, a representative from Republic Parking will be visiting the business areas to distribute flyers regarding the meetings. Please be sure to email or call the chamber to reserve a seat. Seating will be limited to 25 people, per meeting. Well, first of all, the Chamber of Commerce has nothing to do with Republic. This is a city of Medford undertaking, and this was the mayor's contract with Republic. If the Chamber of Commerce now be the linchpin, so to speak, between the city and Republic, I just don't think that's right. That's number one. Number two, to walk around and pass out a flyer
[Robert Penta]: Well, as a point of further information, and I think you're aware of it, not everybody in the chamber was for this and agreed to this. So let's be honest about it. This is a City of Medford undertaking, not a Chamber of Commerce undertaking, number one. Number two, it's not an $18 million revenue enhancement for the City of Medford. The overall contract between expenditures and final payment to the city would be approximately $9 million at the end of the 10-year of the contract, not $18 million that everyone's touting and making people think that's what the city's going to get. But more importantly, if they were going to have these meetings and to identify the locations, number one, why would you squirrel 25 people into a room? just in case you've got an overflow of people, that's number one. Number two, why would you be having it at 5.30 at night when a lot of the business merchants, because I spoke to them, would rather have it early in the morning because at late at night they just can't pick up and leave, and the dock of night closes their shops down if they're single proprietors. Number two, and number three, and more importantly, and most importantly, if they're taking the time to walk to each one of these squares and pass out flyers, they could have had enough time to find a location in each one of these four squares to accommodate them in their own particular district, so they'd be able to understand firsthand what they're talking about. I just don't think it's right, Mr. President and members of the council. The chamber, they do a lot of wonderful things, but this is not their ballgame. This is the city of Medford's ballgame. This is the mayor's ballgame. It's his package with Republic. They should have figured this out. The chamber now would be the middleman. Cutting down whatever interferences for the mayor, I think it's wrong. And if this is Republic's way of doing it, they're going on the wrong foot. And more importantly, it would have been nice if the seven councils, if at least I, I'll speak for myself, got an invitation from Republic if we would like to participate, if you would like to be there, you have any questions or concerns. Once again, the council's just excluded.
[Robert Penta]: The Chamber of Commerce is not Republic. The Chamber of Commerce is not the City of Medford and they don't profess to be the City of Medford or profess to represent the City of Medford. The Chamber of Commerce is nothing more than a liaison that Republic is using for the purpose of selling their particular program. It's not their program. It's the City of Medford's program. It's the taxpayers program, and they're the ones that are gonna have to take the brunt of what all this is all about. It should be coming right here out of this city hall, out of this man, this is his program, and it should have been identified in all four sections of the city. Not in the Chamber of Commerce, and not to squirrel 25 people into a room, just in case more than 25 decided to come. What are they gonna do, tell them that they can't come?
[Robert Penta]: Well, there in itself is the crux of the matter, Councilor Caraviello. If more than 25 come, why would you even wait to have more than 25 come? Why wouldn't you have found a spot ahead of time that can accommodate up to 100, every one of the four locations?
[Robert Penta]: Well, then the chamber, if they had any brains, they'd have been able to figure this out. And you're a member of the chamber. I'm a member of the chamber. You serve on the board. You've got a voice. You can speak up.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor De La Rosa, you're a member of the board. I just think...
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. You don't have to be dreadfully sorry. You should just stand up and speak up and take a position and that's all. And the position is very clear. If you're a member of the chamber and you know that there are four sections of the city that are going to be affected, why would you want to put 25 people into a room and you had more than 25? We'll have to set the time for another time. Why would you just find the location and the area that they're going to be? Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: I disagree with you, Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: It might be a private entity, but it is not over and above. This is not the Chamber's issue. This is the City of Medford. This is the Mayor's position. This is the contract.
[Robert Penta]: No, it's neither of that. It's the idea that this is a City of Medford contract, is it not? Is it not a City of Medford contract, Councilor Dello Russo?
[Robert Penta]: I'm sorry things don't go the way you'd like them. Well, I'm sorry things don't go your way all the time as well, okay? And maybe if you were more active, you'd have an understanding, and if you walk the streets, and you listen to the people... Councilor, enough of the cheap shots.
[Robert Penta]: It is. It's in your mind. All right. Well, no, that's in your mind. It isn't in my mind. I've walked the streets and I talked to these business people and they would like to have had it in a particular area. Listen, who's taking the cheap shot? You and me right now.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: And it goes both ways. Well, it's a private entity that's inviting them, not the city. Well, it's a private entity that's writing them. But unfortunately the private entity is doing business with the city as part of a public contract and public dollars are involved and it's just my, it's just my, Hey, listen. It's my opportunity, it's my personal opinion, and that's what I'm saying. I'm making my opinion, and Councilor De La Rosa doesn't like it. I'm not going to apologize for him not liking it. He doesn't like half the things I do, and I don't like half the things he does. So what difference does it make? That's our right, that's our freedom of speech. That's our way of saying what we want to say on a subject matter that means something, and this means something to me, because I hear the people talking. And now what are we going to do, Mr. President? When it snows out, we haven't even figured out who is going to plow the sidewalks where these meters are. Is it going to be the city's responsibility? Is it going to be republics? And what happens when a senior citizen or a handicapped person can't get to the meeting? These are issues that need to be discussed and be brought out publicly to have a discussion on. Still not to have it. And they still haven't been able to identify the 932 parking spaces. That's still up in the air. So what did we accomplish? And what has been accomplished by having republic come in when these haven't even been finalized?
[Robert Penta]: I just want to let the people know that this particular meeting, these particular meetings, I feel, should have been in the four particular areas rather than in the chamber's office. They could have still been the sponsor, but they could have had places where more than 25 people could have come. And if they had it early in the morning rather than later at night, that's what the calls were that I got from people. If they were going to go, they would have prefaced being there. I would encourage you to put them all together in a room.
[Robert Penta]: And we had this conversation Sunday.
[Robert Penta]: When you say through the chamber, you're talking about the chamber, I'm talking about the business people. There's a lot of business people, Rick, that aren't chamber members.
[Robert Penta]: Well, they can't be there at 530 at night either, so what do they do?
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm going to disagree with you. Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: What we're talking about, Mr. President, is everything that was discussed back in October. October 1st. as reported, and it was a council meeting just prior to October 1st, where we had these discussions of having them come forward. And it was your comment. It was your comment at that meeting. And you said that this whole parking scenario is going to be a tough pill for the business people to swallow. That's what you said. Well, it's right here.
[Robert Penta]: No, he said it's a tough pill. It's going to be a tough pill to swallow. That's your quote. Okay. It's on the tape. It's on your quote. And with that being said, and recognizing then from October to now, from October to now, there's been nothing. And a lot of the people in the business districts don't know who's gonna be getting these meters, who's not gonna be getting them.
[Robert Penta]: Well, maybe it would have been nice if the council was advised and maybe we had an opportunity to see what was going on rather than have to get an invite or hear something that the chamber's sponsoring. And if you want to tag along, you can come along.
[Robert Penta]: This is public health. I didn't say that. Nobody said that.
[Robert Penta]: John. One last thing. I think you forgot to mention and that whole commentary that you just talked about when channel seven came. Yes. What was the comment that the mayor made when they were asked him about the public park?
[Robert Penta]: I think he said, I think he said, John, that the council did not put the money in the budget for them. And that's absolutely not true. Which is totally not true. This council each and every year has been supportive of them.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President on page number two 12, under resolution 14754, amendment number C. It's by amendment, it says amended by Councilor Panter and Councilor Longo-Curran, that OCD report back on what has information they have. I don't know what that means, it doesn't make any sense. Well, let's go to page, go page 12, 14754, number C. And then we go to, you got it? Yeah. I don't know what the correction, I don't know what the term, the sentence doesn't make sense. No, I'm telling you that needs to be corrected. I'm reading section C here, it doesn't make sense, the second line. I don't know what you have, and you have to go back to the tape and look at it, I don't know. You take a look at it? It doesn't make any sense. And then we go to page 213, 14759, and under A, after the word but, that doesn't make sense. It says, vended by myself of a street, if your street was not swept, but were tagged, ticket and towed, I don't know if it's a resident or if it means your car. I don't know, I don't know what it's supposed to be. You're gonna have to go back and look at the tape.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but it doesn't say that. It says, if your street, if your street was not swept, but were tagged, ticketed, and towed, is it your car or a resident was tagged? I don't know, maybe it's a resident's car. Maybe those are the appropriate words that have to be put in there. I don't know what but were tagged means. What's, what's Eddie just, just go, just the sentence. It doesn't make sense to take a look at the tape and we can figure out exactly what it is. So we're going to table those still. No, I have no problem as long as he corrects them. That's all. It's just, it's grammar, but it doesn't, it's not making any sense on the motion with further clarification of approval.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta on the motion. Could you explain to the people who might be watching, have no idea, location, hours of operation and what you intend to do? Yes. Councilor.
[Robert Penta]: Could you, again, what's at the present location?
[Robert Penta]: And again, could you just repeat your hours of operation?
[Robert Penta]: Hours of operation again, one more time.
[Robert Penta]: 7 days a week? 6 days. 6, Monday through Friday.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Viglione. If I understood what you said correctly from reading, what you're basically asking is for our city solicitor to respond back or report back on this public records request. And if nobody responds to them, so be it. At least the council is apprised as compared to the solicitors still waiting. to get information, correct? Is that what I understand?
[Robert Penta]: If I understand 501c3 correctly between the federal IRS and the Commonwealth of Mass, Department of Revenue, there are certain requirements that are implicit in any one of these 501c3s. Absolutely. And there's requiring, there's time restrictions, a regulation basically talking about who the corporate officers might be, if any change of offices, elections, whatever it might be. Some of them are on an annual basis, and some of them are just when needs to be. The part that I, Councilor Caraviello, the part that I think is a little perplexing here, when you say that, you know, parents have been involved for a long period of time, and maybe a long period of time they knew something was going on, they did nothing about it. Shame on them for allowing that to happen, okay? And there's no one to blame on that situation except them. Even if they had an iota, that something might smell wrong, they should have done that. Been asking is one thing and acting is another, okay? That's number one. Number two, just making a quick reflection back on cable television and Channel 3. The difference here, if I understand you correctly, Joe, is the West Medford Little League is not the same as Medford Community Access Television. The city has a direct person on community access. It's the mayor's appointment, as a matter of fact. And having the mayor's appointment and not getting the information that is supposed to be given and retrieved, and not on an annual basis, there is something wrong. And I think it's as clearly defined with Judge Jackson's report that she wrote in I believe it was December of 2011 or 12 or whatever it was. 2009, excuse me. But with that, I've got no problem making this request. And I don't think Mr. Remley will have any problem responding to it, too, because if he gets no response, that just puts more fodder into the argument with the AG and the Secretary of State's office that not only is our city solicitor waiting for information who's played somewhat of a role. I don't know how deep we can say a role is because, unfortunately, he doesn't have the information. now to go forward and continue on what he needs to do. But there is definitely something wrong. When you have a tax-exempt nonprofit sitting on, or the city sitting on, it's over $303,000 in the city's coffers downstairs right now, if not more. And knowing that by, I think it's April 30th, a new contract has to come forward as it relates to Comcast, Verizon is still ongoing. The fact of the matter is this, that there is a time sequence. that a public hearing needs to take place. And we've got no notification. Ratepayers have received no notification. Nobody's received any notification. And neither has the mayor responded to our request when and if the public hearing is going to take place. So I see the analogy that you're trying to draw. It's a shame that it took place. But you're right, Councilor Caraviello. The parents on this one here in the West Medford community, in the West Medford Little League, the onus was on them. If they had an idea that something was wrong, they should have pursued it. And they didn't. Thankfully, it got caught up to the people who were the perpetrators. Channel 3, an entirely different story. I think that just escalates the situation right into the corner office. It's his responsibility. He knew what was going on. We've asked for information. It hasn't come forward. The proper documentation has yet to be filed, to the best of my knowledge, with the AG's Office of the Secretary of State, maybe partially, not totally. And for the sake of having any kind of an argument, Channel 3 could still be legitimately an operating functional business here in the city of Medford, because they're alleging that they filed disillusion. has never been accepted and recorded and duly noted. And if I remember correctly, I believe it was Candidate Coakley, who lives in Medford, who at some point in time, I think it was January of last year, indicated that she was going to look into this cable access and the public access area in the city of Medford because it's huge. It's a big thing. And I'm just going to detour real quick, Mr. President, on this. It'll come up under my suspension. But I have spoken to so many people since this Thanksgiving Day football game that are so upset that they couldn't watch it on their local access that they've had for years, as other cities and towns have it. One lady went out of her way, and she made a remark as it relates to one of the candidates running for governor, who happens to come from Medford. I won't mention the name. Totally disappointed that that individual did not pursue the fact that public access was not made available, not only for her, but every other candidate running. And with that being said, there's a true concern here about not only money being misspent and misappropriated, but money being held in abeyance and no action taking place. And it just continues to go on. And unfortunately, ratepayers, each and every month when you get your bill, you're going to see the money that's going to be going there for public access TV. There's no public access TV. I don't know what it's going to take to cause a storm. Same thing with your water bills. It just keeps going up and up and up, and nobody says nothing about it. So with that being said, Mr. President, I have no problem moving this forward. I don't think the city solicitor has any problem accepting it because if in fact he gets no response back as duly requested, at least we'll know and we'll all be on the same page. And at least I think we can take the next step to go forward. That's how I'm viewing it. I could be wrong, but that's the way I'm looking at it.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. One quick question. The settlement is just for property damage, if I understand this correctly.
[Robert Penta]: Right. Was there any damage to the firetruck? No.
[Robert Penta]: On that motion, you jogged my memory. It goes back some years ago when former Councilor Mayorko introduced a resolution similar to that on buses, advertising for buses in the city of Medford. I think the city generated something like 30, $35,000 a year by doing that. So maybe the advertising of outside vendors on that as a particular part of repurposing can bring in a few dollars, whatever it might be worth. And at the same time, you've accomplished two things.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President, this past Thursday, it was absolutely fabulous to see our Medford youngsters not only win, but win in a huge fashion. I've been attending these games for the last, 56 years. I only missed twice, and I believe both of them were called off because of inclement weather. And as a result of that, I think I can speak with some sense of knowledge as it relates to what takes place during these particular games. These boys absolutely went out of their game. And as their coach, Jason Nascimento, indicated, I think they played over and beyond that for which anybody expected in this day. It's the second oldest rivalry in the country. Latin and English is the oldest one, and Malden and Medford is the second one. And, you know, I think it's a true testament to the fellas and the coaches that they prepared the kids for the game, and they played with a tremendous amount of excitement. But something took place at that game that jogged my mind, and it's a disturbing fact, and I think it goes like this. When first attending the game, I noticed the field. The field was not at all cleared. The snow was on the field. And with the snow being on the field, my first thought was, wow, these kids are going to play on this field. You know, anybody could get hurt at any time, either side, Mauldin or Medford. And when I was watching the news at the end of the day, recapping all the local games and all the local teams that took place, every one of the games that they did and they showed on TV, the recaps, the snow was all put to the side or to the ends of the end zone. And these kids were playing on a decent field. It may not have been the best field, but at least the snow was cleared off of the field. And then I want to thank a fellow by the name of Michael Nestor, because he brought to my attention something that he found written in the local press and in the Boston press. It talks about the Malden coach. The coach's name was Joe Papagallo. And he said, I feel in my heart of hearts, if I had a regular playing field that we could have played on, our regular game, we would have come out on top. What is he saying? The game was in Malden. It's your home turf. It was your place to make sure that the field was cleared out through the superintendent or your director of operations, whoever it might be. And then to add further insult to injury, our Metfed marching band was not allowed to go on the field because Malden did not have a band. So the kids that prepared all for the period of time for the Medford-Malden game were not given the privilege to go out in that field and do their halftime show. What do they have for a halftime show? Someone throwing Frisbees into the net. That was a complete insult to the people who were there, both Medford and Malden, but whoever put this together. And I don't know where the principal of our school at Medford High or the principal, Mr. Brown, at the Malden School was on this. But it's just impossible. Spoke to many parents. Spoke to school committee personnel. They just don't understand how and why this could have happened. We were the guest team. We weren't the home field. And to insult the guest team by saying, your band, we're asking your band not to go on there because we don't have a band to go on there, and then to put a Frisbee thing out there at midterm, at midfield, I mean at halftime, excuse me. Just complete, total insult. But the best part of the whole day is that Medved won 36 to 12. They not only beat them, they proved their point, that they don't need a field in good condition because, quote, he indicated that his fellas, the Malden coach says that his fellas on the team couldn't get their traction, their grip on the ground. Well, what made the difference between Malden and Medford being able to do it? But more important, the bottom line to all of this is a public safety issue of the kids playing on that particular field. There was no other field that was shown on television on that day on highlights that talked about teams playing on a frozen field. They had plenty of time to go out there and clear off that field. And if they had to delay the game to do it, they should have done it. But they didn't do it. And then to add insult to injury, to have the coach turn around and say, if I had a regular field, that we could have had a regular game and they would have come out on top. Then at the end, he throws a kudo, but the Medford kids did a good job and they won. That's BS in plain English. Both sides, both kids go there to play a game on that particular day. Win, lose, or draw, because that's what sports are supposed to be all about. But it didn't turn out to be that way because of one coach's remarks, which were quite inflammatory as far as I'm concerned. And then to add insult to injury, to have our Medford High School marching band not be allowed to go out there because Malden didn't have one, that's an insult. That's an insult to the whole program. And you talk about a program, if you went there, they passed you out a program. Every program had Medford and Malden in it. This year, they only had the Malden players. Medford players were not found on the program. So I don't know who put this whole thing together. It's obvious it came on the Malden side. But their superintendent, their principal of the high school, their coach, and whoever takes care of their grounds should all be held accountable and be told it's a shame that they allowed that game to be played with all the conditions that are surrounding it. But the highlight of the game was the fact that Medford won, and they won convincingly. And they should be so proud under the conditions that took place, not only did they won, I'm so proud of them for taking a picture with their band people after the game to let people know that they appreciated the fact that the band was just as much a part of the Medford-Malden game as anybody else. Mr. President, I've seen a lot of games, I've been to a lot of games, but this is the first that I've ever seen come out like this. and the stupidity, and I'll call it that, of going out there and tossing Frisbees into a net for a halftime show is the most insulting thing you can do when you have a band ready, willing, and able to play. It didn't make any sense.
[Robert Penta]: It is. And I also want to, again, I want to thank Mr. Nesta for bringing this to the attention to a lot of people, it highlighted, and then upon reading it and seeing it and reviewing other comments from other people, you know, it's interesting. You know, I believe it was 1992 or 1994, yeah, because I think the announcement was 20 years on that day. Medford beat Malden six to nothing, and he was the only one that scored the touchdown on that day for Medford. Yeah, he still breaks my chucks, because I get the offensive player of the game. That's beside the point. I'm glad somebody does. But that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is simply this. Medford played an outstanding game. And as their senior quarterback said, it'll be the greatest thrill. It's been a long time coming. And it was a great day for the citizens and the city of Medford. And shame on Malden for doing what they did. but congratulations with high honors and high praise. Mr. President, I'd like to have the Method High football team come and appear before the city council so they could duly receive an award for their outstanding victory in that particular day because it was, they just did things that were totally spectacular and the coach as well. The what?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, there are a couple of, I don't want to hold up all the records, but there's a couple of typos in there and I think, I think that's, yeah, yeah, just, I can either that or correct it, yeah. Hang on one second.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, we got a copy tonight here of a, um, of a notice of a public meeting that's going to take place next Wednesday evening. I believe it's six 30. Um, Well, anyway, checking into it further, oh, thank you. Checking into this thing further, it talks about the reason why MassDOT, the reason, and it's not explained, I have no idea why it's not explained. The reason why MassDOT is having this is because of a federal, there is a federal inclusion. Because of the money I believe that the city is applying for under the, with the waterway taxi that the mayor has under consideration, I believe 200 and somewhat thousand of that 475, is particularly earmarked for this particular location. And because of that earmark, the MassDOT, or the State Department of Transportation, has to call the hearing. But in essence, it's really as it relates to explaining the whole idea as it relates to the federal money being used for this particular project. The right of way, it's just language, from what I understand. It's just language that's thrown in there if, in fact, temporary or permanent easements are needed. I believe that the easements that are needed One of them already exists. And I think it's just a reaffirming it. And that's the walkway that's between the senior center and the, and the, um, and the one 21 Riverside Avenue. And then there's another one that allows for a, for an easement coming in. Um, so with that being said, Mr. President, I would like to, um, and I think it should have been clear. I, is this Mr. Clark, a notification of a public hearing? Is this the document that went out? notice of a public hearing that they sent out for, for who is it for? It's just it's a DOT department of transportation. It's being held here in the council chamber for the, for the peace hosted by Frank DiPaolo. We got that from a ministry. Could we have, um, could we have, um, either from the chief engineer or the administrator and upgrading, um, an upgraded letter as to, because it's confusing. It isn't really DOT. It's the feds that are going through the state department of transportation. That's the reason why this hearing is being called. So could we have an explanation either from Lauren's office, DeLorenzo, or?
[Robert Penta]: Who do you want to ask?
[Robert Penta]: I believe, Mr. President, this is something new that OCD meeting is going to be setting an agenda as it relates to community development, as it relates to certain portions of the community development block grant hearing.
[Robert Penta]: Well, there's another one then that's scheduled as it relates to that. I think it's a preliminary meeting as it relates to setting an agenda that's going to handle the fiscal.
[Robert Penta]: If it's, if there was a park grant notice that went out a little while ago, is this, is this the park grant where the mayor, um, Lauren de Lorenzo, and I forget who the third person was, took a picture saying that the city is going forward and voted for this money for a park grant. And this never came before the city council and the law and the law requires the city council to take a vote. And how can the mayor, Go forward.
[Robert Penta]: Some of those monies, I'm going to beg you to differ with you. Some of those monies were used.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Then we're talking about two separate issues if that's the case. And the issue that I'm talking about is the one where the mayor took a picture and after speaking with the lady in Boston who was in charge of the program, the only reason that the city is not getting its portion of the money, they do not have yet a recorded roll call vote from the city.
[Robert Penta]: referring to residential exemptions, whether it's 15, 20, 25, 30%, whatever it might be.
[Robert Penta]: And he also brought down the number of homes that would be affected and what the dollar range was. So if he could do that, that would be great.
[Robert Penta]: I know, I think this is, I have an idea where she's going. If it's 10, 15, 20, 25, 30%, and then how does that reflect upon 2.5, 2% or whatever it might be?
[Robert Penta]: How does that affect not hitting the max of 2.5?
[Robert Penta]: As far as the real estate values go, that's an unfair comment to make, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, I understand that. But real estate values have jumped dramatically in this city.
[Robert Penta]: That's what I'm referring to. No, but folks in this community, It's either the fifth or the sixth hottest market in real estate for people living in the city or selling real estate. I don't know about living here, but selling it. And with that being said, I think the breakdown that the Councilor Lungelkern is alluding to, it makes a lot of sense because I think we're threading pretty close to now getting to an exemption. Somerville just had theirs up to 35% for residential tax exemptions. They have it all broken down, and as it relates to business, new business, two, a single, double, and a triple family home, and they're doing pretty well. And look at the development that they have over there. Another thing, Mr. President, I'd like to add an amendment to that. How much? Mr. President, I'd like to add an amendment, an addendum to Councilor Lengelkern's thing. I'd like to know the new revenue that was brought in taxes last year as compared to the new revenue brought into taxes this year.
[Robert Penta]: New revenue. New tax revenue. New tax revenue? Yep. Because that speaks volumes as to ongoing. If we, for example, took in a million dollars last year and this year it's projected to go out another $2 million or a million dollars again, that's $2 million extra in each year in the coffers. And once again, the ratepayers aren't seeing that.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, members who might be watching, and I understand I see out there there are members of the Bicycle Commission here, and I'm glad that they're here tonight. I received quite a few emails from interested people, I believe members of your commission as well, as it relates to this particular issue. Last week when this was presented to us as part of the million dollar plus wish list of the mayor of Medford, and this issue had been brought up, I believe your chairperson, Mr. Kulik, was here. And there was some remarks made as it related to where we would be going with this $25,000 money that's going to be earmarked for that. Um, I'm also glad I see the chief of police in the audience too, because there's a request to you to attend to one of their meetings as it relates to bicycle safety. And I see you nodding your head. So we're just going to work on the date. The bottom line to all of this is basically the following. Um, I received phone calls subsequent to last Tuesday's meeting as it relates to Where exactly are these bike lanes going to go? In front of what homes in the residential areas? There was a concern in some of your emails that you folks sent back and forth yesterday and today, over the weekend too, I suppose. You talked about Salem Street. Some people wanted, some people didn't want Salem Street. Streets that had a high visibility of traffic and use of traffic, which might either interfere with the public safety or impede public safety as it relates to bicycles. So this is actually wanting to get a clear definition of what exact streets these bicycle lanes are going to be proposed for. And by numerical number, business or residential, where would they be located? And I believe an explanation coming forward as it relates to if in fact a bicycle lane is going to be in front of either a business or a residential home, Does that precede anyone having the ability to park there, as they presently do, or not to park there, or whatever it might be? We all know that bicycles are here to stay. It's the advent of the future. Somerville has done a great job in moving this issue forward, so has the city of Boston. Medford's a little bit behind the times, but finally they're catching up. And we have to recognize the fact that bikes are here, and bike lanes are here, and they are needed. But I just think it's having a program that's identified, specified, location-wise. And the other part of the concern was when a bicycle lane comes to an end and it finds itself either back out into the main thoroughfare or what have you, what's an explanation just are and what is the right-of-way privileges that a biker would have as compared to a motorist driving in the same lane? So with that being said, I don't know who really can answer it other than I believe whoever is going to make this determination, where the locations are going to be, where the business locations are going to be and the other questions. I know the bicycle commission, you folks, you know, you're new at it and it's, I guess you're trying to identify all of these things, but I don't know who's going to make this determination in the city as to how it's going to be implemented. for the Sharos, the $25,000, its locations, and bicycle safety, because that would be the major concern that I would have, that the bicyclists with your roadways or on your roadways, you know, are protected via public safety, but at the same time, if they're going to be at specific locations, just how are they going to be managed and who is going to manage them? So that is the resolution, Mr. President, and I would like to forward that back to the city administration with those questions to be answered.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Um, I just noticed that on my desk, Mr. President, um, an amendment to this, um, resolution that's being offered here by the, uh, bicycle advisory commission. And, um, I appreciate the fact that you folks, I'm just getting it right now. I just, seeing it on my desk. So if other people go out earlier than that, I don't know. I'm just seeing it now. But, um, part of the, um, part of the issue that's being presented, um, does indicate certain locations, but it doesn't give street addresses. And I think that's important to know if we could put street addresses on here that identify where on the particular roadways, for example, when you say place that road from Winthrop street to West Bedford square, bike lanes, the sharrows, depending upon measured road width. Um, I, I'm also getting the idea that, um, This $25,000, it's inclusive for what you want to do with the bicycles. This is a proposal, is that what you're saying? And if this has to be approved by the Traffic Commission, as Councilor Knight has alluded to, I don't know. I really don't know if the Traffic Commission has other ideas where the bike lanes want to go. I mean, is it your call? I mean, explain this to us. Maybe you can come up here and explain this because this is all new to me and I just want to make sure. what gets presented before the traffic commission is as accurate as can be for them to vote on.
[Robert Penta]: What was the question you asked? The question on number one, I just got this tonight. I found it on my desk. So I did not have this over the weekend or this morning to review it. So this is last minute. being presented here.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I'm just telling you. Okay. Um, that's number one. Number two, um, you, you, you're making proposals here, like you say, from Winthrop street, uh, from Winchester lane line to approximately Wildwood road bike lanes on each side, um, by taking bike roads, for example, on either side of Winthrop street, that's going to shrink the side of the street. That's going to shrink the width of the street for vehicular traffic. And I'm just wondering, once again, something like that, when the traffic commission sees that, is that going to be something that's going to be acceptable to them? Because to some degree, having bike lanes on one side of the street is not the same as having it on two sides of the street. For example, if you are leaving Ball Square and going to Powder House Square, their bike lane is on the right-hand side of the street, not on the left-hand side of the street. But that's not the issue. The issue is simply this. You've given five indications here, where you would like to put it. Um, I think it would be more appropriate or better for you folks when you submit this, uh, for the request to the traffic commission that you identify the street addresses, uh, beginning and ending. And second of all, um, where these bike lanes and, and they converge back up to the main street. Um, I'd like to know how that's going to take place, how it's going to get done. I just, I guess I can't see it in my mind. You're in a bike lane and all of a sudden the bike lane ends. Where does the bike go back up to the street?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Bruce, whoop. I was gonna put you back on the seat. As we discussed at the last meeting that you had, bicyclists are also supposed to observe the rules of the road as well. Handed notifications, clothing, lighting,
[Robert Penta]: Now you also, Bruce, at the very last page, I just noticed you say final recommendations will be made after we had a chance to review the actual site conditions. So am I understanding that your commission hasn't reviewed all of this yet by site?
[Robert Penta]: So these are nothing...
[Robert Penta]: So it's possible that some of these locations can change.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if the, um, I don't know if the news media is here or not, but I would suggest that before, um, these five locations that you've identified, are put out there. These are subject to change. They could be added to or subtracted. And I think that's what the concern is. You know, where are they going to go, and do they follow the issues that I presented you before? So, Mr. Clark, Mr. Clark, on this particular paper, I'd like to have it referred to Mr. Kulik and his commission, but more importantly, I guess, to the Traffic Commission, that if, in fact, no matter what they recommend, whether it's these five locations or anything more added or subtracted, that they give the actual addresses inclusive of where they begin, where they end. So as anybody in these particular locations are perfectly aware of where the bike lanes go, number one. And number two, does a bike lane supersede someone's availability to park on the street? I don't know. I can't answer that. I don't know.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[Robert Penta]: Bruce, don't go. We talked about Bice Racks. I think it was two or three years ago. It could be even longer. The city got some kind of a grant for bike racks. And one of the bike racks they put up there is in the 1th Street parking lot, which is half owned by the city. And I forget what the second one was. So you may want to check in with, it could have come out of OCD. It could come out of one of those state grants.
[Robert Penta]: So maybe you can go back and look into that type of a grant if the city's never reapplied for it or whatever it might be. OK. That's it. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Right. But these are just proposals. These five, whether they're going to add or subtract because as Bruce indicated, uh, these are just recommendations at the present time. So that would be number one as to what they do recommend the, uh, the exact street address by location. And second of all, um, I just don't know if they're in a legitimate spot where somebody can park in front of their business or their home and a parking lane is going to go there. There's a, who has chief you're here. Can you answer that?
[Robert Penta]: The question chief is if, if you are putting a bike lane in front of my house, so my business that I have, I have a right to park there, legitimate right to park there. Are you telling me now, if a bike lane goes there, I cannot park there anymore.
[Robert Penta]: And that's, that's the key to, that's the key to my issue here. I don't know where these five recommendations are right now. And I don't know if any of these find themselves in front of anyone's home. Let's just say, and if that'd be the case, if people have been allowed in the past up until now to park in front of the house without any violation and a bike lane goes in there, I mean, I don't want to get into a contest over this, you know, you know, that the bike lane should supersede the residential owner, because that's going to be the issue that we're going to be hearing from residents. You're putting a bike lane in front of my house, but I can park there and I parked there. I've been able to park there for years.
[Robert Penta]: You, for example, one of the recommendations here says placed at road from Winthrop street to West Medford square. It doesn't say right or left. It just says placed at road. So right now in place that road folks can park in front of their house. So If a bike lane goes there, are you telling the residents in that area that they can't park in front of the house?
[Robert Penta]: And this is the concerns that I've received from folks. Some people don't even have these five locations and they just want to know, is the city going to have bike lanes all over the place? And these are some of the issues and that's just, That's, you know, we've got to discuss it before it becomes a finale.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. If I understood council Marks correctly, the city of Medford was informed about this.
[Robert Penta]: when the mayor chooses not to attend or he can't attend. But you indicated that there are 17 single family cottages, nine of which are in the city of Medford. How can a proposed development take pieces of property in Medford and use it as part of their development and another city and have our city in return and not be there to even discuss and protect it or even have an awareness of this. And I just think this is a something went wrong in the communication issue here, Mr. President. And you know, I remember the neighbors many, many years back had this issue when the hospital was operating, if I remember correctly, and the cut-through was going through there. And then I think, Chief, you were there, and they had to put a stop to it. And how they put a stop to it was only allowing, by a case of emergency, for a fire truck to go through. That was it. And then for some reason, the hospital closed down in 1999, and everything ended. And now, with this type of a development, which is 399 units, or 399 potential units, nine of the 17 of these units are going to be in the city of Medford and we weren't even aware of it. We as a council weren't even notified of it. Even if we wanted to attend, we didn't have that opportunity. And if the city, in fact, um, Mr. President, if the city in fact was notified and they sent nobody there, a shame on them because that's, that's embarrassing. I think to the residents who live in that neighborhood should be represented by city administration. Um, I, I would like to just bump up one more part of your resolution. I think the offscreen development, needs to report back to the city of Medford, to the council, just exactly what is the city's position on this development? Since in fact, Medford pieces of property are part of it. We're not a party. We're not a partner to this development. It just, these pieces of property are part of the development. If I understand you correctly, correct? And that's what you were told that night at the hearing, at the public meeting. Okay. So maybe we should all get a copy of what was being proposed. cat's out of the bag of the bond right now. So, uh, you know, nobody from the city was there to even get information. So I think it's time that we do get this information before this project begins to go forward. Now, the other part of the problem seems to be, could possibly be political in nature because if in fact, uh, if the Malden mayor and the Councilor from that particular district was there and they're all on board in this, and now all of a sudden, uh, our questions are going to present a block to maybe the proposal. Um, does this become a political, um, uh, Does this become a political issue on who's going to have more power and who's going to have more might? I'm from the city of Malden. If 99% of the property is on, is in my territory, who are you from the city of Medford to tell me what you can and can't do in my piece of property? I think the linchpin here is the nine units of the 17 that are in Medford. And that to me is the issue that I would make a presentation on. Number one, you chief, from what I understand the way the law goes, you could close that road down tomorrow morning if you want. that cut through tomorrow morning. If you want you could go there, just close it down in the interest of public safety.
[Robert Penta]: First of all, um, for the purposes of identifying my colleague, my newest colleague on there, this council does have a representative. It's part of the legislation that was passed back in the late nineties, late nineties. That's number one. We have a definite role by being on that board. The board meets approximately once a month, if not, maybe once every six weeks. And the purpose of the board is to enhance the viability of the Sheppard Brooks estates, um, which serves an educational and a, um, historical purpose here for the city of Medford. Second of all, um, you were given a book, I believe when you first got elected that showed you the whole intent and of what the, background was of the Brooks estates. Um, it had an in depth detail of where it came from, um, how it got itself started and the endeavor that it's going on. And we all know that it's, um, it's, it's, it's a long, hard endeavor, which includes a road in a building upgrade of approximately three and a half million dollars to get itself back on the road. Um, the purpose of the legislative person, be it myself, who has sat on that board is to enhance, um, not only the viability of the Shepard Brooks Estates, by supporting and not supporting, depending on what takes place at our monthly meetings, for which are publicly noticed out in the clerk's office, for which minutes of the meetings are readily available if anyone so chose to go look at them and to see what is being discussed. I feel quite confident that my role and my position on the board has not only satisfied the responsibility of a Councilor sitting on that board, but at the same time, It's part of the legislative obligation, which is part of the law that was passed and duly recorded at the Middlesex Registry Deeds for this particular position. But if Councilor Knight has an issue with that, I- Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Robert Penta]: It was a council president who made the appointment, which was Bob Mayorka. Jay Griffin proposed.
[Robert Penta]: I believe before the role is called that this discussion has come up before with the city clerk, uh, straight to the city solicitor. regarding my position and it's duly recorded in your office, Mr. Clerk and the city solicitor's vendors opinion that it's acceptable for me to serve in this position.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: I was hoping he was going to stay. Um, over this past weekend, I received a telephone calls and six emails from folks from Mammoth street, Blakely Road, and other locations, where they received robocalls as it related their streets were going to be swept on the 17th and the 18th, respectively. And streets were never swept, tagged, ticketed, and towed. My comment on that particular issue, Mr. President, is very simple. If you were tagged, ticketed, or towed, and any one of the robocalls that went out or any way your houses were identified that your streets were going to be swept, I think you should come to City Hall, go to the mayor's office, and demand your money back. This is absolutely wrong. It's unfair. You don't turn around and tell the people and the streets as of this day has still not been swept. You don't have people get all excited to move their cars. And if they're going to get a ticket or toad, if they don't do it, and then when they do get ticket and toad and the street never gets itself swept, that even adds to the, to the anxiety. And as we speak right now, it continues to add to the anxiety. So I just think it's wrong. I think the procedure is wrong. If there's a reason why the streets weren't swept, so be it. Those people should be notified. If you got a ticket, you got tagged and you got towed, bring it to city hall and it should be, and it should be reflected. If I remember correctly, at some point in time last year, a situation like this happened and I believe the mayor made an announcement that he would take and bring whoever got him during the specific period for whatever the issue was, bring them to city hall and they would be abated. So that would be my suggestion. I was hoping the chief was going to stay for this because it was on the agenda and I know he was CC'd on some of these requests that, um, I don't have an answer because nobody can tell us why the streets weren't swept. I don't know, but they weren't. But all I know is this, that people did get tagged, ticketed, and towed. And as a result of that, they should be entitled to get their money back. And that's it. I just, I don't understand it.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Pentland. Just to re-up this because, you know, this is going to present itself with another issue forthcoming this winter as it relates to snow emergencies and how they're going to take place. You know, not everybody goes to their computer every day to go on the city's webpage to see what's going on. People have other more important things to do like their job, their family, their kids, and making sure they stay alive with their job and making sure payments are being done. So to turn around and say you should have gone to the city's website, bingo. And if you didn't watch the city's website, well, what was the other alternative? Now we're going to do robocalls. So the robocalls go out. And when the robocalls go out, and the people do get them, and they do follow them, and they do subscribe to them, and nothing takes place, and then you penalize the taxpayer, I mean, where does that put us? We were told when we had this discussion last year after, I believe it was the snow emergency, and I think it was at your behest, Councilor Langel-Curran, when we were talking about off of, uh, off of, uh, by Magoon Park, those streets there where the neighbors came down and they wanted to have an opportunity to park on their street until the, until the, uh, I can't think of the name of the street and the residents. And we have the chief of police down here and we have the people from the department of public works down here to allow the people to park on the street rather than in the wintertime, you only can park on one side of the street. Do you remember? And we had that discussion and we were, we were informed that we were going to discuss that in the same way we were going to discuss the issue that we have here in front of us right now. And it's right back in our face all over again. So I don't know what it takes. I don't know how it's run. The police don't go down the street anymore with the bullhorn telling the people, you know, to get your cars off the street. It's being told the department of public works won't do it because all they do is get to go down the street with a lead man and the sweet stripper goes down there. So who's going to hear that particular person? and when in fact that takes place. So we do definitely have a problem here as it relates to not only snow removal, which is going to be forthcoming, but also with these issues of getting these robocalls and the city not doing that for which they're telling residents to do and the residents get ticket tagged and towed. So once again, anyone who was ticket tagged and towed, if you got a robocall and they never came and swept your street and it still isn't swept, I would suggest that you go to city hall, go to the mayor's office and demand that you want your money back and that you do not want that attached to your driver's license or your registration to your car. Because it's just unfair. One of the memos that I got, a lady came home and her car was gone. Her car was gone. And there was no reason why the car should be gone, because the street wasn't there. She had to pick up her son. She had no money, and she had no car. And she had to do something on the alternative to do that, because she did what she was supposed to do. So with that being said, Mr. President, that's my resolution. Anyone that got it, please go to the, uh, and I would suggest still keep sending your emails to the chief of police, the mayor's office. If this is continuing to go on, to go on in other parts of the city, then that's what you need to do because there's no form there. You talk about having a system to vet out councils and positions. Well, maybe we should have a system to vet out our administrators as to what they're supposed to do when they say they're going to do something.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I know that. I know that election every two years. So with that being said, uh, Mr. President, I move the issue on the motion of council.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Okay.
[Robert Penta]: We also got tonight in our packet, I got both of those things you just talked about, I didn't get. I got them both. I didn't get them. Did you get them? We also received a notice of a public hearing scheduled for December 10th regarding the Peace Garden. And this is really confusing right now, because now what it's saying, the State Department of Transportation is stating the following, that a secure right of way is necessary for this project. Acquisitions in fee and permanent or temporary easements may be required. The city is responsible for acquiring all needed rights in private or public lands. MassDOT's policy concerning land acquisitions will be discussed at this hearing. This is something that's absolutely brand new. I believe, Mr. President, the city of Medford, in this particular issue, is the owner of the property. And being the owner of the property, it's a city owned piece of property. And I don't understand this right of way and this easement, permanent or temporary. We've never been advised of anything like this. And I think we need to have a report back as to why MassDOT is coming in as it relates to our public lands, whether it's the housing authority of the city of Medford, it's still the public lands of the city of Medford and they're not private. And with that being said, MassDOT, I just don't understand how they can, why are we getting this at this stage of the game? I don't know. We're talking about, uh, and we're still waiting for a budget director Burke to give us the financial background of how much has been raised so far for this peace garden. And now we have to deal with a public hearing regarding a right of way or an easement permanent or temporary that comes under the subject policy of mass dot. And they haven't a public hearing on this. So, I mean, Can we get a response back from the office of community development on this?
[Robert Penta]: And as to why, why we're having, I mean, what are we, what are we acquiring that we don't already own? That's what I want to know.
[Robert Penta]: The meeting is December 10th. We've been told all along, none of this has ever come up under any of the discussion. Whether it's money that's been taken out of the linkage account, whether it's money that's been taken out of the community walk-around funds, whether it's money taken out of the city's coffers. There's been no, this has never come up before. Now all of a sudden, the Mass Department of Transportation, is sticking its two cents in, either the city didn't do something, or there's something that we're not aware of. And I think we should become aware of it. I don't want to go to a meeting on December 10th and go and ask questions. I want to know ahead of time. I've taken votes in this council for the purpose of putting money toward that Peace Garden. We've taken votes off this council from the linkage accounts. I'm not waiting until December 10th. This is too important an issue. It's well in excess of a million dollars. And being in excess of that kind of money, and it's being on our city property, why does the Mass. Department of Transportation have to have this public hearing. And I think it's a valid question.
[Robert Penta]: Well, if it wasn't city property, you wouldn't be getting this notice. So there must be something that either we weren't apprised of or the city wasn't aware of. And I think we should become aware of it.
[Robert Penta]: It says in the second paragraph, Mr. President, it's in a question form. The city is responsible for acquiring all needed rights and private lands. Mass DOT's policy concerning land acquisitions will be discussed at this. What's the land acquisition? We were told from day one that's our property. We own it. Now, if we're buying property, that's another issue. I'd like to know what we're buying.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, before we move approval for what you can't, you have to take each item one at a time. That's required by state statute. Also, earlier tonight at 445, I believe that there was a linkage committee meeting that took place. And I think you should read the agenda items that were passed on there to put the entire total to close to $1,800,000. I think it's important. I think it works hand in hand.
[Robert Penta]: Um, and as required by law, uh, we should be discussing each one of these, uh, one at a time. So there's a complete understanding as to what it is. I'd like to just jump to the link. Did you attend the meeting this afternoon or not? I did. Um, I'm concerned over two of the items that are on there, Mr. President. Um, the first one is, um, why are we leasing two trucks for the highway division, uh, for $22,000 a year? Uh, how much were those trucks each if you had to buy them? And once again, second of all, um, the one-year lease for an F-250 for $26,000. There's no paperwork that's supplied with this explaining the difference between the leasing and the buying. And also, leasing the Bobcat for one year at $10,000 a year, how much would that cost if we were to buy it? We're out there now building a brand new $14 million public works building, state of the art.
[Robert Penta]: Plus the fact, Mr. President, since you as the chairperson of the council sit on that committee, I believe it is pertinent and it's relative to the issue at hand. Um, can we have some explanation, um, from you? Cause you're the only one either that or is miss Baker here?
[Robert Penta]: So, um, could Ms. Baker, please be here. I'd like to have her. She was, she's a member.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, she's not here. Well then can you, on behalf of the council and likeness, why the committee of three voted to lease rather than by the funds.
[Robert Penta]: No, I'm going to item number seven, Mr. President. You asked about the two trucks. Yeah, the two trucks, the two F-150s, two F-250s. And I just answered that.
[Robert Penta]: It's year one of the lease.
[Robert Penta]: I didn't say number four. Well, anyway, all right, I apologize. It's number seven. Why are we leasing?
[Robert Penta]: Well, since you're a representative and it also talks about a one year lease. So we're just leasing them for one year or for many years. It's to pay for one year lease.
[Robert Penta]: Is our budget director, can she answer the question please? Number seven. How many years is this lease for?
[Robert Penta]: Four payments of $26,000. Correct. So almost $100,000 for this one truck.
[Robert Penta]: What does the city get out of leasing them at the end of two years? Three years?
[Robert Penta]: Would it be cheaper for the city?
[Robert Penta]: And if you jump to number five, why are we renting a Bobcat for $10,000?
[Robert Penta]: How much does that go for, Brando?
[Robert Penta]: And how long are we paying that out for?
[Robert Penta]: The last part of the question to this is why this didn't come out of free cash?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, let's go to number two, request funds to pay for stumps and sidewalks, $100,000. Now I'm confused because in the mayor's other request from free cash, he wants 400,000. Why this didn't all just come from one account?
[Robert Penta]: So the $400,000 in free cash should be free?
[Robert Penta]: No, I didn't get that.
[Robert Penta]: The bottom line number of 1, 3, 8, 6 is still correct.
[Robert Penta]: Uh, paper 14-743. That particular paper has to be voted on individually. Each item, Mr. President, that's what the law reads. It's a cost factor.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Councilor Penta.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I think the taxpayers are owed the obligation of knowing how this money is going to be spent, whether it's severed or not, whether the total stays the same, or whether it's lessened by some amount. I think it's important that each item is discussed, and the Council can take its vote.
[Robert Penta]: I make a motion to sever every one of the items.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta for the voters call. And since there are a lot of items in here that will have an impact in certain parts of the community and especially for which a rate payers and taxpayers in this community aren't aware of. And as Councilor Knight is just alluded to, he thinks it's a great package. So I would assume there'd be no problem discussing it. and letting the taxpayers know what they're getting by dollar amount to each and every one of the items. So I support the, uh, I support the, uh, severing of the motion.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Mr. President point of information under rule 20 of our city council talks about items appearing upon the council agenda. Point number four, any financial paper appearing on the council agenda for the first time shall be automatically laid on the table for one week when such action is requested by any Councilor. I am the Councilor and I'm making that action that the paper lay on the table. according to our own rules.
[Robert Penta]: No, it's automatic. Lays on the table. Roll number 20.
[Robert Penta]: I don't think there's any problem discussing, and I don't know why four colleagues would not want to discuss some of this matter. And pardon me.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you were at a meeting that the public couldn't see. It was a private meeting. With all due respect. It was a committee of the whole meeting. Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Well, some members of the public was put there. No, no, no, no, no, no. Some members of the public, which would be the people who watched this.
[Robert Penta]: You didn't correct it for me.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. One thing further under rule 20, number one, all items of business appearing upon the council agenda shall be taken up in the order of their appearance and be fully in. And the appearance was under suspension and be fully and openly debated and disposed of by a vote of the council previous to consideration of any other item of business. And then we jumped to rule four for which is mine. So it lays on the table. The council took this no matter how it appeared before the council.
[Robert Penta]: Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. You can't do that. You don't make up these rules. You challenged the rule. I challenged, you're challenging me. That's what you're doing. No, no. And I'm telling you on the section rule number four and under rule 20, section one, this paper was presented by Mr. Knight and the council discussed it.
[Robert Penta]: That came up as a separate paper on the suspension. We're going to be here all night discussing. This is a circus. I know this is a circus. Mr. President. You challenge the chair. Let me tell you something. Let me just say this too. I don't know what any of the seven of us or any of the four who didn't vote for this, would be afraid to discuss these matters one at a time. Councilor, that's a different point right now. No, it isn't. That's the whole issue. You don't want to discuss it, because Councilor Dello Russo brought that up in the beginning. He just wanted to move to approve the paper. That's how this all started. Now, you have the budget director here, who's ready, willing, and able to answer any question that's going to be presented as to what took place in the Committee of the Law. What is everybody afraid of to talk about? Councilor, nobody said you could ask that. Well, then that's it. Then let it go. Just let us have our discussion. Of course.
[Robert Penta]: No, Mr. President, you know, you've got to read 33 that you're alluding to. Okay. Read it, read 33 if you want to have suspension of the rules and make this become operative. It talks about a roll call, a salute to the flag, examination of the records of a previous meeting. It talks about hearings, presentations of petitions and similar papers, motions, orders, and resolutions, communications from the mayor, communications and reports from city office and employees, reports of committee, public participation papers in the committee, unfinished business and approval of records in previous meeting. You move suspension on one of these items. It's just that one particular paper. You took it out of order.
[Robert Penta]: He moved suspension of the rules. He didn't move suspension of the rules for all the rules of the Council.
[Robert Penta]: Good. I'll be willing to withdraw my, and if council agrees to talk about these items, one at a time, I'm telling you, I'll be willing to withdraw that if the council acknowledges. discussing these matters one at a time.
[Robert Penta]: Now what you're saying is if somebody on the prevailing side is willing to move reconsideration so we can discuss these items one at a time, then roll. to take a vote on them. I'm not taking that gamble because I can't trust this council.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you can... I'd like to ask Councilor Dello Russo a question. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Robert Penta]: You said anybody can ask the budget director any... Councilor Dello Russo, first, a question before we go forward. Since you moved, Councilor Dello Russo, to vote for this paper, would you be good?
[Robert Penta]: I'm asking Councilor Dello Russo, and you're speaking from the chair.
[Robert Penta]: Very simply, Councilor Dello Russo, you moved approval on a paper without having an opportunity be given to discuss each and every one of these items. Would you be willing to withdraw that so we could discuss these items?
[Robert Penta]: Why would you not want to let your colleagues have an opportunity to ask further questions to Mrs. Burke?
[Robert Penta]: Let's go to the issue of the three retaining walls, Governor's Ave, Morgan, and Gaston. Now, Governor's Ave was done back in the early 2000s. What part of Governor's Ave in particular? Because residents have called, and they want to know what's going on.
[Robert Penta]: Going toward Lawrence Road?
[Robert Penta]: OK.
[Robert Penta]: And when you write Gaston, what's that, Gaston Street?
[Robert Penta]: What wall in Gaston Street? What end?
[Robert Penta]: OK. And these prices of $250,000, do these come from, I won't use, well, not legitimate.
[Robert Penta]: You have, yeah, OK. These aren't city estimates. These are from definite contractors.
[Robert Penta]: Outside engineer, OK. The next question is, you corrected the stumps to $300,000, and the bucket truck for $65,000. Again, the bucket truck for $65,000, and then we have the trucks that come under linkage. Is there any reason why it just all didn't stay out of one account?
[Robert Penta]: Next one is, um, the tennis courts at victory and the basketball, um, horizon, the basketball play stood tennis courts, Morris and the tennis courts, basketball courts at, um, at Duggar tennis courts at Duggar Harris. A lot of these parks through the years, as you know, and even when you were on the council, have seen upgradings through the years. Some of these parks are in their third iteration of being upgraded. And I just want to hold that aside as, as Ms. Mott indicated a little bit back there. The city hall fire alarm system, the upgrade to that,
[Robert Penta]: So these are all citywide buildings. When you say city, we, including the school department or not?
[Robert Penta]: Okay. The pads for the fire alarm installation citywide.
[Robert Penta]: On the LED conversion, I believe, even though Medford Square is on there, I believe all the squares were supposed to be taken into consideration.
[Robert Penta]: The animal van, OK. Historical matching grant, current $15,000. and pending is 20. What is the one that's pending?
[Robert Penta]: Glenwood, okay.
[Robert Penta]: I think Mr. President, I brought that up 13 times, if not 14. I know. City Hall computer refresh.
[Robert Penta]: On the issue regarding bicycle lanes, where are they going to be?
[Robert Penta]: Also, on the $25,000, can you just explain to the people what actually these lanes are going to do? I mean, how are they going to interact with people on the street with cars?
[Robert Penta]: You're not entertaining Winthrop Street. from Boston Avenue down to the bottom of the hill?
[Robert Penta]: OK. Now, you used the word five feet wide. Is that the minimum? It has to be at a minimum for bike lane, five feet?
[Robert Penta]: And one last point on this issue. Who's going to make the signs? Who's paying for the signs? Is this part of the $25,000? What was the question? Signs. The signs.
[Robert Penta]: OK. If we can go on, Mr. Thank you. If we can go on further, where you have public arts and funds uh, for student project of $25,000. Um, is this for the citywide public school system? Just the high school or what? Could we get a report back from the superintendent on this one? All right, please. Can you move that Mr. Clark to get that? I report from the superintendent on the public arts funds, the 25,000, how it can be expended and how do you become eligible for it? Now, we have to talk about security cameras at $10,000. I believe it was Councilor Lungo-Curran who brought this issue up a while back with the Chief of Police. And I don't know what we're buying for $10,000, but why are we only picking Commercial Street? And how much are these cameras going for?
[Robert Penta]: $80,000 of the police and fire head.
[Robert Penta]: next issue on speed bumps, which are movable, I believe this was Councilor Markswell's issue for a long period of time, and movable, I'm getting the opinion that means it's convertible? And before when that was brought up? We were told, no, they can't do that. Now they can do it?
[Robert Penta]: There was three locations, I believe, once again, when Councilor Marks had brought this up and Morrison Park.
[Robert Penta]: Next one is you have cruises here for 40,000.
[Robert Penta]: Four payment lease for four vehicles, right? Correct. And then we have the new plaques for the Veterans Memorial at $30,000. Now, I know the mayor had mentioned at the Veterans Day at the VFW about adding on to Memorial Is this a new name, Veterans Memorial Park? I mean, I don't know. Is this the one by the high school?
[Robert Penta]: So these names are running about $1,200 a piece?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, looking at all these issues, they sound good. My, my concerns would be the parks, knowing that the parks have been done numerous times over and over and over. I'll just speak for myself. I was never asked about any one of these items and I was never asked by the city administration as to, is there something that I would like to have in there? You can't use the argument about the LED lights in Medford square cause that's just nothing more than a public safety issue. And as councilor Dello Russo alluded to, it's public safety for the St. Joseph parking lot on route 16. Tonight it was just announced by the Wynn Casino people that they're giving the city of Medford $250,000. Tonight, okay? I believe it was on the 5 o'clock news. Giving it to Medford, they're giving it to Everett, they're giving it, and I believe it's Malden. So that's another $250,000 that now comes into the mix as it relates to what is the city gonna do with it. I don't see anything in this piece of paper, this document, It talks about streets, or sidewalks, or potholes.
[Robert Penta]: No, that's stumps. I'm talking about potholes.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I'm talking about potholes. Potholes. Oh, OK.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: I mean, that- Well, I don't see anything in here, to be honest with you, as it relates to the city going out through the Office of Community Development as it relates to the business district. I don't see anything like that there at all.
[Robert Penta]: It might fall into that. But if we're sitting on almost $7.5, $7.8 million in free cash, something needs to be said, I think, as far as that part goes. Also, when we talk about signs, and I think it was our chief that was seen on Channel 7 last week as he relates to signage in the city of Medford and his remarks, we don't have enough money. We don't have any money to do the signage. And I don't understand we don't have enough money to do the signage when we have almost $7.8 million in free cash. And then when I look at the fact that under the linkage program, you're requesting, I think it's $8,000? What is the linkage? $8,000 to do signs. And it's my understanding, if I'm reading the contract correctly, from Tennessee, what's the name of the place?
[Robert Penta]: Right.
[Robert Penta]: So you're talking about a street name sign?
[Robert Penta]: Oh. We'll see. I think that needs to be more specific. And also, we were supposed to be getting a report back as a follow-up, because I've spoken to some of the business people as it relates to Republic going into some of these certain business folks, and there's still some concern over who was going to be gifted with the free 30-minute parking spaces, who was going to be gifted with the sign and the repair of the signs that they're supposed to be putting up, who was going to be exempt in the business districts from not having it. Again, I think the council had asked for that type of information to be forthcoming, and we haven't seen or heard anything.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I'd like to move that the $250,000 that was announced tonight by the Wynn Casino Group, that they may report back and respectfully ask of the council of what particular projects they might be interested in that this $250,000 could be used for.
[Robert Penta]: No, it doesn't. No, no, it'd be a B paper, whatever you want to call it.
[Robert Penta]: Well, we had asked before, since you've digressed over there.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, yeah, you're responding, right. But the mayor indicated that he's had all kinds of money coming in fast and furious. This is a million dollar peace garden. And we haven't seen anything as a report. Just itemize where the money's coming from. It's coming from linkage. It's coming from community block grant funding. It's coming from city finances. It's supposedly coming from private finances. And now you're saying Wynn has given another $200,000.
[Robert Penta]: Has the whole $250,000 been earmarked?
[Robert Penta]: Well, I guess we, I guess we.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. You want a breakdown. I want a breakdown of the money, therefore brought in.
[Robert Penta]: All funding.
[Robert Penta]: Okay.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, and the breakdown of the money, the funding thus far. Correct, okay.
[Robert Penta]: Yes.
[Robert Penta]: I believe we were told it was approximately 30 years left.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you have the new growth over there that's taking place now. You have six and a half acres on the opposite side from the Brooks Estates area.
[Robert Penta]: From who though?
[Robert Penta]: Could we further amend that? Tell us to give us a breakdown, a layout, what they anticipate and for the years, how they made that determination. Anticipated? Yes. Locations. The actual physical locations at the cemetery.
[Robert Penta]: Of the 10 year. And many people are dying per year.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, they could, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be used.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Stephanie, go back to the retaining walls on Governor's Avenue. You just jogged my mind. When we did those walls back then, we had to go and get permission from the abutting residents that abutted the wall. And the purpose of doing that was to cut the trees down that were having their roots pushing the wall out. Now, nothing's been done since then to go back on the wall that we spent a few hundred thousand dollars on and now you're adding on. I'm just, can we get a report back as to why the city has not kept up with stopping those trees from regrowing?
[Robert Penta]: Well, not only that, it's the trees that maybe three to four feet, you know, you have the wall and then there's three or four feet going back on the land over there. And that was the, uh, That was the thing that was negotiated by the city and the residents, making sure that you weren't on their property. It was the city's property. And they cut those trees down, making sure that the growth of those trees were not pushing the wall out. But since that wall has been fixed, the trees have regrown. You have new trees. And they're doing the same thing with the new addition of the wall. And the second thing, Mr. President, just jumping back onto the Peace Garden. I think this was brought up, and I don't know who brought it up, but if and when this thing is finally built, who's going to take care of it?
[Robert Penta]: City of Medford. Highway department's going to take care of it?
[Robert Penta]: Parks department's going to take care of it.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, could you explain further, um, if the 250,000 from when what's the next payment after that?
[Robert Penta]: So that's not going to be the same as Everett getting millions of dollars each and every year, even before they open? Not until the doors open. And maybe you can answer this question, and then I'm done. Um, with these new kiosks that are coming in, um, that the council never had a final vote on, but that's beside the point. How is the city going to, we have educated drivers out there and speaking to a couple of the people right now that from Winchester that are parking here, once they realize they're going to get tagged, they're not going to stay here. So who's going to make up that difference of the $2 million per year? You think Medford residents are gonna go out there and get themselves tagged for $2 million a year? I don't think so.
[Robert Penta]: But there is a provisional in the contract that if they do less than $2 million a year, it gets prorated down as to what the city gets, correct?
[Robert Penta]: And lastly, Mr. President, we were supposed to have gotten an update, and we never got it, regarding the West Method parking lot, where we stand, what's the cost factor going to involve, what's the process, how is this contamination going to be eliminated? But isn't the city putting any money aside because they're going to have to come up with some money for this?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. We have another paper that's due next.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. What account did that come out of?
[Robert Penta]: Same account? Free cash? Why isn't it on here?
[Robert Penta]: The chair recognizes Councilor Penta. Mr. President, I move that we take the paper as it relates to the Berks Estates, paper number, which one is it? All those in favor, hear that paper? All those opposed, the paper is back before you.
[Robert Penta]: Once again, it would be nice to have how $90,000 is going to be expended. Even though Councilor DelaRosa moved approval, I think it's important for people to know how their money is being expended and its purpose.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, move. Councilor Penta? Is the gentleman here in the audience? No. He's not here. Lay the paper on the table, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Lay it on the table.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I've been asked by many people, and I forgot to do this last year, so I'm doing it this year, well in advance. And as a result of what's been going on throughout this entire country of ours, between atheists and people of non-Christian Judeo faith slamming the Christmas season, wanting to take Christ out of Christmas, and just absolutely have an atheistic type of an attitude as it relates to you know, what this country should be rather than what it really is. I think we as a city need to step up to the plate and let people know that we are a Christian-Judeo community, born on the principles of a country that was founded on that religious belief, and not be subject to threats or intimidation from folks who are either atheistic or are not our religious persuasions. At the same time, Mr. President, I think, you know, when we have our Christmas holiday season, and I think it's next week we're going to be having, or two weeks from now, we're going to be having a Christmas bonanza here out in City Hall. You're going to have Santa Claus, which is Saint Nicholas, which stems from some type of religious connotation from being a saint, I believe, from Scotland, dating back to when this whole situation started. Why should we be subject or letting ourselves as a community be subject to anything by way of threat or intimidation. I think we should just stand tall, put the nativity scene back. If nobody wants to honor it, so be it. But it's part of our American heritage. It's part of our city of Medford's heritage. And to start letting go of these things slowly but surely, it makes no sense. I don't know if any of you folks read it, but there was an article written by a pilot from American Airlines. And he also was a pilot that flew flew on the day of September 11th, when we were attacked crazily by a group of fanatical Muslims, Arab Muslims. And he writes a very interesting story, as was presented in the news media. He has seen all kinds of people. He has flown all kinds of people. And he has no problem with all kinds of people that have been flying and coming into this country, whether they legally, as immigrants. But those that are here, have a responsibility to stand up for people of their nations, not of American, that are destroying us. And I think a couple of weeks ago on 60 Minutes, there was a story relative toward the Islamic jihadist. This is after, I think, the third American was killed or beheaded. And basically saying, we're going to get the Americans, and we're going to get the French, because those are the two that he singled out, and we're going make you become under our way, and we will behead you if we have to. Those type of people of that particular faith are living in this country. And I think they have a responsibility to stand up and saying that they are not part of it. They need to stand up and say, you know, we are good Muslims. We have come here to this country, and we have subscribed to the American way of living. And part of our American way of living is our holidays. Now, you have in Maryland, you have one parent who is an atheist. who has now stopped all the holiday season in the Maryland school district only because of the reason that they're an atheist and they don't want their child to be subject to the Judeo-Christian way of having a Christmas. So what the school system did in Maryland, what they did is they got rid of all connotations and any names relative toward the Christmas season and just calling it a holiday. Well, what kind of a holiday is it, if anybody can explain it? The holiday has always been representative of Christmas. And it's always been tolerant of the Judeo-Christian background. And I think it's been tolerant of every other type of religion that this country has allowed to have their expressions of freedom of peace and freedom of speech. But to turn around and take away something that's a main staple of this country is wrong. And people need to start speaking up. And news media needs to start speaking up and not going along and coddling those people who just plainly are indifferent to our American way of living. If they don't like our American way, then move out. Get out of here. Why does everybody want to come to this country? They come here to get their welfare. They come here to get their housing. They come here to get their illegal driver's license. And they come here to get sometimes an illegal education at the expense of those people who pay for it, whose families have paid for it, who have earned it through the years. So all I'm saying, Mr. President, and anyone who might be watching — and I don't know if the news media is here — Christmas is a very happy time of the year. Sure, to some folks, it has a sacred connotation. And if you don't want to accept it, you don't have to buy into it or believe it. But don't be so stupid enough to get rid of it because we're offending somebody. What about the people that they're offending by asking us to get rid of it? That doesn't make any sense. And no kid and no child should be died what Christmas, what the New Year's is, what St. Nicholas is all about, and what their religious holiday is during this time of the year. If not, then we should just abolish holidays and just not have a Christmas or a holiday season. It had to be there for some reason. It's a multi-million dollar market for corporate America. For games, for toys, for clothes, just put on the television and you'll see it. And you'll see Santa Claus. And I'll tell you one thing, I give credit to the people who are advertising now on television, they're using the word Merry Christmas. They're using the word Merry Christmas, and that's the way it should be. It is a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And I'll repeat, if you don't like it, then move out. And I would hope that this city does nothing, does nothing to follow suit of some of these other cities and some of these other towns who are being challenged by folks who are so indifferent to our American way of living. So I move the question, Mr. President, and ask that the mayor put for this holiday, Christmas season, for the Christmas, New Year's, the nativity scene that sits at that Royal House Park as it did for so many years.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta, uh, Jeannie, you know, our country was founded on two specific beliefs, um, numb freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And the doors to the Supreme Court of the United States, you know what they have on them?
[Robert Penta]: They have the Ten Commandments.
[Robert Penta]: And when you go to court, what do you do? You put your hand on the Bible to tell the truth. That's true. Correct?
[Robert Penta]: You can say I affirm.
[Robert Penta]: OK, so you believe.
[Robert Penta]: And you just indicated, and you alluded to the fact that your neighbor gave you a Christmas gift. And whether it's responsive to something maybe that you did, or she's just honoring you because this is what we do here in this country. then so be it. But I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about the crazies that are out there, the people that don't like us, don't like our country. I'm talking about the people that are extremely irrational and don't and won't accept our American way of living. But they're here in this country and they're doing everything in their power while they're here in this country to lessen the freedoms and everything that we've enjoyed, as you just indicated as a child growing up. And I don't think there's anything wrong with the nativity scene, just like I don't think there's anything wrong with having a Christmas party out there. But if you're not going to have the nativity scene, then don't have St. Nicholas, because there's a religious connotation that goes with it. So what are you going to tell the kids? Oh, it's just a winter holiday. You can come out here and we'll have hot dogs and donuts and popcorn, but we're Santa Claus. What are you going to tell all these kids, three, four, five, six, and seven, eight years old, or whenever they believe and they don't believe? What are you going to tell the parents? This is part of our American tradition and our heritage. And this is not saying it's religious. If you don't want to buy into it or believe in it, you don't have to. Nobody is stopping anyone else from having their type of religious holiday. But when someone tries to destroy ours, either by being an atheist or being someone from a foreign country who just doesn't believe in our way of living, and they're hearing this country, then get out of here. If you don't like it, go. Nobody's telling you to stay here. But they must seem to like it enough. They must give enough perks. OK, to get what they want. I'm not backing off. I'm going to ask for a roll call vote on this, because I think this is very important. It's been part of the city of Medford's history. And if you read the history of the city of Medford, it's in that book, Lock, Stock, and Barrel.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. I'd like to ask you a question. It's obvious that you put an awful lot of time into it, and you're very positive as it relates to public access and stuff like that. But something came across my desk, and I don't know if it's true or false. I don't know if anyone's aware of this. I think it's of the city of Detroit, I could be wrong, or if it's a city in California, but one of those two, where the community had brought an action, a class action, against the administrator of the city for not having public access. Have you heard about that?
[Robert Penta]: If I remember correctly, and this is way before you, Joe, this is taxing. There's nobody on the council that would remember this. I think it was 1982 or 1983 when we had a city manager form of government and we had signed the contract with Warner Cable, I believe it was Time Warner, whatever the name of the company was back then. Then city manager, John Galloni, I believe, through Dan Riley, this is taxing my mind, Dan Riley, he was a city solicitor at the time. A lack of better words, either challenged Time Warner or demanded from Time Warner because they lacked, I believe, the broadcasting, the clarity in the broadcasting. There was an issue regarding, I believe, public access or city access here in the city of Medford. There were four things that they went after at that point in time. And they responded. And I couldn't help but think, and I came across this the other day, and I should have brought the paper with me. It was a memo that was sent out at that point in time. What a difference back then, and this was in the early years of when cable was in the city of Medford. I think there was no more than a year, year and a half. The black and white shows were kind of like fuzzy and a whole bunch of other things that they put in there. So different then as compared to what it is right now, how this city administration is handling the concerns of not only cable television, public access, but you have Comcast and you have Verizon here in the city of Medford. And both of those stations that are supposed to be delivering community access, public access, are charging people each and every week, each and every month on their bills, and they're getting nothing. We have in excess of over $303,000, according to the city coffers, that the city is sitting on. So right now, I believe the contract terminates in April of next year, 2015? April 20th. April 20th, okay. And the way the contract was written in the last time, within six months prior to the ending of the contract, public hearing needs to take place. Now, I'm not aware of any public hearing taking place. We've gotten no information regarding a public hearing. We, there's a gentleman by the name, I think his name was Peter Epstein. He gets paid $325 an hour. He comes from the city of Newton. He's the city's legal representative for cable access. Absolutely nothing. I put a call in once and I will, I will put another call in, but I just really think if the mayor of this community does not want to have public access, he needs to return the money and end it. instead of having this facade take place. We've gone through two experiments, so to speak. One with a former Judge Jackson, we spent almost $15,000, where a report was written. And then most recently, as of this past year, with three community members sitting together for three and a half, four months, and they put together a report for which the mayor said he would be reviewing that or getting into the gut of that after July 4th, and this is now November. So it's obvious that something is going on. The city just doesn't want to participate Maybe the mayor just thinks he can take that money and use it, and maybe he can't. I don't know. But, Councilman Marks, you made a remark two weeks ago. Maybe it's about time that we bring a class action suit in behalf of the ratepayers of this community. I want to check in. You said it was Detroit? Detroit was another one.
[Robert Penta]: Over access. Okay.
[Robert Penta]: I want to see that. You said Philadelphia and Detroit. Philadelphia and California are the class action suits.
[Robert Penta]: If that's the case, and I think if there are enough, 10 people out there who are rate payers within this community who are willing to go forward, I think we need to do that. This is crazy. You keep coming here each and every week. We talk amongst ourselves, we take these votes and the mayor is doing nothing about it. So if he's not going to do anything about it, maybe Councilor Marks, you're right. Maybe we just need to take this upon ourselves, you know, file a class action suit and let's just see where we're going with this because This can't keep going. You can't keep doing this. You can't keep charging the ratepayers and giving them nothing. This isn't like only three or four or five or six months. This goes back to December of 2012. This is not making any sense. So I thank you for bringing forward that. But I knew there was something out there. But now you're saying the mayor sues the council, and then we have one where the council sues the mayor. In Detroit.
[Robert Penta]: Well, we have something, I believe, on our agenda at the very end that goes back to July of last year, waiting for Mr. Rumley to give us an update, because I believe at that point in time, he gave us a full document of what Channel 3 and its corporate offices were all about, what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to file the appropriate papers with the, I believe, the Attorney General's office. I don't know about the Secretary of State, but I know the Attorney General. So maybe we should get an update. Maybe we should get an update, Mr. Clerk. Maybe we should get an update. Have Mr. Rumley present himself before the council as it relates to just where does the city stand on its lawsuit and where does the city stand on renewing the contract?
[Robert Penta]: Records. Records. You can take a vote. Take a vote on that. No, I have a motion on the floor. You're not listening. To have the city solicitor report back to the council since July of this past year, what further information he has or what further has the city progressed? And second of all, what is our standing relative to the cable contract, which comes up April 20th? What are we doing?
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. We had made a request a couple of weeks ago as it relates to the Curtis tough school. We'd asked for a response to come back. We never got the response back, but what we did get was a newspaper story. Once again, this council has to read things in the newspaper. And unfortunately, um, Councilor Marks, I believe for the last two to three budgetary cycles had been asking about the Curtis tough school, what's going on over there and some of the concerns that were taking place. And then we read in the news article, nicely written, that superintendent of schools said that he has noticed in recent years that there has been a program leveling off. And it also indicates that we began to think that the Curtis had developed such a regiment that it really wasn't adapting particularly well to the change in the students' needs. We began to feel in the last several years we were not getting the kind of mix and coherence between the program and the people coming down there. Now, when you say, between the last several years, and Councilman Knox has been asking, and it's been brought up during our budgetary process, what's going on? All we were getting for a report back was, well, we're working on it. There's some problems, and they're addressing it. And then they hired an outside consultant in 2013 called the Walker Partnership Company. And their report included 14 recommendations to correct the problems. of high absenteeism, lack of administrative oversight, and other predominant issues. But the big shakeup came during the summer for which this council was never apprised of. It was never apprised during the budgetary process in June and in July when they went forward and they replaced Mr. Volpe as the headmaster at that particular school. And they replaced him with a gentleman by the name of Mr. Toomey. Now the question is, You're paying for one principal to be over there. But you found another job up at the high school for Mr. Volpe. And that's what we asked for. What is this job? What's he getting paid? And what's the pay of the gentleman that now took over his job at the school? This doesn't make any sense. make some changes, and you know that the council had an interest in it, and it's part of our budget responsibility when we vote on the school department side, it should have been forthcoming. We shouldn't have to once again read something in the newspaper. And I commend you again for doing a great job, Alex, for writing the story. But Alex isn't the administration. He's a news reporter. We make resolutions and ask for responses, and every time we either ask for a response or want to know what's going on, you have to read the newspaper. This administration, on both sides of the street, is just completely ignorant to the fact that there needs to be a cooperation, there needs to be a conversation, there needs to be some sense that what's going on makes sense. Not just makes sense for him, the mayor, it makes sense for the council. Perfect example, you just got through voting tonight for in excess of a million three hundred thousand. Not one council, I'll speak for myself, I don't think any one council was asked for any particular pet project they might have that could have been included in there.
[Robert Penta]: And to be further clear about it, Councilor Knight, I'm glad you brought it up. Look at the length of time before this action was taking place. So, Some of these issues have been years in the making, never mind weeks or months. But I just think it's kind of like interesting. And once again, Mr. Clark, you have the res—I'm going to move the resolution again, that we get a report back as to Mr. Brian Toomey, who's the new principal at the Curtis Tufts School, what's his pay? And also, Mr. Volpe, who's up at the high school, what's his job and what's his pay? This is all municipal. It's all municipal business. And this is something that the council has been asking about for years. You've been asking council Max for years on this.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote. Mr. President, what's the matter before us and what is the actual resolution? The resolution is to have, what is Mr. Brian to be the new minister, the new principal at the Tufts Curtis school? What's the salary? And Mr. Volpe, who's there no longer, who's up at the high school, what's his job and what's his salary? Isn't this the same resolution we just sent forward a couple weeks ago? We never got an answer, did we?
[Robert Penta]: You can refer it to the school committee if you want.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to ask the gentleman to come back up. You indicated that there was — the noise was a disturbance?
[Robert Penta]: My question, I guess it runs along that with Councilor Langel-Curran relative to it. the 10 days being undetermined, but more importantly, um, this idea of being open from 11 at night to seven in the morning, which would allow them to have a 24 hour operation for up to 10 days. Is that correct? So could we put it also further stipulation that no deliveries take place during that period of time? If this is just for shopping and shopping alone, then I'm okay. But if deliveries are going to be an issue and if that's an issue, If I'm understanding you.
[Robert Penta]: No, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I, I'm not satisfied over the fact that we're going to give this thing out in finitum because this is the first tryout. Um, regardless whether it's cold or anyone else, if you give it to them, it's going to set a precedent for any other type of store within the city of Medford department store or what have you claiming that the Christmas season, you know, it's going to be helpful to their business. I've got no problem and allowing it to go through for the first year and on an annual basis has just come back because if everything works out satisfactory, there should be no problem. But we're setting a precedent here to allow one department store, large as it might be, taxpayer as they might be, but there are a lot of small business folks here in the city of Medford, and they're taxpayers too, and they should be looked upon equally. And I just think we're setting a precedent here that we're not gonna be able to offset because if Coles gets it, three or four other people or five or six, no matter what part of the city they might be in, might be just coming down here. That's number one. You can go to Wellington Circle. You can go to the new mall down there. And I can see them wanting to operate and open during that period of time. Restaurants to accommodate businesses that are going to be open during that period of time to satisfy people. I've got no problem in having a designated amount of time. I have no problem allowing it for this year. I have no problem in giving the extended hours. But I am not in favor of making this a rule in perpetuity, to be honest with you.
[Robert Penta]: Well, whether it's 90 days, or one day, or a year from now, the management of coals could be entirely different. Issues could take place after the 90 days that could present a problem. I just — listen, I've got no problem with it, but I just can't — to me, 90 days means nothing. I just think they should come in on an annual basis on a case-by-case. Because if we grant it for one, it's going to be very hard for us to be argued of being arbitrary and capricious and not allowing it to go to somebody else.
[Robert Penta]: Some of the amendments I'm okay with, but I'm still concerned over the fact that you're going to review it in 90 days. I think if I was a proprietor in the Meadow Glen Mall right now, and I knew that they could be open during those particular hours, I think I'd be coming here next and just saying, well, I'd like to be open, because you just gave it to them. And if I was a food establishment in the Meadow Glen Mall as they are, I think they're going to come in here, and they're going to want extended hours to accommodate the people who are going to be possibly shopping all night long. And then if you go to Stations Landing, and if you want to go over there, and if those stores want to be open, I've got no problem with it. I don't understand why you just have to give it. Why can't we just give it out for this first year and see where this goes? See how many other people want to apply for this 24—I mean, they're trailblazing right now. They're setting the trademark as to what they want to do. And let's just see how many other people come in. It'd be a shame to have somebody come in here and want to have the exact same thing, and they get shot down because, quote-unquote, either the neighbors or someone, you know, want to object to it because they don't want to be disturbed during those particular hours. You can put all the amendments you want onto this thing. That's the only thing that bothers me. You know, I just don't think you should be able to give it out in perpetuity, because if you give it out in perpetuity, and if you bring it back in 90 days, and for whatever the problems, and even if there were problems, and you were going to address them, they still have the thing in perpetuity. And to get rid of that, as both attorneys know, it's going to be pretty hard, because you haven't specifically laid down rules that could cancel out that rule of perpetuity while they're extended forever. I've got no problem voting for it, but I want to amend it that it just become, on an annual basis, a first-time basis, and let's just see where we go with this. It's as simple as that.
[Robert Penta]: Aye.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote.
[Robert Penta]: What's the reason? Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: Because this is the first time this is appearing before us. And I think being for the first time, let's just see how it goes. I'm not about to give away the store on the very first time somebody comes here and then have another person come and get denied because maybe they just don't cut the same—it's not cut the same way, whether it's their neighbors, whether it's the neighborhood, whether it's the location or what have you. I can just see other people wanting to have the same issue, have the same argument, and I've got no problem with that, and I think we should address them one at a time. Give it to them for the first year, I've got no problem with that. Even if you want to review it after 90 days, cut it to five, call the police chief, chief of police. And if everything works out great, and the gentleman in the back there, they have no problems, they come back again next year, it shouldn't present a problem. But what are we going to do in the meantime? I ask all of you, if company X comes in now, and they want the same thing, what are we going to do?
[Robert Penta]: This is... But they've closed at 11 because of the business.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to amend it one step further and have a report back from our city solicitor as it relates to if we are going to give this as an indefinite license for a period of time, that the city solicitor report back to the council under what conditions can the city council terminate? It's different than giving the license from 11 at night to seven in the morning. You're giving something indefinite. And I believe that this case law, as Councilor Bruese and the gentleman behind him is aware of, this case law that substantiates the fact you just cannot pull a license just because you're granted it because you feel something went wrong. It has to be of substance. And we don't have any of that information. This is the first time we're doing this. We're basically at a loss to even know what rights do we have, if anything, because you're giving the license. The license is predicated on two particular issues, number one, number one, the indefinite period of time, and number two, the hours of operation, making it 24 hours. Cancelling out to 24 hours could be within the purview of the Council, but to eliminate the indefiniteness, I think that needs to be reviewed.
[Robert Penta]: It's a license to extend the hours for 24 hours. It's a special permit. Permit. It's a special permit under zoning law. Excuse me, you're speaking from the chair. I'm speaking, and I'm setting the facts straight. You're not setting the facts straight, because there's two issues here. The other part of the issue is this. You're giving the special permit an additional- Special permit, not a license. You're giving them an additional privilege, and that is granting it to the licensee for an indefinite period of time. It's not a permit Councilor. It's not the same as giving the license. I mean the extended hours, the extended hours. Thank you. There are two separate issues.
[Robert Penta]: It would only be relative to the extended of hours from 11 to 7. I think what Councilor Marks is alluding to is the second part of this extended hours, it's a request to be indefinite. Councilor Abuzi, let me ask you a question. Maybe we're looking at this thing, we should be looking at this in two separate ways. Coming in and asking for the extended hours is one thing. Maybe the petition should be separate and broken down to have a second one to have it become indefinite. Yeah, well, you've been here numerous times.
[Robert Penta]: You've been here numerous times. You have never made a request to have any one of your petitioners be indefinite. This is the first time.
[Robert Penta]: No, it isn't.
[Robert Penta]: No, it isn't.
[Robert Penta]: On an annual basis, Mr. Clerk, don't they have to renew their application with you?
[Robert Penta]: So it's not going to be indefinite unless Coles, you know, they stay 50 years. Can the clerk read, can the clerk please read back with council Max, what's the inclusion going to be as the amendment?
[Robert Penta]: My only concern with that would be if in fact the city solicitor were to come back and indicate that the extended hours does not represent the same intent of making the thing indefinite or indefinite to the extended hours. I would be more amenable to going back to your resolution relative to the fact that language be included as part of this, um, that, um, this be reviewed on an annual basis as it relates to the being indefinite. First year is 90 days. Then after that, you really have nothing after the first year. So I think it would be beneficial. I mean, Councilor Bruese may not be here the next time. They may have new management folks at Coles. And there may be problems that could have taken place during the course of the year after the 90 days. I don't know, because none of us know. We can't predict the future. Once again, I'm only concerned about the license going forward. I mean, this indefinite period of time and having another petition to come before us.
[Robert Penta]: The police officer for Black Friday, I believe the police officer is for the eight days.
[Robert Penta]: Why?
[Robert Penta]: So what's your problem with having a police officer? Expense.
[Robert Penta]: It's- So you're going to guarantee from 11 at night to 7 in the morning, without having a Method police officer there, that nothing's going to take place in that storage- No, I'm not going to guarantee anything. Is that what you're saying?
[Robert Penta]: Before you do that, I believe it's important that you read the last paragraph. That's a state law necessity. Starting with?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, before.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I know this has come up in a few times during our annual budget meetings, and I know Councilor Marks has brought this up as it relates to, um, um, let's just say the school in and of itself. Okay. I got a phone call from a parent, um, as it related to, um, something that was taking place at the school over there. And then she indicated, uh, I indicated to her, Had she spoken to Mr. Volpe, who was the principal, and she says, Mr. Who? She says, there's no Mr. Volpe. He's no principal here. And I says, what are you talking about? She says, yeah, there's a new person. There's a different person with a different name. And then I come to find out, and I think we should get to the bottom of this, because this is part of our budgetary process. I understand that Mr. Prior Principal of the school is up at the high school with another job getting paid the same amount of money. And the question now becomes, when did this all take place? I believe we were told during our budgetary meetings by the superintendent that there were some concerns, they were going to be addressed, and we would be kept informed. Well, I don't think anybody, unless anybody in this council knows, that the principal has left, a new one was hired, and he's up at the high school getting the same salary with another job. I think it's things like this, you know, I think she was more amazed to think that I wasn't aware of what she was trying to tell me. So, I mean, I don't know if anyone behind here has any information, but I think it would be important, um, and informative if we got a report back. Um, and I don't know who's going to tell us this, um, why he left and why he's not the principal anymore and why he's up at the high school and who's the new principal of the Tufts Curtis school.
[Robert Penta]: I would say it would be the superintendent, because he must have done the hiring, and it would be nice to know what's the job that he has up at the high school, what's that salary, and what's the job of the lady or the man who's now the principal of the Turtus Cuff, and what's that salary? It's a confusing little story. I think amazed at me that I didn't know because I just made an assumption that he was still there as the principal.
[Robert Penta]: Roll call vote has been requested by councilor Penta. And to have it included Mr. Clerk, the name of the person who is the new principal. When was that person hired? What is the salary? And the gentleman who was the principal there, Where is he up at the high school, and what is that salary? You got it?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, we've had this discussion numerous times in the past as it relates to the unfunded liability that the city has been involved in. And nothing, there's absolutely been no discussion by the city. There's been nothing coming forward. It's bad enough we've had our discussion relative to the water and sewer account sitting on $8.5 million, and ratepayers are getting no relief. But we have over $6.5 million in our free cash account, and it would be a good beginning if we started with a $500,000 a year and just moved itself forward. You know, if this council wants to leave itself with some type of legacy as it relates to its fiscal responsibility, this would be one of them. I don't think we should be given anything by the way of the administration. Well, we're going to come in here and we're going to bond this to get ourselves going. It doesn't go that way. This city, the people in this city have been taxed to death between the state and the feds and the city and everything that's going on. But if we're sitting on this kind of money and we know we have this debt to pay, we should be upfront about it and start doing it and not leave this for any future city councils. or any future administration to come in as being a headache. We get on an annual basis a federal reimbursement from Part D. Last year, we got $335,000. We got $335,000 from Part D, which is the Medicare Part D reimbursement. We were also identified in the state retirees annual review as having an 11.3% 11.31% return for the last five years on our investments. But if you look at Malden and if you go to other cities and towns which have a higher rate of return, again, I think it's something that this council has asked for before to maybe to sit down with our retirement board and to go over the type of investments that they have and see where maybe we can streamline and make more and understand why and how other cities and towns can do better. It's not that we're doing that bad, but if somebody can do better, then we should be able to have that ability to look forward as well as that. But I think this is a serious bone of contention. I think this is something. This isn't something that maybe we can or can't do. This is something we have to do. This city is obligated to pay its unfunded liability as it relates to its pensions. It's well into the millions of dollars. This isn't the hundreds of thousands. It's well into the millions of dollars. And I think if we start nibbling away at it with $500,000 in the first year, setting the example, and each and every year going forward, as we're paying down the at-present cost on an annual basis, it'll greatly reduce the trauma, the fiscal trauma, because that's what it's going to be when the city has to financially realize they've got to pay for this thing. I believe it's 2029 is the deadline, 2030 is the deadline. And we're no closer to having this thing resolved. And each and every year, as the years go on, this keeps getting itself compounded. So, with that being said, Mr. President, I spoke to Ann Baker about this, a city auditor, and she believes it's a good — it's a good move forward. At least we're addressing the subject matter, and that's what we need to do. And let me just, once again, say we shouldn't be leaving this type of a debt for any future council. And if the administration doesn't want to address it, Shame on them. This is taking a very proactive approach going forward and recognizing this debt has to get paid. And to get it paid, knowing that we're flush in our free cash account right now, and it's been an accumulation through the years to get to $6.5 million, I don't think this is going to hurt the city's bank at all. And at the same time, we're addressing the subject matter that needs to be addressed. So that being said, Mr. President, I'd like to move that by a roll call vote to our city auditor and our finance department. and get the city on some kind of a system here that addresses this financial liability that it needs to address. Point of information.
[Robert Penta]: I believe it's in excess of $20 million the city owes. Thank you. Councilor Knight. It's unfunded pension liability.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President, as I said before, I'm going to disagree with my colleague, Councilor Knight, because the facts that he has are not representative of the cost that's presently out there. The city of Medford, for example, on a return for its money last year, received 11.96%. But you go to Northbridge, they had 15.29%. Norwood, 15.84%. Peabody had 15.34%. Pittsfield had 14.91%. Plymouth had 19.66%. And then you can go down to these other cities and towns. Weymouth had 18.2%. Winchester had 12 point. Winthrop had 14 percent. Woburn had 18 percent. And we can go down, and the question then becomes if our investments aren't meeting or keeping up with those folks, those folks who apparently are doing better than the city of Medford, why? And maybe we should be looking at taking a lesson from how they do their investments. That's number one. Number two, this is a debt obligation that we owe. And if this city is going to keep worrying about its bond rating, its bond rating has got nothing to do with paying off a debt because you show me the alternative other than taking it out of the money that you already have, other than going out to bond to want to pay for this thing, which would be the most ridiculous way to go. This city administration is paralyzing, is taking money away from Medford taxpayers that either could be used for paying debts such as this or municipal improvements. This is just two particular areas. And if you're going to keep being worried about a bond, well, what's the next big thing to get bonded around here? The police station? Well, then let's do it if that's what we're waiting for. But according to the mayor, that's a seven-year-old process. This is something that's alive and well. It's in front of your faces right now. This is a debt obligation that's owed because the city, for which has been this administration for 26 years, has never put a dime into paying or paying down on this debt obligation. And now it's in front of us. And it's real. And it has to be addressed. I'm not worried about a bond rating. I'm more concerned about if we have money sitting in the bank that can start to help to pay this debt down, then that's what we need to do. For God's sakes, you get $8.5 million in a water and sewer account, and the city administration is afraid either to lower the rates or have a program set. Those are the only two things you can do with a surplus. And he's being allowed to just get away with doing nothing and letting the money accumulate. And here you are, $6.5 million in free cash. But you also have a debt obligation that exists each and every year and continues to grow. This is not going to go away. This isn't a political issue. This is a real, live, physical debt obligation that this city owes. And with that being said, $500,000 is a drop in the bucket. It's a beginning. It's a beginning to understand that we are going to address this problem. And if we're fortunate enough to keep going and having free cash, then maybe that's the best way to just keep going. Because I don't know any other way other than going out and, again, banging the taxpayer overhead by way of a bond or some other financial encumbrance that they're going to have to pay for this. And they shouldn't have to pay for it. But when other cities and towns, other cities and towns can generate that kind of money by a rate of interest return for their last year, and we did 11 percent. We're somewhere in the middle or thereabouts. But there are other cities and towns well ahead of us with their interest returns. Then I think we need to have a — sit down with the Retirement Board and Baker and all our financial people. But that's not the point. This issue has got to be addressed. And the best way to address it, knowing right now that we're flushing at least one particular account, then let's get to it and let's start on it. And let's not worry about, oh, my God, we might go from a triple-A to a double-A bond rating because we used money that the taxpayers have that are generally theirs that's not being used for anything else. We're waiting for this administration to decide the next thing he wants to do to use the money on. And then maybe when he leaves next year or two years or whenever he decides to go or gets beaten out of office, that administration is going to have to deal with it. That city council is going to have to deal with it. And then it will affect every single thing that a budget has. But if there's a commitment that's built in now, and it represents the fact that we're addressing this debt that wasn't started by this council or councils before, it's been sitting there for years, because no city administration wanted to deal with it, now's the time to do it. All you have to do is pony up, however you want to do it. Do you want to have a meeting? I've got no problem with it. But as Councilor De La Rosa, you alluded to it, it should be addressed this term, and the first payment should begin during this legislative session that we're serving in.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, to bond 2 percent, maybe you misspoke. You said maybe we should just go out and bond for 2 percent. and that money will generate some money. Why would you be going out to bond 2% to pay? When you go out to bond, you're bonding for something. I think you misspoke. I don't understand what you said. You said you bond for 2%?
[Robert Penta]: That's not the investment that's going. If you look at how the Retirement Board invests its money, and if you read the State Investment Board Retirement Program, it's to pay for the investments that you have right now. We're talking about the unfunded liability. It doesn't make any difference what the Feds or Gatsby or anybody else says. You're going to have to—and whatever the new accounting practices might be, they still can't get you away from the fact that you owe this money. And however you owe this money, if this money is put aside in a special account to offset it, so be it. We're not putting up $6 or $7 million. We're starting at a $500,000 beginning here.
[Robert Penta]: Well, then if that's the case, then maybe we should have Maybe the meeting should be the following. A, that we have a meeting with the city's retirement board. Ann Baker, she's our auditor, and I believe she sits on the board anyway. What is the total amount of the unfunded liability? The unfunded pension liability, how much is that?
[Robert Penta]: As of today. As of today. The unfunded pension liability as of today, number one. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's Councilor Knight's opinion. As of right now, let's just see, what is the unfunded liability? How is that determined? If you want to use the Gatsby, the new federal, I don't have no idea. Let's just see, because they're the ones that have to deal with this on a daily basis. The unfunded liability, what's the due date that has to be paid out? And Committee of the Whole?
[Robert Penta]: As amended. And also further, can we get a separate report? What, if any, finances, financial remuneration does the city of Medford get out of the Medicare drug subsidy?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, we can do that.
[Robert Penta]: Eddie, you have that? Because you look like you had a little.
[Robert Penta]: Right. If we can get that information ahead of time so we can discuss it.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. Mr. President, whether it means buying the building or renting the space, something needs to be done. A few weeks ago, I was led to believe by someone who who seems to be in the know in this building, that the mayor was going to be making his decision, and he was going to be making the announcement that public access was going to take place. I haven't seen it, and it hasn't taken place. But just to go back with a reminder, Councilman Max, I think it was two budgets ago, because the money was not included in the budget, to put money in there for the arts, if you remember correctly. And I believe the resolution was a joint resolution between yourself and myself for $10,000 to be put in the budget. And then when the mayor found out about it, and it was right during the middle of an election period of time, he decided to up the ante to $20,000 or $15,000, I forget the final number, whatever it might be. Never saying a word to the council, because the council all voted on that, and I believe the council even voted to amend it to a higher dollar amount. never a thank you coming back to the council for at least enlightening him or whatever it might be, but because it was a political process or it was political benefit for him. The part that I just don't understand right now is this $303,000 sitting downstairs in the general fund of this city. That doesn't come from the city. It comes from the rate payers for Comcast and Verizon subscribers. That's their money. And they are owed public access. And that's what that money is for. Now, for how unfortunately what took place in December of 2012 till now, and there's no more Channel 3, and, you know, that's a hauntedness unto itself. There's no records. There's no books. There's no validity to what they've done. There's no minutes to the meeting. The Attorney General's Office still can't give you an answer as to what's going on. That's a shame. But that's one part. And the other part of the coin is no public access. And if April 20th is right around the corner, usually before the April 20th, I believe within six months prior to the deadline of the contract, public hearings are supposed to be taking place. And I believe the city of Medford hires this gentleman from Newton. I think they pay him $325 an hour as legal counsel and advisor to the city for cable television. And they usually have these public meetings here at City Hall. I think they're required to have one if not two public hearings before they're submitted into Boston. I just don't know. I guess I'm lost for words right now to you and everyone who might be watching. I was really hoping that the mayor was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and he was finally coming to his senses. But I don't know. I can't answer it, because it's a real shame. You know, we have an attorney general candidate from the city of Medford, Martha Coakley. She has gone to every single public access chase around the city of Medford. around the city of Medford, but not in her own hometown that she lives in. And that's a shame. Whether you're voting for or not voting for, but you can't get any closer to home, to the highest elected office statewide. And it isn't because there's no money, and it isn't because you're trying to find a place, because I don't see anybody trying to find it. It's a lack of... It's a lack of free speech being allowed. The other night in Winchester, Pat Jalen and Bob Capucci had a debate. They had to go to Winchester. And it's going to be aired back in Somerville, but the city of Medford, you know, they don't have it. And these people represent our city. Elections are just as important as anything else that goes on public access, whether it's an educational thing, whether it's a sports event, whatever it might be. And, you know, I don't know why the people, when you look at your cable bill each and every month, whatever that dollar is, or $0.98, or whatever the dollar amount might be, you're just throwing that away. Because this city administration doesn't want to seem to have cable access. And like I said, and I apologize for repeating myself, I was led to believe by someone who seems to be pretty good in the know that he was going to do it, but apparently he hasn't done it. So this is two times that this has happened. Judge Jackson, when she did her report, so five years ago, she wrote an extensive report. I think we've all read it. And then the most recent cable committee, not commission committee that the mayor had, and he indicated subsequent to Memorial Day and right after the 4th of July, he was going to make his announcement. This is now almost November 1st and there's no announcement to be made and people keep paying and keep paying and keep paying. So, um, I hear what you're saying, Jeannie, and it's just a shame that we don't have public access here in this city. You know, elections are very important. Candidates have an opportunity. They don't have any opportunity in this city. But you can be rest assured next year, Channel 15 will be proffering everything that the mayor wants to talk about during the election campaign. You know, it's kind of interesting here, and I'll just ask my colleagues about this one. Have any one of you ever tried to have your own press release and try to get a hold of Channel 15 and have them come up and give you the same forum that the mayor gets and use the same people up at the high school getting paid on city time to do a public forum? Try it and see if it works. Try to get an informational piece on the city's webpage and see what happens. It doesn't happen and it doesn't exist. So this freedom of expression and freedom of what goes on as public officials here in the city is only designed for one person because that person's in control of it. And it's very unfortunate. And I would hope people would wake up and realize that, you know, at the rate we're going and if you keep paying for it, And this is a very scary thought, and I'll conclude by saying the following. I could be corrected, but I think I found this out information today that's correct. The mayor does not have to allow public access by right of contract if he so chooses not to renew. The big question then becomes who and what takes that $300,000 or $500,000 or $400,000, whatever the dollar amount is going to be then. It's going to be a damn shame if that money winds up into the general coffers and never been used for public access, and nobody ever had an opportunity to understand why or how, because nobody spec'd up and nobody challenged it. That's an issue right now, I believe, in a surrounding city and town that's in a legal contest, and if that be the case, you know, we better watch out and better be prepared for it. So, with that being said, I thank you for making your remarks, and whether we buy the building, rent the building, or what have you, Gene, or anyone who might be watching, You know, public access does not exist in the city of Medford. It's not alive and well, and you can thank the mayor of this community because he's not allowing it.
[Robert Penta]: I don't think we should receive this and place it on file. I think this should be forwarded. That's the only motion right now. Who made that motion? Councilor Dello Russo. Well, I will amend the motion to not be received and placed on file, and have this forwarded to the Mayor, and to have him make an answer. Do you intend to, and when do you intend to have public access up and running in the city of Medford? It's as simple as that. Well, let's just do it again. You know something? And the more he doesn't respond, it just shows his arrogance and, as Councilor Marks has alluded to, his dictatorial attitude toward everything that's going on. He's got no right. He has absolutely no right to sit on $303,000 and not explain to the taxpayers what he's trying to do.
[Robert Penta]: Does he plan on having a- When does he intend, where, and when does he intend to have public access up and running in the city of Medford?
[Robert Penta]: Ms. Stein? You represent the unfortunate part of what happens in society. Some people don't get involved until it happens to them. And unfortunately, it's with you and your dad. But this is a huge issue. And I'm glad you brought it up. And I agree with Councilor Lungo-Curran. These kids go to school, and they're not worried about who's pulling out of a driveway or who might be coming down the street at a record speed. But if you thought of going to the State Department of Public Safety, and they have a belief It's kiddie grants. I could be wrong with the name, but I think it's something like that. And they promote, through financial aid, having somebody maybe even come up to the school and go through sample demonstrations as what to look out for. You know, you can talk to the kid or the children, but if you demonstrate it right in front of them, you know, it's live and it's real. And, you know, and I think that could possibly, you know, it's just another avenue to get more exposure, but at the same time, increase the liability that you don't really want to have anyone else go through such as yourself, unfortunately. But it did happen, and I'm glad you're doing what you're doing, and you should be complimented. But to keep this thing going, and keep it alive, and making a presentation. I would suggest that you go before the school committee too, and make the same suggestion to them. because they have the onus responsibility of making sure those kids get to school correctly.
[Robert Penta]: And this is one of their obligations and their way of representing you, the taxpayers and the children of this community. So I think you have two viable options to go to, to make your case here and at the same time get some more help.
[Robert Penta]: The State Department of Public Safety.
[Robert Penta]: What did you say? Councilor Penta. Jeannie, can you ask that question again?
[Robert Penta]: So that was your question?
[Robert Penta]: From the way I understand it, in reading the addendums that we were given last week, there's anywhere from 2,500 to 2,600 stickers that have already been issued. And I don't think they've been reissued as of July 1 of this year. That's a question, I believe, that needs to be answered because nobody's got the answer for that. I think she's talking resident permit parking.
[Robert Penta]: but there's two parts of that permit parking. One is residential, one is commercial. So I just didn't know.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I can appreciate both Councilor Marks and Councilor Dello Russo and their issues, but once we take paper 14-701 off the table, and talking about the contract, which we were given last week. Unfortunately, you weren't here. You were sick. I think we can get into, I think we can get into what you're talking about because there's a way to have this not only explained, but there's some issues in here that I don't believe that the council is aware of. And so I'm glad we did get the contract and after reviewing it, there's some issues we'd like to talk. Are we still on the suspension?
[Robert Penta]: And which paper, Councilman? It's 14701. It was tabled last week.
[Robert Penta]: To take it off the table.
[Robert Penta]: Aye.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, last week we were received because the council had asked for a copy of the contract. We were given a, a disc copy, which talked about the five addendums to the contract. Then we were given the hard copy contract. Um, and I read the contract twice and then I went back and I read what was given to us on September 10th twice. And there's only, One, one, two. There's only five words that made a change in the whole contract, under the whole proposal. And it comes under the procurement of meters, equipment, and vehicles. And at the very end, it basically says the cost of the vehicles and the required accessories, x, x, x, x, x. That was in the September 9th. In the October 7th, the cost of the vehicles is going to be provided by the operator. That's the only change in language that we have from September 9th through October 7th and what we got. We were also told and we were given, we did receive as public information provided by the mayor himself that he sent out a press release on October 7th indicating that he had signed it. And there was one, two, three, four, there were four inclusions in that recommendation page. where he indicates after deliberating and discussing concerns raised by the business community, the mayor is recommending the following changes to the plan. And the four issues that were raised are nowhere, nowhere to be found in the contract, no by reference or otherwise. So the contract proposal as preliminary on September 10th and the final one that was signed by the mayor on October 7th does not have those recommendations that he supposedly put in his public press release that, you know, again, it gives a false representation as to what's going on. Also, Mr. President, we got in this disk there — strike that. Let's just go to the contract first. In the contract, there is some representation — and I don't know how this got by anybody — but there's some representation that says, this contract includes, but is not limited to, the 987 metered spaces that exist at the commencement of this agreement. There is no metered spaces in the city of Medford right now. So how do they determine 987 metered spots? I have absolutely no idea. And I think that needs to be explained further. Also, as you continue on, it should go to, I think, under the rent, under the section rent in the contract, it says years eight, nine, and 10. provided the city exercises its option to extend the agreement, as stated herein, operators shall continue to pay the city the guaranteed rent in continuation of paragraph 1A, which is the contract. So if you're looking and you're reading this, is this a seven-year contract or is this a 10-year contract? Because 8, 9, and 10 are option years. And as we all know, under option years, under the law, the city's procurement officer has to demonstrate by giving to the council a comparison of not only the figures that we presently have, but the difference between they doing it, X, or the city of Medford doing it. That is not explained in here, other than the fact that eight, nine, and 10 appears to be option-type years. So the question is, is this a seven-year contract, or is it a 10-year contract? I don't know. These are questions. Also, the contract, as you continue on, has some questions as it relates to, once again, liability regarding certain issues. And the liability questions that present itself, I think, directly go to what Councilman Knox was alluding to in the issues of handicapped accessibility, who's going to be responsible, and the placing and the locations of the handicapped accessibility. Also, I believe, as Councilor De La Ruza just alluded to, I don't think it's the responsibility of this council to explain anything to anybody. This is the mayor's proposal.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I apologize. I misunderstood. Thank you. I thank you. I thought you had.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. That's in the contract. I think if you go now to the addendums that were given to us in the video of last week, this is very, very telling. If you go to addendum number, let's do them one at a time. From addendum number three, question is the following. If the city, wait a minute, excuse me. The question is, how many residential permits are issued annually and what is the cost per permit? First answer is between 25 to 2,600. 1,000 is a huge difference. If it was 15, 20, or 100, I think that could be understandable. How could you have 1,000 and a discrepancy such as that, unless the figures haven't been calculated to be more accurate? I don't know. Also, the real big question, and this was one, Jeanne Mutton, This was one that was brought up at the meeting over and over again. Okay, and it says the following. Will all existing parking signage need to be replaced or will existing parking signage be permitted to remain? The city's answer, existing signage will be permitted to remain. It is in good condition and reflects all the information necessary for notice of parking restrictions. Now, show me a parking, identification that even talks about kiosks, nevermind the meters, that's existing. We don't have it because they don't exist. And I don't understand how the city can go forward and make that kind of a thing. It reflects all the information necessary for notice of parking restrictions. I just don't understand that. Then you go a little bit step further when from addendum number two, It says, who is responsible for the upkeep of the municipal lots including sweeping, cleaning, snow plowing, pothole, maintenance, lighting, and re-striping if necessary? City's answer, the city will continue to maintain the municipal lots. My question is this, when it snows, and we've seen it on numerous occasions, and some of those sidewalks are inundated with mounds and mounds of snow, is the city going to be responsible to go out there and shovel out the kiosks? Are you going to tell the business people that you've got to go out and shovel out the kiosks? I don't understand why nobody had the idea to think into this and to get to that point, because that is going to be an issue. When there's a serious snowstorm in this city, it's bad enough that the city has to go out there with their plows and do what's necessary to make sure that the streets are open for public safety. But when you're dealing with kiosks throughout the city, and you have almost 1,700, 1,800 of these that are going to represent parking spaces for, I don't know, how many kiosks that they're going to have, who's going to be responsible? City?
[Robert Penta]: I didn't finish, you know, let me finish.
[Robert Penta]: No, the 1,700 spots for which 85, allegedly 85 to 89 kiosks are going to be managing those 85, those 85 kiosks will be managing the 1,700 or 1,800 spots. Get it? On the street? Yes.
[Robert Penta]: Well, then you know something, the numbers, there's something wrong with these numbers then.
[Robert Penta]: Well, we were asked to review this council Dello Russo last week, and that's what I did. The next question is, does the city have any other studies that provide projected revenues for paid parking? And if so, the city, please provide the studies. And the answer is the city does not have any other studies. This council asked to have its own independent study and all we were told It would be more expensive than that, because we got that as part of, quote, a confidential piece of paper that we weren't supposed to disclose to anyone that had nothing that verified that the facts that they were presenting were right. Also, in the RFP that went out, the question was asked of them if, in fact, they would submit or produce two references And two references that were the closest to the city of Medford for which this company, this company, Republic from Tennessee worked for. And that's no way that I don't know where it is. It may be in city hall someplace, but it would have been nice for the council to have had that as backup to the fact that if mayor thinks this is such a great company and it's just a wonderful job, these are the two backups that were asked for and that were acknowledged. Also, I think that what needs to needs to be understood is Last week we were also told, strike that, two weeks we were also told when the President of the Chamber of Commerce were here that the Chamber, Government Affairs Committee, and the Chamber's Board of Directors presented to the Mayor that they were in favor of this pay-to-park program. The letter dated September 26, 2014, by the President, Mr. White, in a four-page, five-page, I mean, five-paragraph, doesn't indicate that at all. It indicates of their interest in it, but it indicates very clearly. We also recognize that from business center to business center, our members have different parking needs and varying concerns with the enforcement plan. We would like to provide a forum for our members to voice their concerns. It is important that the chamber be involved with any additional planning or public meetings in distributing such information so that we can serve our members appropriately. That letter is not an endorsement of a pay-to-park program.
[Robert Penta]: My answer to that is the letter that was sent to the administration by Mr. White, Mr. Call, and Janet Donnelly never was presented to the entire membership. And this was presented on September 26th. So, as Mr. White indicated when he was at that forum, that the Government Affairs Committee and the Board of Directors endorsed the pay-to-park program. The pay-to-park program wasn't even signed. So that's number one. Number two, it's quite obvious that this coincides to the commentary that was represented in the Medford transcript that the business community and the business squares are concerned and they have varying indifference of opinions. Now, you can agree or disagree with what's going on because the commentary subsequent to that, which was issued on October 7th by the mayor of this community, says he met with the chamber, and they agreed, and they come up with these four recommendations. These aren't four inclusions in the contract. These are only recommendations. And if they're only recommendations, and they're not going to be effective, because the council, strike that, because the contract in and of itself says, that's it. This is the final terminology. I don't know how a recommendation can come into play, number one. And number two, if it's not included in the contract, and not even incorporated by reference, that's number one. It doesn't even talk about how many people even bid for the contract. Speaking with folks who are professional in public bidding contracts here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we were led to believe in our executive session on May 20th that we had to choose this one particular individual, because that's what the mayor was recommending at the time. But we had three legitimate people. who had submitted to the RFP. We never got those figures from the three people in their bidding process to make an intelligent decision to make the final decision or make the decision who we're going to take.
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to respectfully disagree with my colleagues because the meeting did take place with the fact that we were going to be informed as to where we were going on the RFP. Uh, Ms. Louise Miller was there and unfortunately she didn't have an opportunity to speak why they didn't let her speak. But there were three people who submitted bids. The mayor decided to choose only one. The mayor's request to the council was at that point in time, do we go forward with this one? I needed your opinion on that. So none of us had any of an opportunity. any opportunity to even understand who the other two people were if they were legitimate because they satisfied the RFP that the city sent out. You know, if this is going to be an open and transparent process, and we're supposed to get the biggest bang for our buck, who knows that maybe one of the other two that wasn't chosen or didn't submit couldn't have given a better deal, or at least offered something for some of us to say, well, wait a minute, let's take a comparison. That for which we never even had the opportunity, didn't even have the opportunity, to getting one from the city. You know, how do you turn around and hand someone on October 7th to the council, the contract that was signed, have a press release go out that day, which is exactly the same thing that was given to us on September 10th, minusing out five words, but identifies allegedly metered spots in the city that we have. There is not one metered spot in the city of Medford. And that would be crucial to this contract, because if it's a meted spot, it needs to be identified. And having no meted spots to be identified tells me, or at least reads it, I'm not the lawyer, we have lawyers on the council here, that basically would tell you if it's an unidentifiable location as stated in here to be identified, Well, that presents a difference of opinion as to what are we signing in for and what are we getting. But more importantly, the fact of kiosks, snow, responsibility. Is it 987? Is it 2,600 or 2,500 permanent parking stickers? How many actually is it going to be? Who's going to maintain the parking lot? For example, the parking lot up on Boston Avenue. 90% of that parking lot, even though the city has its signs, is privately owned. So what are they going to do with that? Put kiosks on somebody's privately-owned property? I got calls this week from folks who want to know, who are business people, and I won't mention their names, who's exempt and who isn't exempt, because there are a lot of commercial pieces of property in this city that people are going to want to know. Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?
[Robert Penta]: But to get them meted, they need to be identified. This contract says they are already identified. They're not identified. We do not have one metered spot here in the city of Medford.
[Robert Penta]: Then maybe the terminology should have been changed. Instead of metered spots, identified spots, identifiable spots as city of Medford spots. You know, contracts are usually very specific. And it's going to be very specific because they're going to be basing their money and their profit on a lot of the specifics that are in this contract. And with that being said, Mr. President, I just really think that, especially with that press release that went out by the mail last week, I mean, none of us can answer the question because, you know, it can't be fact if it can't be found in the contract. And even by reference, anything subsequent to that could be written. Sure, it does say in here that the traffic commission will be the group of individuals who's going to set the fees and do whatever it has to do. and that the city administration basically is going to be the reviewing authority for appeals, and they're not going to do that. And it talks about trying to employ 50% Medford people to be part of the program and blah, blah, blah, and all of that. But there were certain specifics in here that are just left out there, you know? And maybe it would have been nice if we got all of this information before anything was signed so we could have a full-blown discussion, and taxpayers and ratepayers and business folks throughout the entire community would have had an opportunity. You know, this has been hanging around since 2009, Mr. President. This was a quick rush from September 9th to October 7th. And that's kind of like, you really question, what was the quick rush since you've been waiting five years to discuss this? Even if it took another four or five or six months, who cares? Eventually, we know it's going to come. Because this council asked for traffic enforcement, not revenue enhancement, traffic enforcement. And there is a big difference.
[Robert Penta]: Just a response back to Councilor Langel-Curran. You know, we never engaged in a revenue enhancement program to find out just how much money that could bring in. And now once folks out-of-towners realize that they're not going to be able to stay here and park here all day long, that money that you think you would be getting and generating from those folks, that's not going to exist because they're not going to come here anymore. So you're basically dealing with your in-town and maybe every now and then out-of-town. But when you think of what's going on, your water bill, It just goes up. Your food tax, your gasoline tax. And now, this past week, if you all read the newspapers and understood that the electric company will be raising your electric rates 37% this winter for heat, for whatever that's going on. How much more can you keep banging away and telling the taxpayer, you gotta pay for more and more and more? If we had a very simple program that recognized, let's start off slow. Let's start with an enforcement program. I don't think, let me just cut this. I don't think anybody would argue the fact that if you want to put meters a kiosk and parking lots, that isn't it. It's the on street parking. And that's the issue that's presenting itself. And because of that, You have to realize all these other taxes and these fees that people are paying, it's just going to end. It's almost like looking at some of the questions that are on the ballot. You know, they want to force you into a forced deposit on certain bottles, and every five years it'll just go up automatically. I mean, how much are you going to keep telling the people you're going to have to pay for something with no question? Same thing with the gas tax. You're not going to be able to question it because it's just going to be automatic. People have a right to discuss these issues and to know how they have been determined. That's why we're the legislative body here. And that's why we have, and we should have had that right to make the vote, not the vote that was okay in May to make the mayor go out and negotiate, but the council should have had that final vote to say whether we're on board or not on board. That's where the mayor, I believe you served his authority, went forward and he took that May 20th vote as for him to go forward and do that. And that was not my intention for vote. And it was as clear as a bell. If you watch them, the minutes of the meeting of May 20th and as recorded in the minutes as well.
[Robert Penta]: On the trash contract, Mr. President, with due respect, the trash contract can be signed by the executive authority. You didn't need the legislative body for that. It's one of the very rare contracts that can be signed like that.
[Robert Penta]: Let her go first.
[Robert Penta]: A few other comments. First of all, Councilor Knight, you just alluded to the fact that maybe having meetings in these separate district areas, I mean, the council asked for that, and again, plan's going to be unveiled. I understand the info session, but it's all after the fact. It would have been nice to have it ahead of time. And Councilman Ox, you alluded to the fact that the mayor gave his state of the art speech or whatever. Sponsored by the chamber, correct? Was the chamber, Ricks? I was not at that meeting. But it was the chamber's meeting, correct? It's an annual meeting. The annual meeting that the chamber had.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Caraviello was asked a question. Vice President.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I guess what appears to be now really preposterous. I never thought of it until you just said it. The chamber, who allegedly had so much input into this thing, didn't even get an ounce of recognition for being part and parcel of a new program that was going to be taking place. I guarantee you there wasn't even a mention about the Craddock Bridge.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I guarantee you, because from people that were there, there was no mention of the Craddock Bridge. I wasn't there.
[Robert Penta]: You know, that's the sad part about it. If we're going to be talking about businesses in this city and how they're going to be affected and and the people that are supposed to be representing them, and the leaders of those businesses, and nothing takes place that said, where are we going with all of this? You can have all the meetings you want. You can tell the mayor to do this and that. He signed it. This is the mayor's plan, lock, stock, and barrel. Whether the council agreed in part or in total or 100 or 90, that's not the point. This all started off as a small little revenue, strike that, a small little enforcement, an enforcement appetite to possibly get the people back on track. Possibly, and I think it was you, Councilor Camuso, who asked the question, maybe the people coming and parking on Placeda Road from Winchester, can we charge out-of-towners more than can we charge in-towners? And we waited to get an answer on that, and that would have been a great help if we could do it. No, but that would be a great help if we could do it with a great disparity in the cost. Maybe charge someone $500, $600 to park in Medford, rather than a Medford resident parking even the $100, and that's a bargain, too. So you can go to all these little side streets and talk to the people. They'll tell you. They have all these cars parked in there. They see people go and take the train. Who goes and takes the bus? If you don't have resident parking, it's still not going to work, because people are going to be still parking in those particular neighborhoods. The mayor can send out all the press releases he wants. Contractor doesn't have it. Kiosks, what's your issues and concerns?
[Robert Penta]: I'm going to put my resolve on there too, my commentaries. Number one, I want to know who's going to be responsible for the kiosk during snowstorm. Well, we might as well go through them. If we're going to make these all amendments. Are you making amendments?
[Robert Penta]: The contract and the amendments that were given to us in addition. Rather than one question at a time. Addendums, not amendments. Addendums. There is a difference.
[Robert Penta]: All in favour? Wait a minute. One last thing. One last thing. If we're not referring all of that, then we refer the mayor's press release, which he identifies four specific issues that are not found in the contract. How are they found in the contract? How does he intend to implement these in the contract?
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. This is going to be part of it.
[Robert Penta]: No, no. You're going to be sending him the request for the Committee of the Whole. And also- No, no, no.
[Robert Penta]: But on the motion to also include the mayor's October 7 press release, where he identifies four specifics recommendations. Have him explain how this is part of the contract. We will do that at the Committee of the Whole. No, but he has to have the paper so he knows.
[Robert Penta]: Well, we'll give you a copy.
[Robert Penta]: That's OK. You have a lot of questions into this resolution. So let's do the first one first, OK? The council resolution that's here right now is regarding salaries to be paid in part from the water and sewer account. And this is allowed by law to do. Now the part that I'll agree with you is that we're presently sitting on $8.4 million as a surplus in the water and sewer account. that the mayor does not want to give back our program for any construction projects because it hasn't come before us.
[Robert Penta]: On the motion. Let's go back to the motion. The reason why this paper is laid on the table so long is because of the vote that took place by the council regarding the $600,000 that the council voted to take out of the budget this year, and we wanted a report back from the mayor as to how he was gonna offset the $600,000 in the budget. Council voted unanimously to lay the paper on the table till we got that answer. We still haven't gotten that answer. So I'm gonna move that the paper lay on the table till we get that answer.
[Robert Penta]: It's kind of ironic when the council can vote seven to nothing waiting for a response to come back from the mayor and you don't get it back. And this goes back to when we voted for this in June. This is now October and that's number one. And number two, you're taking the money out of that account for which, what happened to the $600,000? Are we going to get a request to make all kinds of transfers from one account to another? Are we going to have like $600,000 automatically going to come from the water and sewer account to balance the budget again? I think this is wrong. If the council is going to take votes, you should stick to your votes. You voted seven to nothing, every single one behind this rail to get a report back.
[Robert Penta]: So with that being said, why did you vote before in June? 7 to nothing to lay it on the table to get a report backwards to it.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I think, I think you should go back and check it out. What date was it? Can you tell me? Whenever we voted in June. Whenever we voted in June. Okay.
[Robert Penta]: That meeting, TR ratification is for the purposes of the new tiered system that the city is engaged on and the water rate increases as it's built into the system. Now getting to your point, did you just say you were a landlord?
[Robert Penta]: Is it a two family house?
[Robert Penta]: Okay. You should be getting at least six bills a year from the city. And if you're getting six bills a year, and if you're only paying $1,600, not only, you're paying $1,600. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. If you're paying $1,600, and they're attaching that to your, you said they're attaching that to your real estate bill?
[Robert Penta]: So are you saying that the very last water bill you got was for $1,600, or is this an accumulation? Accumulation. Oh, it's an accumulation.
[Robert Penta]: She's about to go to college. And what about your tenant? Two. Two, OK. So what's going to happen is, I don't know if you'll get your particular resolution resolved, You'd be better going to the Water and Soil Commission meeting. They meet in the afternoon once a month, and just explain to them that if you have a problem paying your bill because it's too much, you can go into a payment agreement downstairs in the Treasurer-Collector's office, and they will be able to do that. But if you just keep going and not paying for your bill, they will put that attachment on there.
[Robert Penta]: Pardon me?
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's the mayor. This is the mayor's proposal, not the council. This is the mayor raising the rates. part of the new DPW yard.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute, slow down. That is not true. We have nothing in front of us that says that.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, but we don't have it.
[Robert Penta]: Listen, all I know is in that night, seven members of council agreed, because you laid the paper on the table. How do you lay the paper on the table without taking a vote? The ayes have it. Continue.
[Robert Penta]: One quick thing to get back to what Councilor Marks was alluding to. With this new, where's Marie, is she still here? You're still here? With this new tiered rate system that you should have gotten in your last bill, it was very hard, it wasn't even addressed, it didn't have the right time or the date, it wasn't stamped, and it gave zero to 800, 800 to 1,600, and 1,600. Those were the three tiered sections. Councilor Marks alluded to it, getting after those people who use the most amount of water, they would be paying more. Unfortunately, the way the Water and Soil Commission has set this up, the people who use the most amount of water, which would be commercial, in the commercial section, they're going to be paying one stationary rate. That's the middle rate of the tiered rate system. So if you own a home, as you do, and you use more than 1,650 cubic feet of your house altogether uses more, you're going to be paying at a higher rate than someone who uses a lot more water. And these are some of the questions that need to get addressed and discussed at the commission coming up, because it's a little bit unfair. I mean, they're saying you average it out. If you have one person living on the first floor, and five people living on the second, and three people living on the third, they're telling you to get the number, average it out, and divide it by three. And that's what everybody should be paying. It doesn't work that way. And that's what we need to address. I think they probably came out with this a little bit too early. It should have been discussed a little more. But these are some of the questions that need to get resolved. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: To send it to the
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. This has an impact. She's giving her opinion as it relates to the question. On a ballot question. On a ballot question. That's OK. There's nothing wrong with that. But I'm a citizen. This council voted seven to nothing on three separate occasions.
[Robert Penta]: She can discuss the ballot question if she wants.
[Robert Penta]: Speak about casinos.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Today I was at a conference down in Plymouth, and this was one of the concerns that were brought up. And so we won't get into the subject matter of each ballot question other than the fact that people have a huge responsibility to vote. And by having this responsibility to vote, Councilwoman, if you don't mind, this ballot question has gone out to each and every person in this community. They should read it, make their own decisions, There are a lot of constitutional offices up for grabs. You can't complain about something wrong with government if you don't pick yourself up and get involved and go and vote. And that's the bottom line. You can't say it any other way. I don't think the council's here. Maybe individually a councilor can express their own opinion off the record. Not at a council meeting, that's one thing. But more importantly, the fact of the matter is that you can go and vote. These questions are there to be asked. There are candidates running for office. And they have to be taking positions when they're asked. who are running have to be asked. But the underlying theme to this whole commentary is basically this. Don't complain if you're not going to be involved by voting or actively participating in some shape, mean, or form, whether it be in a discussion, supporting a candidate, not supporting a candidate, supporting an issue, not supporting an issue. Because that's what government's all about. And that's the problem with this country is right now. The apathy that's out there, the complacency that's out there, it's terrible. And unless people start to relook and think that this country can find itself again, you're not going to do it unless you go out and vote. And that's the bottom line. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Present.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Pentec. Well, this is very unusual to have at a Medford City Council meeting, three acknowledgments in a row. This is like a triple play. This is all good news. And what's going on in the world, in the city, in the town, in the states today, it's nice to have recognition for folks who really deserve it. We all know Fred. If you don't know Fred, former member of our Medford School Committee, family man. But as the executive director of the MWRA, he's the guy, unfortunately, that when you get your water bill, you think it's kind of high. It's not from him. He only sells it to us wholesale. So it's what the city charges after the fact. The award that Fred received is kind of like unique. He received it from a company called ABC. And they're an independent membership-based organization here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And what they do is they advance significant transportation development and environmental policies. And Fred, for many years, as you know, or if you don't know, has been the executive director of the MWRA. And by being there, he has brought forward many innovative and environmental-friendly management techniques as well as work techniques that have just really advanced the MWRA to be a very sophisticated, technological, and water-environmental friendly organization. That's basically what the award was that Fred received because of his environmental participation. And as a result of that, and knowing that his wife Donna is in the audience tonight, and once again, a teacher and a supporter of Mr. Petralas, It's just a family ongoing thing. Um, their community driven spirit is here in the city of Medford. And I think it's great that we're acknowledging three method individuals tonight. Now it's Fred Lasky's turn. And I would just like to say thank you to Mr. Lasky, uh, for doing the job, um, that a lot of people probably would not want to have, but at the same time being recognized for it. Um, because this award, uh, is a very prestigious award. It's only in its fourth year of operation. And Fred is the fourth person to get this environmental award. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'd like to forward the commendation to Mr. Lasky. And if he wishes, he could come before the council at a future date to receive it. But I didn't want any more time to go by without the acknowledgement being recognized.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. As an aside to that, we have asked for, on numerous occasions, I report back from the administration on waste management's cost analysis with the city as it relates to not only the trash refuse, but also to the recycling. And we have never gotten that. And like we did last year, unfortunately, at the end of the year, we were hit with an expensive bill of $159,000 to offset supposedly the net of not having enough refuse, not enough recycling to meet the contract of its needs. So again, this is the fourth, maybe fifth time We're asking for that breakdown, Mr. President. I believe the way we used to get it before was broken down over the 10-year length of the contract, what was anticipated, what had been spent from prior years as compared to the one coming in. So I think that would be helpful to the resolution that's before us.
[Robert Penta]: So right now you're just operating off the temporary. And once this goes in, it'll be.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Bender. Councilor Del Russo, that's absurd. You're not going to vote for something tonight and then refer it back and possibly get a different opinion. All our common vigil licenses we have voted for in the past, Mr. Clark, have been by regular mail. They haven't been by certified mail. Why would Coles be any different than any other common vigil license? Extended hours. Yeah. Why would that be it?
[Robert Penta]: The clerk, the clerk.
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification, Mr. Clark, solicitor. To the best of your knowledge, is the repair shops the only one by statute that requires certified mail?
[Robert Penta]: So it would seem that whether the practice was right or wrong in the past, if this be the case now, and this is the state statute, and we don't have anything to challenge this, this is what the law is. It's clearly what the law is. By regular mail. Yes. So we don't need any meeting, Councilor De La to try to figure this out. I think it's quite obvious.
[Robert Penta]: who this is going to apply to.
[Robert Penta]: The post office will give you a receipt and stamp it. And if you're signing up 286 and it's off on the city of Bedford, they'll time it, they'll date it, and they'll stamp it.
[Robert Penta]: bicycle enthusiasts out there. We all know we've seen a great influx of bicyclists in our community, as a matter of fact, in the whole Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And if anybody read Sunday's newspaper in the Boston Globe, they had printed a story about bike fatalities in the greater Boston suburbs and how they've increased from 2010, 11, and 12. Unfortunately, some people died. And apparently, that's unfortunate. It's an issue right now, I think, that needs to be dealt with as it relates to the public safety portion of it. The popularity of biking is greatly soared. And state policy, Mass. Department of Transportation, and local communities, like Somerville, who's basically one of the communities, like Boston, that's in the forefront of having bicycle-friendly roadways and amenities that would be complementary to them. But the concern, as it relates to where we're going with all these bicycle and bicycle paths in communities such as Medford, which has a bicycle commission, just how much of an input, and more importantly, how much of a control do we have? Out of the 557 schools in the Commonwealth signed up on the state DOT program. Only 17 of them are actually implementing bicycle safety programs that at least meet the minimal standards that Mass. Department of Transportation is asking for. The confusion that's taking place on the roadway, especially for people who are driving cars as compared to when they look at a cyclist, is that, you know, who in fact has the right of way? Who's got the rules of the road? who's supposed to follow what, when, and how. And the educational process, once again, really should fall on local communities, because if local communities are going to start with having bicycle-friendly streets and providing certain roadways or pathways or whatever the terminology might be that you would want to have for bicyclists, an educational process needs to take place. And if it doesn't take place, There's a concern. There's a concern to the bicyclist, the person driving the bike, riding the bike, and the person driving the car. And because of that, you know, this prompted me to turn around and think about, you know, it's great. It's a great form of exercise medically. We all know that riding a bike is great. But we also know that there's a concern that's predicating some of these safety issues. And one of the concerns seems to be the speed of some of the cyclist when they're riding their bikes. And the other one, going through stop signs and driving through crosswalks. And they seem to be the three major concerns of the cities and towns that I reviewed in the Mass State Department of Transportation's concerns, since they've now started to inventory bicycle accidents. But Boston thus far has yet to do an inventory of bicycle accidents. Bicycles, again, according to Section 11B of Chapter 85, bicycles shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the Commonwealth and special regulations as found in the particular section. And the section that I want to get into is the bike in and of itself in hours after dark, before dusk and after dark. The operator, this is what the law says, that the operator shall display To the front of the bicycle, a lamp emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet. In the rear of the bicycle, a light emanating — a red light emanating for not less than 600 feet. Now, if you can imagine what it's like driving a car at nighttime and looking out 600 feet and looking at a little dinky red light, good luck to you, because a lot of the times they don't exist. And a lot of the folks that are driving these bikes don't even have these lights on. So now we get into initial call enforcement, and where the police department, another part of their job, but bikes are having their way on the roadways, and rightfully so. And they deserve to be protected just as much as the person driving the car. And they also talk about having on the ankles some type of reflective material. And once I saw this thing about the reflective material, that's the thing that got to me. I would like to propose, and hopefully my colleagues will be supportive, and also I had a conversation with Bruce Kulick, who happens to be the chairman of the Bicycle Commission, and I think we're on the same page on this one, that the drivers of a bicycle at nighttime wear some type of a jacket or whatever it might be of a reflective type of material. How many times have you driven down the street at nighttime and you see someone with dark clothes on in a crosswalk and you might miss them? How many times do you see a bike driving down the street at dusk and even late at night and have absolutely nothing on that would identify them as a person on a bike by way of color, reflection, or what have you. There is no state law out there right now that makes it a mandatory requirement for the purposes of a male or female driving a bicycle having a reflector jacket type of garment on them. This is going to be taking up the same type of fuel. It's going to be building up momentum, because as we know, the law that's out there, trying to be out there, that you can't text and drive at the same time, because we know the consequences that can happen by way of accidents. Well, the same thing is going to be happening with these bicyclists, because we know that they're becoming more and more of them out there. Each and every community, including Medford, have more and more bicyclists. And bicycle folks are going to drive whether they come from Medford or out of town or what have you. But there has to be some mode of protection and identification that is protective to these folks that are driving a bike. And again, there is nothing in the state law that really goes out of its way that basically says, other than some little, and I'll call it stupid thing you put on your ankle, that who the hell is going to see a reflector thing 600 feet away, as compared to maybe having a reflector type jacket. that identifies itself, green, yellow, orange, whatever it might be. It may not be the most social-looking piece of garment you'd want to wear, but if it's going to protect and save your life, you know, it does the thing. So, with that being said, Mr. President, and I don't know if there's anybody here from the Bicycle Commission who would like to speak on it or what have you, but I would appreciate not only their comments, but more importantly, their support for this because Again, reviewing the accidents as they have been presented and looking at the statistics, and I believe the statistics are going up, they're not going down, on bicycle accidents and, unfortunately, people dying from bicycle accidents, and I believe every single one of them have not been identified with anything at nighttime that would be reflective type of material that would present a safety condition for the person riding the bike.
[Robert Penta]: I am proposing the same way the state legislature has these amendments that have been forthcoming and the law has amended that we again amend the law that makes a requirement statewide for any person riding a bicycle from dawn to dusk that they have to wear some type of reflective type of material easily identifiable by a headlight and an oncoming car or a car behind you or whatever.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about wearing a jacket, something that could be seen and highly visible. If you ever get behind a car 600 feet, and try to find that little reflector on the pedal, or on their foot, or the little red light behind a bike that 90% of the time doesn't work, and they run by battery. Or you see a little white headlight that's 500 feet away on a bike that doesn't cut the mustard when a car is driving down the street, or even if a truck is driving down the street. I mean, it's, it's.
[Robert Penta]: Amend it.
[Robert Penta]: To a vest. Or a garment type of material, vest, jacket, or what have you.
[Robert Penta]: This is directed toward people who drive a bike. And I believe the cyclists that drive a bike have to wear a helmet. Isn't that required by law too?
[Robert Penta]: OK. If somebody decides from dawn to dusk they want to drive a bike on a sidewalk or a street, the requirement's going to be the same because you're riding a bike. And according to Chapter 85, Section, I think it's 10 and 11, there are certain requirements that you have to follow the same rules of the road. And the only exception to the rules of the road, I believe, if you're going, exiting, or entering on a highway and anything else that might be specifically excluded by state statute. So I think we're all on the same page. I think so too. And the more, I think the more support we get for it, you know, and explaining it, I think it, you know, it bears fruit. This isn't like wearing a heavy jacket and the winter time. It's just, you know, it's something.
[Robert Penta]: One quick thing, and I brought up an issue, there's 557 schools at the present time that are supposed to be, that are allegedly participants in the Department of Transportation public safety program for schools. And only 17 of these communities have jumped on board. Is Method one of the 17 or not? Are you aware of?
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, right.
[Robert Penta]: But see, that's the issue. Signing up as compared to having the program implemented, that's the issue.
[Robert Penta]: So right now the Roberts was on the book, but we haven't implemented the program yet.
[Robert Penta]: Okay, thank you.
[Robert Penta]: President, since last Tuesday night until now, I think we've all, I'll speak for myself. I received a considerable amount of phone calls from not only Method business folks on two particular issues, this and the raising and the water rates. But we'll stick to this issue right now. And the unfortunate part about it is what we heard last Tuesday night, part of the issue is not whether you're now for it or against it. The issue now revolves itself around the fact that the mayor had made a promise that he was going to have a public hearing on this particular matter. um, resolution 14, six 45, which was offered by myself and subsequently amended by council Lungo passed. Uh, and that was some two weeks ago, I think it was in September 23rd and asking the mayor to have a public meeting and a hearing throughout this community, whether it be here at city hall or wherever, wherever it's so big that citizens and, and, um, business folks would have an opportunity to come and express their opinion, whether they were forward against it or more importantly, as to what the mayor's proposal was. And I think after we knew last Tuesday night coming into our council meeting that at five o'clock the mayor had sent out a press release indicating that he had signed the contract, I think that sort of like took us all off guard, especially to the point that no public meeting ever took place. Then more importantly, or as importantly, last week the president of the chamber came down here and indicated that the chamber had taken an official position for the purposes of supporting The contract for what information Councilor Dello Russo.
[Robert Penta]: The question becomes relevant because the concerns that were expressed at the meeting of the 10th of September and all seven members of the council had concerns as it related to, uh, what might or what might not be in the contract. And in fact, we as a council, We as a council had never been advised or never even shown what the finality of the contract was. But after listening to the president of the chamber, he particularly was involved with the mayor, and the mayor allowed him to be involved in making the final decisions or agreeing to the concessions of the final decisions. Well, that's all well and good. But the Chamber of Commerce is not the Medford City Council. And the Medford City Council was owed that due respect from the mayor that the finality of signing that contract, or before it was to take place, should have come before the council. We all discussed it, and we all had an opinion on it. Whether you were for it or against it, that wasn't the issue. The fact of the matter was to have the public hearing or the public meeting. Call it what you may. Let taxpayers, let residents, and business owners come up and have an opportunity to speak on something that they didn't even know what was going on, that they were just finding out about. The president of the chamber indicated when the question was asked that he only represents members of the chamber. He doesn't represent any other business people. Well, I think that's an injustice to every other business person in this community who's a taxpayer and has employees. There are people that maybe don't want to become members of the chamber or just don't have the time to become members of the chamber. And they should not be looked upon as a second grade or a second class citizen. for the purposes of whether you agree or disagree with a pay-to-park program. One information, Councilor De La Russa.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I think if you review the tape, the tape is as clear as can be. that Mr. White indicated that subsequent to the 10th meeting of September, he asked the mayor to be a part of what the concerns were of the chamber. And as a result of that, he met with the chamber. And as a matter of fact, he said he was satisfied with the concessions. But it was the same person who, quote, in the paper, indicated that all business districts in this community are unique until they have their own special problems. And by having your own special problems, which they need to be discussed, and be reviewed. And that was on the 2nd of October. Five days after that, the 7th of October, the mayor signs the contract. That's kind of quick. None of these people from the other sections of the city were involved. No business people. And once again, no taxpayers, no rate payers in this community. And with that happening, It makes you subject to the question of the Chamber of Commerce. They don't know whether they have 200 or 300 members. So whatever it might be. And if it's 200 members and only a specific board, the Governmental Affairs Committee voted, what they voted for, I don't know. The Chamber of Commerce, I don't know.
[Robert Penta]: Well, Mr. President, since Councilor Dello Russo and you, Councilor Caraviello, are both members of the chamber, I would see that you have a prejudice here to support the chamber's position, no matter what this one councilor has to say.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Well, since you have no prejudice, maybe Councilor Dello Russo does. But, you know, we also asked for what was going to be included and what was going to be excluded.
[Robert Penta]: Well, he hasn't indicated it publicly, so. That leaves a suspect right there. And I believe it was the president of the chamber who indicated that he was happy to have been part of the process meeting with the mayor and coming to this concession through resolutions for whatever it might have been. This council was never apprised of any of whatever a concession might be. This one size fits all for all five districts, which includes Medford Square, it just doesn't work. It doesn't cut the mustard. And more importantly, It's a recommendation. If you look at the press release that the mayor said, now I asked the city clerk today, um, I had called earlier and still I don't have it. Does anyone behind this rail have a copy of the contract either on disk?
[Robert Penta]: Oh, by the messenger. That's really nice. Moments ago. Here we have, we asked for it. You know, here we have an $18 million, 10-year contract, and we just get the information now. But the chamber was aware of it, and they agreed to it. And I really have a suspect that I don't think the chamber was in agreement. I think if you took a poll of their membership and had a discussion of what's going on on those four priority sections, you'd have a better idea as to what their feelings might be. And maybe Councilor Dello Russo was right, because when the mayor two Saturdays ago took a walk in the Westmethod area, I don't think he liked the response that he got, whether it was a business person of the chamber. I'm not a business person of the chamber. This is business in this community. People are putting their daily work on their line. They're not worried about the chamber being supportive of them, they need to make money, they have to pay their employees, they need to pay their insurance, they need to pay everything that makes a business work. Not every single person in this community or every single business in this community is a member of the chamber, and rightfully so. They don't have to be and they shouldn't be if they so choose not to be. So why the mayor decides to pick on this one organization as to be the only organization to make his recommendations and his concessions with, I don't know, but he should have been before this Medford City Council and the taxpayers of this community to give his final decision of whatever he thought he was going to do by way of having a public hearing to get some input. On May 20th of this past year, we voted to give the mayor the opportunity to deal with a single-person contract for 10 years, because the law says anything over three years, you have to take a vote. We didn't tell him to sign it. What we said is to go and make your contract negotiations. Come back before the council. Come back before the council and tell us what you have. The law says the council makes the vote. The council will only vote if him to go and to engage in a contract, not to sign the contract. If that be the case, then what was the purpose of us even being here? We shouldn't even be discussing this. It means absolutely nothing. He shouldn't have even had the meeting on September 10th. This is all for nothing. But his back got against the wall because he heard from some of the business people. And unfortunately, once again, the president of the chamber said, Most of the people in the room that night weren't even chamber members. So what does that mean? Just because they're not chamber members. They're business people in this community who pay their taxes and employ people and have residents come to their stores and buy their products so they can have a living and make a living. Mr. President, you're a member of the chamber. You and I have had this discussion numerous times on numerous occasions. And as you've been aware, many people. You told me you went to, you told me you went to the groundbreaking ceremonies, the bank over there. Okay. Last Saturday. You told me the mayor had to run away because everybody was on top of them because of the parking thing.
[Robert Penta]: Friday, excuse me, on Friday.
[Robert Penta]: You were there after the fact because you know, I was, I was there for the opening.
[Robert Penta]: He had to leave because everybody was complaining about that.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah. That's something else. Well, same thing. You go to so many of these inaugurals. I have no idea which ones that we were at, but the fact of the matter is this, um, I just think it's unfair. And I, and I really don't know because if the press release is only nothing more than recommendations, then they don't have to adhere to anything, this company called Republic. And the aggressiveness, as Councilor Marks alluded to last week, they're going to start at 7 in the morning to 7 at night. They need to do a million, $2 million a year as a minimum to start. You know yourself as well as I. They're going to be out there writing tickets. But the cream, the cream to this whole deal is that the mayor retains the appeal process. And to me, that is political because if it wasn't going to be political and it was going to be independent, he should have given it up. So City Hall still remains as the political process of appeal to this whole particular program. And as what took place today at the Traffic Commission, they indicated, you know, they will still have the authority to set the places and set the rates. But we still don't know the exact spots of where things are going, and we don't really know who's going to be excluded.
[Robert Penta]: Well, how do you, how does any one councilor justify the fact that a contract was signed and you never even saw it? You voted for something that you asked the mayor to do, and he didn't do it.
[Robert Penta]: But point of further clarification, you hit it right in the head. You gave him the authority to negotiate, but not to sign the contract. And that's what he did. He signed the contract without any one of us having an opportunity to see it and discuss it.
[Robert Penta]: We were never given a contract to look at an executive session. The only thing we had an executive session, which was only once, that was May 20. and that was to pick the Republic from Tennessee. Yes, we told them to go ahead and negotiate a contract, but we didn't tell them to sign it because if you read the minutes and you look at the tape, it turns around and you have to come back to the council for the vote to accept it.
[Robert Penta]: They don't make one.
[Robert Penta]: Say that again, Councilor De La Rosa. To what? Style what?
[Robert Penta]: What do you mean, style enforcement? What's that?
[Robert Penta]: Enforcement is not the same as pay-to-park. It's two entirely different subject matters. The mayor decided to make it even more. This council was looking for enforcement.
[Robert Penta]: It's about paying to park.
[Robert Penta]: That's what he said in his press release.
[Robert Penta]: This, this, this says parking proposal. It doesn't say parking.
[Robert Penta]: I'd like to further amend it to contact the state department of public health as it relates to, cause they, there is a state policy on electronic cigarettes and a cigarette is considered a cigarette no matter how you use it. So that may be able to just to cut right through the chase and get your answer.
[Robert Penta]: The State Department of Public Health as it relates to electronic cigarettes. Massachusetts State Department of Public Health.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I think in part we all know that around 5 o'clock or 5.30 this evening, I think we received the mayor's press release. that he'd signed the contract with Republic from Tennessee. But I'll get to that later on. It's still part of the comparison. You know, when we came on board at the beginning of the year, we were asked to give what our priorities were. And I believe the police department and police station was our number one priority. And unfortunately, it hasn't found itself anywhere in any of the mayor's agendas. Now, the police station would derive an extreme benefit for our community. It would make us go forward. not only socially, but as a community going forward with tomorrow's technology, and it would also give a presence of community policing. And that's something I think a lot of the people asking for, more police officers, more patrolmen, more visibility. And if you give them a better place to work out of, then I think that would go a long way. You know, we paid in excess, I think, of $78,000 when we received the feasibility study from the police department and the fire department on May 5th of this year. And unfortunately for the police department, they didn't get anything out of it. Fire department did, but the police department didn't. And once again, I don't know, maybe it's just the mayor, he doesn't have it on his radar screen, but public safety, I believe is the first of priorities here of any of all the councilors. Some of the things that Mr. Mayor, that would be beneficial, not only for our community, is the council has supported, in each and every calendar budget, the recycling of two new cruises each and every year. And that would go a long way, once again, to add to the police officers on duty, driving their cruises, letting them know that the city is thinking about them, and they don't have to drive in a car that has about 140,000 miles on it, and they don't know if it's gonna make it or not. I think it was Councilor Marks, three years ago, came up with the idea of why can't we have a special truck enforcement unit? It's a great idea. What's wrong with training one or two people to be involved with truck enforcement for that particular purpose? Because I think we can go down any one of these streets in any one of these days, and we see the amount of trucks that travel down High Street, Main Street, or the major streets here in the city of Medford. That would go a long way. In our public safety issue regarding lighting, all the squares are just dimly lit. And that in and of itself is an invitation for some type of crime, whatever the crime might be. You get Route 16, the parking lot behind St. Joe's. This will probably be the 14th time that we've discussed this, and still no lighting. We've had situations there where a lady called up and she was afraid to get into a car because of people there, and also in a separate situation where a drug transaction was reported. Also right here in Medford Square, the Route 16 overpass, underpass on Route 93, has no lights. Riverside Avenue, go underneath the overpass there, still no lights. We have asked for the issue of public safety, timely street swiping. We've also asked for our crosswalk painting. You're lucky if you see that once a year. These aren't huge cost items. These are items that are readily available within our budget. Now we've talked about police cameras and high visibility locations. Were it not for the business merchant that owned a store on the corner of George and Winthrop Street a few years, a couple of years back, how they caught the guy that assaulted the young lady from Tufts University. And as a result of that, Mr. President, we all know that the cameras are beneficial. We have $8,893 in our linkage account for where they could buy a few cameras. But if you really want to get into it, we have $6,400,000 in our free cash account. So I don't think there should be any reason why we can't go out there and buy any cameras. A bonus to our people that work. We can review the one day a week and swap day reward. And that would be for those officers with a perfect attendance for six months. Something different, something creative for the police officers. rather than the annual, it's on a six month basis, and that might work out, it's a tryout, it's something to think about. I think we should also think about revisiting the idea of having retired police personnel be part of the parking enforcement proposal here in the city of Medford. Because that in and of itself, that in and of itself would bring a big luxury, not only to the people here in this community, but I think to the business people who would have a better idea of knowing when and how to tag certain folks. Because we really don't know what this out-of-state company from Tennessee is going to be like. They could just be, I don't know, they're going to start at 7 o'clock in the morning to 7 at night. It doesn't make any sense. Boston doesn't even start till 8 o'clock in the morning. We have a civil defense system that needs to be addressed. Since Mr. Mangone has passed on as its civil defense director, I don't know where it is. Is it in limbo? Is it going to be used? If not, We've talked about a snow emergency system, and we haven't heard anything back on that. And I think we're all aware of the fact that a snow emergency system of some type needs to be in place. And taking some of these issues and putting them on the left, then I go to the right, and I look at this idea of this new proposal that, if you agree or disagree, the mayor signed into effect apparently today regarding this Tennessee firm Republic. regarding a traffic enforcement program that's going to be six days a week from 7 in the morning to 7 p.m. at night. There'll be no free parking on the streets. According to the mayor's commentary, there's going to be two 30-minute parking spots in each one of the squares, and there'll be four paid single-space meter spots in each of the four square districts. Other than that, there'll be kiosks allotted. It's kind of like interesting because if you look at the commentary made by the director from the Medford Chamber of Commerce, Mr. White, he indicated that he was hoping that he would have an opportunity with its members to sit down and discuss this. And he also made reference to the fact that each and every one of the squares have unique positions, unique concerns as it relates to businesses and how they might be affected. How the mayor came up to this resolution and signing, I don't know. But it's kind of like unfair because we were in that meeting on September 10th, and we were told that he would get back to us. We were told that there'd be a public meeting for which this council voted seven to nothing. He never honored that. We were told also that the concerns that would be brought up would be addressed and to have an idea. I don't know, and we don't really know what part of the business community, what businesses are going to be exempt from not having a meter or a kiosk anywhere in that particular area. You take these two things and you ask yourself, the Medford Police Department and public safety is such a huge issue here in this community. And some of the samples that I just talked about still have yet to be addressed. But the mayor thinks it's more important to go forward with a parking enforcement program, strike that, a paid to park program with enforcement that's only going to bring in $300,000 the first year and $700,000 from the second to the ninth year, it's the 10th year. May sound like a lot of money, but my feeling personally would have been, had the city decided to go forward after that meeting on the 10th, having an opportunity to listen to the folks within our community, listen to the business in the community, all four areas of this community, rather than have one size fits all, which includes Medford Square, in the press release as outlined tonight at 510, I just don't think it serves in the best interest of our community. I don't think it helps our police department, and I don't think it gives the community in and of itself a fair shot as it relates to priorities that need to be addressed rather than another money enhancement for the city of Medford. Mr. President, today, as you know, I'm assuming all of you know that the mayor signed this contract tonight around 517 or thereabouts. He signed the contract. And he makes a notation that the council was in support of this. What the council was in support of was that on May 20th, when we had that meeting, we had agreed to the three vendors that came in, one would be selected, which was Republic from Tennessee. But we agreed to that somebody would come back after he had negotiations and we would discuss it. And we did on September 10th. But when the pushback came back, the mayor decided not to go forward at that time. And speaking to Mr. Skelton, are referring to Mr. Skelton's comments from Republic. From the 10th to the 25th of September, there was absolutely no communication between the mayor and Republic. So something had to take place from the 24th to today, the 7th. And taking that into consideration, it's quite obvious that the chamber's concerns, oh, I don't know who wrote the letter because we don't have a copy of the letter. He says he got a letter from the chamber. But when you have four separate squares, including Medford Square, which makes five, and their issues are all unique, and they needed to be heard, and they weren't heard, and the mayor decides to have one size fits all, I don't think that's what you call a happy resolution, especially to the business people and to the taxpayers of this community. You know, the fact of the matter is this. We're getting rid of people who don't live in the community, who were parking at spots all day long, and they haven't been tagged. And this has been going on for the entire years of the administration of this city, this mayor. And now what we're going to be doing is tagging, if not towing, and telling our own taxpayers in this community, you people are going to have to start paying. Now, right up front, no free parking unless you are lucky enough to get one of those two spots in any one of the four or five sections of this community. Where it's going, I don't know, Mr. President, but all I can tell you is this. If I had to put my money on something, I would put it on public safety, the police department, the personnel that's needed to keep this community safe, And more importantly, the subject matters that I brought up under the police department. Those to me are pressing needs. They have no comparison, no comparison at all to a parking paid to park program or enforcement. If the mayor was so concerned about that paid to park program and enforcement, he should have done it years ago, but he didn't. And when they knew that people from Winchester and other communities were coming here and parking all day and not getting tagged and ticketed, he should have done something, but he didn't. So, put $300,000 this first year out of the box, compare everything to what the police department needs to keep our community safe and protected. It's pale in comparison. And with that being said, Mr. President, I just wanted to say that, um, I just think, you know, this council is either going to be committed to public safety and a new PlayStation and the police department, or this is nothing more than hot air every Tuesday night when we come here to talk about public safety. We have more than enough examples. And I think we have more than enough good police officers. The shooting is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the drug problems that are existing throughout this community. And that's a concern. And if they had more personnel, and if they could go to court, and if they had more of the mechanisms and the technology that is needed, it would be great. You know, when you talk to someone, you say, hey, you're building a brand new public works department, $14 million. $14 million. Still don't even have enough men to man it. But you have a police department that's ready to fall apart. You have an evidence room that's completely out of control and a whole host of other issues. So, I would say, Mr. President and my fellow colleagues, that I think it's time that we take the stand and we tell the mayor we want a new police station. I don't care how you fund it. You found the money for a public works department, then find the money for a police station. Because you're not going to make one seem to be more important than another. And at the same time, you're not going to put the lives of this community and the folks in this community at risk.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, um, I guess I missed this when I was reading it. If you read the bottom of the mass comment, it says the chamber also acknowledged that there were several beneficial respects to the plan, such as user friendly kiosks, whatever that means. After deliberating and discussing concerns raised by the business community, the mayor is recommending the following changes to the plan. He's recommending, This isn't a finality. If you go to point number three, it says recommend $250,000 of the revenue generated on an annual basis to be dedicated to the business district improvements. It's a recommendation. This isn't a done deal. And if you have $250,000, what district gets it first? North Medford, South Medford, Boston Ave, Medford Square? Where's the determination there? And then the last one, retain business and commuter permits. What does that mean? All subjective commentary. I don't even know if this is really the done deal. All he's doing, he's saying he signed it. And I'm wondering if these are still things to be negotiated. He's recommending. These are recommendations. They may be just sticking to the original part of the plan and getting back to what Councilor Marks alluded to. Not only is it going to be aggressive enforcement, But why would you start at 7 o'clock in the morning? Boston, which is much bigger than Medford, starts at 8. Brookline, when they had their kiosks, they had to take them away because they were hurting the businesses. And then if they're even recognizing by putting meters, single meters, in certain parts, well, maybe they should think about just putting meters, period, and see how that goes, and have local people do the enforcement part. But the more I keep reading this thing, words stand off a lot. It's the terminology that's used. He's recommending. So I don't even know if this is a done deal. None of us know. It's two 30-minute free parking spaces in West Medford. Well, who's in West Medford? Who's it going to be? Has that been determined yet? They're going to flip a coin? Go to Boston Avenue, you're going to flip a coin? The whole length of that street, two free parking spaces? And then four paid single-space meter spots. in each of the above listed districts. Who's going to get those four? And as I said before, what businesses are going to be excluded rather than included? You know, the law is very specific on this, and I said it to you last week, and I'll say it to you again, and I said it to our chief procurement officer. The responsibility of bringing the contract forward was from the chief procurement officer, not from the mayor, and not from the budget director. That's what the law says. And there needed to be a recommendation in writing with a comparison of doing it in-house as compared to doing it out-house. And in this situation, we never got it. We never got the recommendation and how that recommendation was determined so as for the council to make a legitimate vote to go forward to accept it or not. So there's a whole host of issues that surround not only the mayor signing this or even getting to the point to having him sign it, but the fact that he lied He lied to we, the people, by not coming and having the public forum for which seven members of this council voted on, to at least have a public forum, to at least have the business community, and at least have the taxpayers, the residents of the community, to come and speak up about it. I think we're all getting our emails, and people are just, once again, hearing about it. Some of them, not that they're for it, not some of them against it. They want to know more about it and how it's going to work. But apparently, the mayor doesn't want us to know. It's quite obvious. He certainly doesn't want the taxpayers and the residents to know. And however he chose what businesses that he met with, who knows what businesses they were that convinced him to go forward with this. It's a damn shame, because I don't think this serves in the best interest of our community.
[Robert Penta]: I have four questions. First of all, you said that they took your quote out of order. So I'm going to read this quote. You tell me if it's accurate or not. We're going to let McGlynn quote, no, it's obvious to us that the different business districts have different needs. White said, we're not going to advocate for any specific district. We're going to provide opportunities through us to get those voices heard. True or false?
[Robert Penta]: So if that's true, and you're recognizing the different needs of the different areas, how can you go along and have one size fits all for all four districts?
[Robert Penta]: Go ahead.
[Robert Penta]: That's that part there. You said the chamber supports this. How many members in the chamber?
[Robert Penta]: So you have votes from the 200 plus members? No. So how does the chamber make a decision? If you have membership.
[Robert Penta]: So your board of directors made this vote, not the membership.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Let's get this straight.
[Robert Penta]: You just made a comment at a minute ago that some of the people that are at that meeting on the 10th aren't members of the chamber. Yes. So because someone is not a member of the chamber, They're not going to be looked upon with the same favor that somebody might be. They're a business person in this community.
[Robert Penta]: OK. You represent your members. And you also said that the business community was aware of that meeting on the 20th.
[Robert Penta]: I mean on the 10th. Excuse me. Yes. At 117 in the afternoon. That's when the emails went out. 117 of the day of the meeting. And a lot of people didn't even get it because they were still at work and not knowing it. So that's not a well-advanced notice of people — of a public meeting regarding their living. The President.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Kudlow.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Kudlow. Also, Mr. President, I do want to get back to this thing that if Mr. White feels, on behalf of his membership, that this one-size-fits-all is going to address the concerns of the five separate, the four squares and the downtown method. I'd like to have you explain that. How can this one size fits all?
[Robert Penta]: So then your quote in the paper was wrong. You did not indicate that each part of the city is unique.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I think we need to get a report back that are these four points recommendations, or are they actually part of the contract? Because it's the mayor who uses the term, he's recommending changes. It doesn't say it's not definitive, it's recommending. And with that being said, with recommendations, I don't know if it's a contract or not. I don't know.
[Robert Penta]: Clerk, do you have enough poll workers?
[Robert Penta]: During the last election, there was some concern over some of the ballot boxes not working. Is there any of these?
[Robert Penta]: But aren't these all checked out before? Oh yeah. Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: Those all rechecked each and every election? How does this work?
[Robert Penta]: And for the sake of a public announcement, Mr. President, when can people start getting an absentee ballot?
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, Dorothy, as we all know, is our wonderful assistant in the clerk's office with Mr. Finn, and she works very hard through the years, and she's now being able to enjoy her grandchild, her son's first child, which would be her grandchild, And we want to wish her the best.
[Robert Penta]: The only problem with the dog park has been the mayor is telling everyone it's going to cost $200,000 and he's telling people to go out and do it. You know, I mean, how do you turn around and tell the people you go out and get the dog park? And as Councilor Marks alluded to before, you know, RF Whiting Company, according to the mayor, was supposed to give the money for the dog park, and they never did. And now he's telling the people, you've got to raise the $200,000 if you really want this dog park. He knows how to raise money for everything else. It's amazing. And I think the good part is maybe, Mr. Clerk, if we have just a single number they can call the clerk's office, and maybe you should have a stack of petitions there if people come in, because that's where the licenses are as well, too, to pick up a license in your office. I can't generate the petitions. No, no, no. If petitions are left in your office, if petitions are left in your office and somebody wants to come and pick them up, they can pick them up. I think that may be a good idea. Central point in the building.
[Robert Penta]: President, yesterday, well, I think it was yesterday. I got mine yesterday. Other people may have got it the day before. We all received in the mail our new water bill, and we also received a letter from the city indicating to the city of Medford water and sewer customers. Now, the letter is undated, right there in and of itself tends to indicate a lack of professionalism in the letter going out. There was no notice of a public meeting or an agenda item on this particular matter. The Medford City Council not only has talked about it, but at our April meeting of this year, we had a resolution that was offered by myself and passed by the seven members of the council to have the cemetery, no, excuse me, The Water and Soil Commission has appeared before the council and to explain this new idea of tiered rates and commercial rates or whatever it might be and however it's going to take place. And that passed. Unfortunately, the mayor sends an answer back and says it's the council's purview. I mean, it's the Water and Soil Commission's purview to make that decision, number one. And number two, this is a matter that involves the entire city for the purposes of being involved and getting involved. The council has asked on numerous occasions for the Water and Soil Commission. I personally have met with the chairman of the Water and Soil Commission. I asked him to come here. We're still waiting for him to come here. The mayor has never offered a public meeting or a hearing on this particular increase. So there is a complete lack of public education on this increase. And as a result of this, we have problems here. Look at your bill that just came out, and it talks about The rates only apply to homes with up to four families and residential condo buildings. And then it gives you a 0 to 800 as a base. And I don't know where they got that 800 as being the base. Again, no determination from that. And then from 800 cubic feet to 1,600 feet, you get to another rate. And it goes on. And after that, there's a third rate. So as a residential owner, you could have up to three types of rates in your particular house. And then it goes down further to indicate Every other person or every other type of an account will be charged 0.138. Now, does that mean that that's going to be a commercial rate? I thought we were led to believe that there was going to be allegedly a commercial rate, which would be different than the regular rate. But if you go back to the first paragraph, they talk about they're adopting this in response to Chapter 165, Section 2B. And 165, Section 2B is very explicit where it talks about, shall institute water charges and fees that incorporate a base rate for all, provided, which means other than or maybe, that said base rate shall be increased at an increased block rate to fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume uses of water. Now think about high volume uses of water. If you live in a three-family house, for the example that they use, you are a single person on the first floor. There is two, three people on the third floor, five or six people on the third floor. And they use the example you used, 2,100 units of water. Well, they're going to take the 2,100 units of water, divide it by three, and everybody's going to be tagged with 700 units of water to be charged. That doesn't make any sense at all, number one, because number one, Not everybody has a meter in their apartment. And if it's a single meter that's going to cover the whole house, some houses are like that. I mean, how do you distribute that? I mean, where they come up with this, I have absolutely no idea. And this is what prompted probably eight or nine of my 13 calls that I've already received so far in this. How do they make this type of a determination? But more importantly, personally, I think this is the mayor's way of retaliating against the council. because we didn't give him his $600,000 in the budget. Bad enough we didn't give him his parking garage. And as a result of that, this rate increase not only will pick up the $600,000, it'll probably exceed that. Absolutely, absolutely not fair. It is not right. At the present time, people should be aware of the fact, at the present time, in our water and sewer retained earnings account, we have $8,400,000 as of today. $8,400,000. We would have $9,600,000 if we didn't take a million two a few years ago to take the mayor out of his deficit hole because he couldn't balance the budget. But with that being said, $8 million, that's a lot of money. And we're talking about rate payers having to be charged right now. There is nothing in this letter that would even give you an assumption that it's going to take place next year, or the next billing cycle. They just jam it in the letter, and there it is in your new bill. Now, I went back, and to my knowledge, the last time in billing cycles in 2006, as compared to the bills that we have right now, the 2006 bill, sixth bill, tells you The cost, it breaks it down for water and sewer, the cost. Your water and sewer cost is not broken down in these blue bills that we've been getting for a long period of time. And as a result of that, I'm going to suggest in part, Mr. President, that the city's water and sewer department and the city of Medford building department reinstitute the prior building process that not only showed the prior readings, the present readings, the usage, but the rates for water and the rates for sewer per 100 cubic feet. So the people have an informed, knowledgeable bill, rather than getting a dollar amount and trying to figure out the hocus pocus that's going on. Baseline water usage of 800, where do they get that? I have absolutely no idea who determined, and they don't even tell you where it came from. The bill, as I said before, it doesn't ID the water and sewer rates. But back and prior to 2006, it did. It gives you everything that you would want to know to try to figure out your bill. Now, your old rate consumption as compared to your new rate consumption, that's another thing that's not on here. Because all they're doing and they're telling you on the blue bill, it's just telling you what you had last time, what the reading was, and the amount. And once again, what's water, what's sewer, I don't know. I think what really needs to be done on this particular issue is two things. You can't send out bills to people and just tell them it becomes effective now. That's number one. Number two, you don't send out a letter that's undated. Number three, you don't turn around and tell, for an example, a three-family house, you're going to split it between the three floors, and everyone's going to pay the same amount on a per-unit charge. You don't do that. Second of all, there's nothing on this bill on this letter that talks about a commercial rate. And I think Councilor Marks, is he here? I think there was an issue relative to a commercial rate before. You know, where are we going with that? It says all other rates will be 0.1381. And that will be the same rate as someone who goes from the 800 to the 1600 level in a residential home. I said it before and I'll say it again. If families are going to be penalized because they have children or mothers and fathers or seniors living with them. That's not fair. It's absolutely not fair. And as the law says, the resources should go on the demand and the consumption of high volume uses of water. A residential home, maybe just over this 800 level or whatever it might be, those aren't high uses of water. That's baseline wherever they got it. Maybe the zero to 800. should be maybe the $0 to $1,200 or $1,400, and then change it after that. Because I don't think it's bad enough rate payers, you're hitting them with a federal tax. You hit them with your state tax. You hit them with a meals tax. You're hitting them with a gas tax. You hit them with your real estate tax. And now you want to raise their water and sewer tax with an $8.4 million surplus sitting in a kitty. It's wrong. This is not what the council asked for. I believe this is the mayor's way of getting back at the council because $600,000 was taken out of the budget for which the council voted for to knock off the 10% rate increase? Well, this rate increase is definitely going to exceed the 10% that the mayor was losing, or the $600,000. And who's going to pay for it? It's the everyday person. I would strongly suggest, Mr. President, once again, as we did in August, if the mayor says this is within the purview of the council, Then let it be in the purview and strike that respectfully request that the Board of Commissioners appear before the Medford City Council for the purposes of explaining not only the letter, but the rates as to where we're going. And also respectfully request that they change their billing process to accurately show the rate for water, the rate for sewer, where it's going, and the amount. Now with that being said, Mr. President, I can't find anyone, and I'm still waiting. I had a long talk today with Mr. Remsburg, who was the chief legal counsel for the MWRA. And in my conversation with him, which represented the same type of conversation I had with him in August of this past year, we're back to the same issue for which I believe we're on the same page. The bigger users, the demand for bigger users and demand for more consumption and high volume of users of water should be the first ones, according to this chapter of the law, to be paid. It says, all municipalities and water districts within the jurisdiction of the MWRA, but not including community service by the Connecticut Valley Aqueduct, shall institute water charges and fees that incorporate a base rate for all users. Okay? They're saying 800 is the base rate. But it says, provided that said base rate shall be increased at an increasing block rate to fairly recollect the resources, demand, and consumption of high-volume uses of water. If somebody is 801, is they going to be tagged as a high-volume use of water? Because that person at 801, which could be residential, is going to be tagged at the same amount that everyone else is going to be tagged that's not residential. And you're going to have to assume it's commercial, because they don't say it. But what is it? Everybody else but residential. It's got to be commercial. So with that being said, I think this needs to be addressed. I think somebody needs to be here to address it. I think the billing needs to be addressed. And more importantly, I think it's absolutely unfair that somebody would put a, an increase in your bill on the same time that goes out with no public education, no public notice. You know, this is three strikes that the mayor has given to us. He's taking money away from people on cable access on Verizon and Comcast bills. He's sitting on $303,000. It's sitting downstairs. He just now signs, he just now signs a pay to park program that didn't have one public hearing here for the taxpayers to talk about and discuss. And thirdly, he's now hitting you with a new tax on your water and sewer charge with no public input, no public information, no public hearing or anything. That's three strikes since the summer of this year. How much more is it that the people of this community want to take? When are you going to realize that your open government is not open like you think it is? And your notorious government is as notorious as it can be, because there's no transparency as to what's going on. This letter should have been ID'd with a date, and it should have addressed itself DMF resident. In the near future, giving it the date, your bill will be going up the following, and it'll give the reason why. But the insanity of saying that a three-family or a two-family or a four-family house is going to be divided by the amount of units, and that's what they're going to pay. They have no right saying that. They have no right doing that. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'm moving that our Board of Water and Soil Commissioners appear before the Medford City Council to discuss this particular matter.
[Robert Penta]: I hear what Councilor Knight is talking about. My point of clarification is this. While he may be running off a string of resolutions, we had asked for a public hearing and a public meeting on this and for whatever the Water and Soil Commissioners might have done or made the determination. The council has been asked to be apprised, and they've been asked to appear before here, and they never have. So 800 getting to the baseline, how did you get to it? Where did you come up with that number? Because if you look at a lot of the residential homes, they're going to be between 800 and that 1,600 mark. So by going over by one cubic feet, you're going to be putting that residential homeowner, who might have two or three kids or taking care of a senior citizen, paying a higher rate. And that's where I think the discussion needs to take place. I'm not denying the fact that the more you use, the more you should pay. But this is a big gap from $800 to $800 to $1,600. And if you are just a little bit over that, you're going to be saddled with that additional thing. And again, as I said, if somebody has multiple people living in their family home, they're going to be penalized for using the water. If they use a dramatic amount, that's one thing.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, clarification. Okay. I hear what Councilor Knight is alluding to. The point is valid. It went from zero to 1,000. Why did it come down to 800? Now, if you speak to some of the members, they're going to turn around and tell you, this is part of the conservation mode of saving water and within families and stuff like that. Which I wholeheartedly support. Right. But I don't think anybody's going to deny the fact that, you know, you don't want to penalize people because they have people living in their homes. who might be seniors or elderly or babies or two or three children or for whatever it might be. And I would be not in favor of having a subcommittee. I would be in favor of just having, calling for the public hearing and have them come in and explain it. They've already mean what they did. And one point further, and I think as a Councilor, Councilor Marks, I think we had this conversation. Getting to the point of the households, as Councilor Knight has just alluded to, how did you make this determination? Where are the numbers of those homes that are between 0 to 800, and from 800 to 1,600, and over that? They have to have statistics to do that, because if they just decided to go to 800 because it sounded good, because it was a good conservation move, well, that's not good. If there's people between 800 and 850, whatever it might be, there's nothing wrong with going to 1,000. I mean, that's a compromise. I got no problem with that. But I want to see these numbers. I want to see these numbers.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you for your point. I just remind councilor Dello Russo, one thing we had asked at one point in time, to have our city engineer appear before the council. And she didn't come because the mayor told her not to come. OK. So we can ask the Water and Soil Commissioners to come. But if they choose not to come because they're told not to come, where does that put the council?
[Robert Penta]: Point of clarification, Councilor Penta. The law says explicitly if the estimated income is more than the total appropriations, the excess shall be appropriated to a separate reserve fund and used for capital expenditures of the enterprise subject to the appropriation or to reduce user charges if authorized by the appropriate entity. responsible for operations of the enterprise.
[Robert Penta]: He can the law.
[Robert Penta]: Absolutely.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, also the letter indicates further down that they're going to keep this baseline rate for the first year. So the intention is that they're going to be going up. So with that being said, I'm going to make the request that the Board of Water and Soil Commissioners appear before the Medford City Council to discuss this letter that went out that's unsigned, undated, as it represents, and that a new bill be forthcoming. They revised the bill that includes the rate for the water and the rate for the sewage. and along with the total amount. Also, the letter negates to put in here that it's nothing more than the new use. They don't have the old use by consumption and water and sewer charges. And I think that would be, once again, pure transparency for the rate payers at least to see what's going on other than, once again, just getting a letter saying, you know, this is what you're going to have to pay and your rates are going up and, you know, with no clarification, absolutely no education. There was absolutely nothing. You notice that the mayor did not. Listen, the Board of Soil Commissioners worked for the mayor. They're his appointments on that board. The mayor owns this one as well. This is his responsibility. If he knew the rates were going up, for which they have. And if this is his end run to circumvent this council, because this council wouldn't give him his parking garage and wouldn't give him his $600,000 in the budget for 10% water rate increase, this is certainly the wrong way to go, especially with $8.4 million. sitting in the surplus account. That is just so wrong. You know, you're ripping off the taxpayers once again, Mr. Mayor, knowing that their money is just sitting in an account to make you look good at a bond rating at the expense of the taxpayers. Maybe they'd like to enjoy some of that money and spend it on their family or their kids or what have you. So with that being said, I move the question, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: I can go either way because it's obvious that this has already been done. From the documents that I have secured from the Water and Sewer Commission, they've been talking about this since April of this past year with the city engineer and Mr. Woodcock, the MWRA, the legal counsel, and what have you. So their determination has already been made. My question is going to be very simple and germane, basically what we had here tonight. I mean, the one thing, you know, they're saying that they cannot make the recommendation to reduce the water and sewer rates. Well, if they can't make the recommendation to reduce it, how can they make the recommendation to increase it? It doesn't make any sense. The law doesn't prohibit them from doing that. And with an $8.4 million surplus, in the best interest of this community, It would have been a wonderful exposure by the Water and Soil Commission to recommend to the mayor that we not increase and we take this out of the Water and Soil account. But as we all know, this is the mayor's board, and they're going to do whatever the mayor tells them to do. So I can go either way on the resolution.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Penta. On the motion. I got no problem with that. We only have three more meetings between now and we're off for two. So I would request that this meeting take place within the next two to three week, next two to three meetings that were available. But in the meantime, if we could have some information forwarded to us so we could at least know the proposed that they're giving us here, how they got to this baseline of 800, if we could get some information on how they got to that, if we get some information ahead of time, once again, what's the old rate compared to the new rates? And something as it relates to, you know, revising the bill that includes the water rates for water and sewer usage and the dollar amount. So at least when somebody gets it, they could figure it out rather than just getting numbers. Then the conversation on that particular night would just basically, you know, figure out the tiered rate. This lacks the word commercial rate in here. It says all other, all other establishments. which I'm assuming is going to be commercial. We'll find that out. So if we could have that and a roll call vote.
[Robert Penta]: On that motion, Councilor Dello Russo's amendment, we just got a notice I think today relative to a meeting that's going to take place on June 3rd by the folks that are doing the work over there. So that may be something you may want to bring up for the purpose of letting them pay to do the road. So it's in your, pardon me? You want to amend that further? Yeah, amend it further, yes. Why don't you repeat that again? The amendment is that the Department of Transportation is having a public meeting on June 3rd. I believe it's in Boston. We got a notice today in our emails. There's one of six locations, that's the next one coming up, and that will make reference to Councilor Camuso's and Councilor De La Rosa's thoughts relative to Medford Street.
[Robert Penta]: On that motion, could we get a copy of where the Dog packs and the amount of money was supposed to be coming from October of 2011. The mayor made a public announcement. We've been talking about dog packs since 2011, because that was supposed to have been part of the mitigation that F.W. White, or J.F. White, was supposed to be giving the city of Medford for the FAST-14. So we've never seen the dog pack. Could we just get the handle on what that mitigation terminology was on dog packs? $50,000. I have no idea.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President last Tuesday night. Um, I thought we had a very informative conversation and after I went back and I reviewed the tape, um, I, I, I think to some degree we will mislead or at least I was misled because I asked the question as a related is the new location on Salem street going to have the capacity to do a broadcast from there. And the answer was yes from the manager of the station. Now, subsequent to that, immediately following the meeting, the transmission of the module, or whatever you want to call the terminology, was in the corner of the room over there. And the conversation finally alluded to the fact that on Riverside Avenue, there is absolutely no Comcast, and there is no Verizon capacity to do broadcasting or to bring cable in. Now, if you remember correctly, Mr. President, it was you who brought up this issue, I think some five to seven years ago, relative to a business client on High Street who was trying to get Comcast, I think, or Verizon, into the building over there. It was Comcast. And at that point in time, I believe there was, in our conversation, I believe we had someone from Channel 3, and I don't know who, so I don't want to mention any names. because I'd be absolutely wrong, but I remember somebody from Channel 3 indicating that that was one of the problems that we had in Medford Square, the inability or the lack of capacity to have broadcasting in the downtown Medford Square area, which seems to be pretty kind of evident. Now, again, from the conversation that took place last Tuesday night and from the information that was ascertained, there is a two-year contract signed, I believe, at 32 Salem Street, Riverside Avenue, excuse me, There's no Comcast. There's no Verizon there. So how do you broadcast out of have a full-fledged studio if you don't have that capacity to broadcast from there? So what's going on now, if I understand all of this correctly, is the modular transmission, lack of terminology. I don't know the proper terminology. But it's here in this particular building, or it was brought here in this particular building. I don't know if it's still here. And the whole idea is that the transmission would come from Verizon or Comcast to City Hall, and then they would somehow bounce it to 32 Riverside Avenue. And I'm saying to myself, well, wait a minute. What is this all about? This is not having a full-fledged studio that's equipped on its own merits at its own location. Then I started to think about this thing even more. And I'm saying to myself, we have a concern here. We're putting channel-free equipment into Medford City Hall. And by putting Channel 3 equipment into Medford City Hall, are we talking about having a liability issue here? Are we talking about the equipment here in City Hall? Are we talking about the access to City Hall? The keys and who would have keys to City Hall? Who would be coming into City Hall if, in fact, something were to go wrong in the transmission from City Hall to 32 Riverside Avenue? And there's a whole host of questions here. And the city has a liability policy as it relates to being a self-insured. Now, we all know that Channel 3 is a separate private nonprofit corporation. So, I mean, we have two separate entities here running around. We were also told at that point in time that there was, I believe, less than $100,000 operating budget that they were operating in, but there is another budget for whatever that might be worth. So I tried to get down there on two separate occasions on Riverside Avenue. Both times I couldn't get in. Both times the door was locked, but on one particular day, The paper was down, I did have a chance to look in, and it didn't look like there was hardly any work, if any work at all was taking place down there. Now this goes back to March of this year. So now we have a station manager that's getting paid. We have no transmission, no broadcasting coming forward. We have, for whatever the reason might be, if in fact the city of Medford is now being a part of whatever Channel 3 is going to be involved with, if the mayor is doing this, I have no idea why Channel 3 would even be here. and entertaining City Hall, but more importantly, why would they even want to stay on Riverside Avenue with no access to cable television, Verizon or Comcast? You know, poor choice, they've been around, they know the situation, they know what Medford Square is about, they know what Riverside Ave is all about, and that was a poor choice to go there, especially being in the business for, they're not novice, these people that are working there, and they're a part of Channel 3, they've been around for a while, they know what's going on. And since they know what's going on, the sad part about this is they've got themselves locked into a contract for which I would assume, I would hope that they would be able to get out of. And even if they had to get sued, who cares about getting sued? Look at the time that you're costing the city, the taxpayers, each of the rate payers, each and every cable bill are paying for something. You're paying for station manager that has no job to do because there's nothing being programmed. There's nothing being taped. And then it dawned on me yesterday while we were at the cemetery and we were listening to the speeches being made and watching the people that were there and the observance, where is all this portable equipment? The portable equipment that Channel 3 has had through the years from the thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars that subscribers have not only paid, but the city of Medford has transferred over to Channel 3 through the years. They could have had people out there with portable cameras doing the portable televising of it. And then, if in fact, and when they do come back on, that they would have a whole host of things to put on, the Memorial Day service, graduations, whatever it might be. You don't see any of that around. And then we were told there's 10 board of directors. I have no idea who the board of directors are, and I would hope they would come forward and let us know who these board of directors are so we could get a handle on what the makeup of the board is. And then, I believe one of the situations that came up, going back and reviewing Judge Jackson's report, that the city paid over $15,000 on, Melanson and Heath, the city's auditor, on one particular year, going back, I believe it was just before or after Judge Jackson, indicated there was, on a $15,000 account, $5,000 was totally unaccounted for. No receipts, no records, totally unaccounted for. Now I know I see one of the folks sitting in the audience, I don't know which one it is, but I know he came to the podium one night and he said it was a combination of sloppy bookkeeping, not keeping the records accurate, but we're going to do a better job and all of that. Well, our resolution last week was to ask for an audit, a complete audit on channel three for the last three years and have that forwarded to the city because the rate payers really have no other alternative. but to either go to the mirror. And it's obvious that the mirror is either failing to do anything, doesn't want to do anything, afraid to do something. So the people's voice, which is at this podium right now, is nothing more than asking, what is really going on over there? You know, why would you want to put a TV station for cable subscribers for public access at a location that has no accessibility to the cable? That's number one. Number two, why wasn't that thought out ahead of time to know that cable access could not go there. And number three, more importantly, you know, they should go out and find another spot and think about what really cable access is here within this community and what it should be. Because the taxpayers and the rate payers, as Councilor Caraviello alluded to last Tuesday night, they're getting ripped off each and every month. There should be an accounting for that money. There should be a credit coming back. And the City of Medford should not be holding that money available for Channel 3 if they're not broadcasting. People are getting paid for doing no work, because there's no work to be done over there, and there's no broadcasting. So, with that being said, Mr. President, I think we really need to get an answer from our city solicitor as it relates to, is the city of Medford using a public building for the purposes of having transmission out of this building to 32 Riverside Avenue for the purposes of having public access cable television? And if that's the case, what is, if any, legal ramifications that might be involved? Let's go back to the other issue, Mr. Clark, who comes into the building, who's going to handle the phone calls, who's going to have a set of keys, who's going to be responsible for the equipment, who's going to be responsible for the city's equipment, who's going to be responsible for what's in this building if somebody from Channel 3 or one of their designees comes into this building for whatever the reasons might be. That's the sad part about not having this all in one place with the ability to be accessed in and out of one place. And to come here in City Hall now, after the fact, having whatever the tenure was in 5 High Street, whatever that lawsuit might be all about, whatever the reason why they left there, it doesn't make any sense that they would go to another place that gives them less opportunity for the purposes of broadcasting on a daily basis. On motion to Councilor Penta, Vice President Del Russo.
[Robert Penta]: While you might be autonomous legally, You are taking ratepayers' money for which the mayor of this community overrides your corporation, because he administers Channel 3. He's the executive director, and technically, of your Channel 3. But he's not taking any action for whatever the reason is. So you feel as though it's your duty to go ahead and take action? It's my duty to let the taxpayer, ratepayer know that that Channel 3 is not operating. It should be operating. And there is something wrong, especially when you're bringing equipment into this building and trying to make the modular or the transmission go from here to there. Why didn't you just go to another place that had access?
[Robert Penta]: There's nothing to be confused. Don't play the game tonight, Frank. The bottom line is you're in a place that you had no right going to because there was no access, and you've taken two months worth of ratepayers' money that they're paying each and every You're paying people at work that have no job to go to.
[Robert Penta]: No, let me give you the history. The history is this, Frank. Frank, Frank, the history is this. He hasn't earned my respect, Mr. President. Well, you haven't earned mine either.
[Robert Penta]: That's on Riverside Avenue. You're in a place that does not have access to cable, Verizon, or Comcast. You're not operating, and the tax rate payers in this community are not getting their money's worth. That's the bottom line. That's it. So why did you go there? Answer that question. Why did you go to a place knowing that there was no access?
[Robert Penta]: Well, who are the board of directors? He said there was 10 of them. Do you know the 10 of them? Who said there were 10? Mr. Sano, your director.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's what he said. He told us they were 10.
[Robert Penta]: Let me give a little history. Let me give a little history. Mr. Poleri, Mr. Poleri, Mr. Poleri, please. Mr. Poleri, how many board of directors do you have?
[Robert Penta]: No, how many do you have right now, active? I want to say six. You have six. So your station manager was wrong when he said 10.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's what he said, 10.
[Robert Penta]: No, I don't want any history. Mr. President, we're not here. That's not the resolution. The resolution's not about a history of TV3 to dance around the subject. The subject matter is very simple. The rate payers have no one to go to, because the mayor is not doing anything. So when they come to a council or a council law— Well, that's for you to discuss with the mayor, isn't it?
[Robert Penta]: Yes, it is.
[Robert Penta]: You may be autonomous in your mind. In your mind, you might be autonomous. But you are using ratepayers' money. You're taking ratepayers' money that the mayor is giving to you because of the contract. But you have no access. There's no television. There's no broadcasting. You're paying for people that don't have a job to go to for two months plus more. Tell me. Yeah, I'm really serious.
[Robert Penta]: Well, tell me why you're not broadcasting. Once again, you're ridiculous. Why are you not broadcasting? And for you to come down there to a building to try to get in. Why are you not broadcasting? Tell me why you're not broadcasting. You have my phone number, Robert Diamond. Tell me why you're not broadcasting. I will talk one-on-one with you. Why aren't you broadcasting? Tell me why you're not broadcasting. Councilor, I'm not. Why are you not? He has to answer the question, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, I wanna know why you're not broadcasting it on Riverside Avenue.
[Robert Penta]: Answer it, I don't want a long history, just tell me the reason why. All right, go ahead, go ahead with your statement. What's your answer?
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Powell. Quick question for you. Why did you move from 5 High Street to 32 Riverside Avenue?
[Robert Penta]: If you're having issues at 5 High Street.
[Robert Penta]: I understand that. I also know that the city's Board of Health went down there too. Yes, I do know. We had to move for the safety of our members. Just answer a simple question, Frank. 32 Riverside Ave does not have Verizon or Comcast. Why did you go there knowing that?
[Robert Penta]: You went there knowing it didn't have it.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Mr. President. Why did you bring your transmitter over here last week and have it stored here? Because you were going to transmit here and then from here it's going to bounce back there. Why'd you do that?
[Robert Penta]: So you cannot broadcast legitimately on your own at 32 Riverside Avenue? That's not true. Forget City Hall.
[Robert Penta]: You cannot do it, Frank. You just got through saying there's a feed here, which is going to allow you to broadcast them there. You cannot go to 32 Riverside Avenue on its own without City Hall. You need City Hall. That's the bottom line.
[Robert Penta]: So why don't you just go someplace that had cable accessibility?
[Robert Penta]: Councilman Iacocca, so a few years ago, five, six years ago, brought up that issue, and your people were here one night when we had a discussion on how Cable Comcast was being broadcast, and as a matter of fact, it went all the way to Haines Square, and it was a business person. Remember, who's the person?
[Robert Penta]: My belief is Riverside Avenue going up to High Street is not wired. Was not wired.
[Robert Penta]: You mentioned High Street. That's what I said.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you weren't specific. You said High Street. Excuse me. Five High Streets. Bottom line is you're wasting taxpayers' money, ratepayers' money by being in a place, you're not broadcasting, there's nothing going on over there, you're paying a station manager and one other person for nothing.
[Robert Penta]: There is nothing going on for him.
[Robert Penta]: There isn't.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Mr. President, have you got any legal opinion from a city solicitor as it relates to the liability, if anything, and how this is all going to work? Have you discussed this with the city solicitor? I have a meeting tomorrow with the mayor and the solicitor. So in other words, you're going ahead, making an assumption over here by going into construction and spending money, but you haven't met with the city manager, I mean, the mayor and the solicitor. So you went ahead, ahead of time, two months ago, going in there, and now you just decide to go to the city solicitor.
[Robert Penta]: Why is it inaccurate? You just said you're meeting tomorrow.
[Robert Penta]: So the Mayor has given you his blessing to put your equipment in this building. Is that what you're saying? That's essentially correct, yes. The Mayor of Medford said to you, Frank Palleri, Board of Directors at Channel 3, you can put your your equipment here and broadcast from here to that studio.
[Robert Penta]: Point of further information, Mr. President. You just used the word, hopefully. Give the same services, hopefully. Yes. The word hopefully should never have even been used. It should have been able to say, to provide the same services, period.
[Robert Penta]: But to get here and there, you keep saying here and there. City Hall is supposed to be a part of this.
[Robert Penta]: No.
[Robert Penta]: No, I just think there's a liability issue here and I think there's an issue that the city needs to address.
[Robert Penta]: Don't tell me what I know.
[Robert Penta]: Grandstanding? This is you. This is what you do. This is what you do. You coming up here and making a big example of what? The bottom line. So let me go ahead and give a step. Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Point of further information, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: You keep saying you're in the process of building what? You don't have the ability to transmit out of there. What are you building?
[Robert Penta]: If you can't transmit from the internet.
[Robert Penta]: I don't care about that. I care about- How do you think they transmit over- Keep your voice down, please. I care about Channel 3 and the subscribers paying for the money.
[Robert Penta]: You know, if you're going to have this ability to come into this building because your equipment is here, what do you expect the city to do if you have to come in here and the building is closed. Do you expect to get keys to the city?
[Robert Penta]: City Hall closes at 12.30 on a Friday, you have Monday through Friday, so if God forbid something had happened, you'd be down all weekend, whereas if you were in a location, where all your equipment was there, somebody could get in, it could be serviced within an hour. Again, this does not make any sense. Staying in a place. staying in a place that does not give you access. And you have to do a habit.
[Robert Penta]: No, you're being ridiculous. You went to 5 High Street. You didn't have to get another place at 5 High Street. You didn't have to get another place at Canal Street. You didn't have to get another place at the high school. This is the only one. This is your fourth move. And on the fourth move, you need another place to put your equipment.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, it really bothers me. Why does that bother you, Councilor? It bothers me because it doesn't belong here. It belongs in the place that you're renting, that you're taking the money. You took the money. You took the money from the ratepayers of this community to have a public access channel.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah, I remember it.
[Robert Penta]: That's right. The vote was four to three. You know why?
[Robert Penta]: All right. He's just going to keep repeating the same thing. So I'm going to go to another question. Your station manager last week said he has a budget of $100,000. You have a separate budget that's doing all that work down there. How much is that budget? What is that costing? Excuse me. What does that cost?
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. He indicated that there's two separate budgets. One is an operating budget, one's a- Well, we have an operating budget and a capital budget, sure. So what's paying for that, operating or capital?
[Robert Penta]: Last question, Mr. President. Last week, because your station manager couldn't answer the question, so maybe you can answer it. When's the last time you've been audited? Did you give him an opportunity to answer the question last night? Yes, I did. He said he didn't know. No, not an audit. You filed your report to the state. I'm talking about an audit.
[Robert Penta]: You're the station manager. You have your money managers over there. They should know.
[Robert Penta]: You're the president? I am the president of the corporation. And how long have you been there, Frank? I've been affiliated with TV3 since 1986. Well then, from 1987 to this particular time, you should have a pretty good idea how a station runs and what they're responsible for and what to do.
[Robert Penta]: I have a lot better idea than you and some other people in this room. I just asked you the question then. The last time you think was three to four years ago. Three to four years ago, yeah. That's not an answer in your world?
[Robert Penta]: So you didn't adhere to Judge Jackson's report and her findings. Apparently you didn't follow her recommendations.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's a very interesting comment to make. The city pays $15,000.
[Robert Penta]: So you're saying that city solicitor Rumley, he hurled car bombs at you too? Is that what you're saying? No comment. Yeah, no comment. I guess so, huh? All right. Councilor Caraviello.
[Robert Penta]: What was that remark supposed to mean? Well, it was just a little fun. No, no. What's that supposed to mean? Lighten up, dear boy. No, I'm not going to lighten up. I'm serious about that. You think I'm going to go in there and take your equipment?
[Robert Penta]: What are you talking about? I didn't hurl any accusations. You would take offense to that? I didn't hurl any. I just made comments. I didn't hurl anything. I didn't point the finger at anyone that was doing anything. I asked questions. Is that right? Yes, that's right. Is that right? Yeah. Well, what about this missing money? You tell me about it.
[Robert Penta]: There's no money missing.
[Robert Penta]: Well, then, Senator Heath, read its report.
[Robert Penta]: Frank Leary was right. If that's the case, Frank, I would be more than happy to do it. But when your money managers say that you people keep sloppy bookkeeping records, I have to find out. All right. Point of information, Vice President Del Russo.
[Robert Penta]: Now, with... Point of information, Councilor Penta. You guys get $200,000 a year from the subscribers of this community. $200,000 a year. And you're telling me you cannot afford to have an annual audit on your books? That's right, yeah.
[Robert Penta]: And they do more, too. And as a matter of fact, they go before the legislative body almost quarterly to explain what they do. the programs that they're presenting, and they tell them about their income levels.
[Robert Penta]: We have, and he hasn't responded. That's why we're discussing it right here.
[Robert Penta]: He's not the only proper authority. We represent the people of this community, and we represent cable TV subscribers. Now, if you folks want to come here and give your sales pitch, you go right ahead. They can hear you, and they can hear any one of us.
[Robert Penta]: Where am I getting my information?
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute. No, you just made a comment. Yes, I did, Mr. Penta. Who am I getting and where am I getting my information from? You don't think I have the ability to do this on my own? Is that what you're trying to say? You think I'm somebody else's mouthpiece?
[Robert Penta]: I'm not going to stand here and listen to that nonsense. All right.
[Robert Penta]: All right, Councilor Panta. One last question. You may have won the award, but so didn't 10 other communities win the award, all right? So you weren't the only community. We won the National Excellence Award.
[Robert Penta]: On that motion, Councilor Penta. If I understand how the motion just did not pass, I understand that. So the question then becomes of the mayor, that the mayor should be reporting back to the council that he is allowing Channel 3, he should update this council, that he is now allowing Channel 3 to house and use this building for the purposes of supplementing
[Robert Penta]: First Councilor Penta. Mr. President, I'm thankful that Councilor Lingo-Curran now has added on to the resolution in thought and in practice. What we have here is a whole host of issues. As we had our discussion tonight relative to the pool issue, the bottom line to all of this is the mayor says everything is a priority. Well, everything cannot be a priority. Taxpayers in this community are going to wind up paying for everything that's a priority in the mayor's mind. We have a police yard. We have a fire department. We have public works. We have whatever the heck is going on on Commercial Street. I don't know how much longer that's going to last. We still haven't even resolved the issue of the girls or the ladies or the women, however you want to use the terminology in the police department, you know, the locker rooms or the lack of locker rooms. and the safety issues that need to be revolved over there. We never even got to the point of the Water and Sewer Department after the fire in May of three years ago. They were supposed to get a trailer. They never even got a trailer. I mean, these things go on and on. I mean, we have a swimming pool that's now going to get us well up to almost $3,800,000. It started off as a $2.3 million adventure. So I just don't think the taxpayers of this city should be led to believe, oh, we can afford it, we can afford it. What can we afford? Every time you slap a dollar on the price tag of all of this stuff, somebody has to pay for it. Now, there's no conversation anymore about the no-interest loans that the MWRA had. I don't know whatever happened to that. We never heard anything more about, you know, the money that was supposed to be coming forward from the billboards and all of that to appropriate this money. So, I really think, Mr. President, before any votes take place, Any agreements take place on any one of these issues. We really need to, if the mayor doesn't want to put it in some kind of an order of priority, then maybe the council should, between and amongst ourselves. Maybe we all feel that the public works department is more important than the pool, or maybe the police department is more important than the pool, or the pool is more important than the fire department. I don't know. But there's only so much money that we have to go out there. And you have a budget coming up right around the corner. And as Councilor Lungelkorn alluded to before, And as Councilor Marks also alluded to, we should have these figures before this budget even comes into place so we have some kind of an idea how much this is gonna cost and where we're going with it. You talk to the rate payer, the taxpayer on the street, all they know is the cost of everything just keeps going up and up and up. And the cost of government keeps going up too. And I think we saw a pure example of it tonight on Channel 3 coming down here. To me, it's total incompetence. They did not want to address or discuss the issue regarding ratepayers' money. At least we can discuss taxpayers' money. And at least we have some semblance of controlling of what's going on in this city. Unfortunately, on the cable TV subscribers, why the mayor is refusing to get involved to do anything, I don't know. Maybe they have a tie over him over something, I don't know. But it's absolutely wrong as to what's going on over there. But more importantly, at least on this particular issue, We have some control over it, and we have the control of either saying yes, no, or maybe, or cut it in between, and maybe it's not as grandiose as it appears to be. All right. Councilor Longo-Kurin.
[Robert Penta]: At the meeting tonight, there were two papers that were handled of updates. I think you got one of them. Oh. Yeah. And I think all the council should get copies of them.
[Robert Penta]: And there was another two-page one that they had given out.
[Robert Penta]: Joseph Pierre.
[Robert Penta]: Is that your brother?
[Robert Penta]: Joseph O. No, he's Joseph O. Joseph O. Pierre. I get a page here from the Sailor of Weights and Measures. It's unsigned and undated. As a matter of fact, both of his pages are unsigned and undated.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Clark, they're unsigned and undated.
[Robert Penta]: You're using Friday Canal Street. What's Harvard Street?
[Robert Penta]: What's your company?
[Robert Penta]: You have two different names.
[Robert Penta]: You have two different corporations?
[Robert Penta]: All County Transportation, Inc.
[Robert Penta]: You have one cab already right now. What's the name of that cab company?
[Robert Penta]: I don't understand this. If you want three cabs, why do you have two different cab company names?
[Robert Penta]: How could you be paying $600 a month if you didn't get the license?
[Robert Penta]: The insurance? Yes. Insurance for what?
[Robert Penta]: You paid $7,200 a year? $7,200 a year, that's what you pay for insurance?
[Robert Penta]: But you don't have a cab license. How could you be paying that?
[Robert Penta]: You are self-insured $10,000 for each car. That's what you're saying? Yes, most of the cabins are self-insured. You put $20,000 up to insure two cars.
[Robert Penta]: You just got through saying you're paying $600 a month. No. Current insurance.
[Robert Penta]: Is your other taxi self-insured too?
[Robert Penta]: I don't possibly can believe that you need two more cabs to operate in the city. You already have one. That's 44 cabs. I just cannot believe there is no There's no business out there for 44 cabs in this city. I just don't understand this.
[Robert Penta]: I understand that.
[Robert Penta]: I don't know if you're from a court or what, but I can't support it because I just think this is completely out of control. All of it's out of control. You don't even have your own certificate of insurance. You write self-insured. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts tells you you have to have a stamped self-insured certificate when you're using the term self-insured.
[Robert Penta]: That Mr. Ramirez be invited down, who was a wonderful asset, at the Brookline Bank and he just retired. And it'd be nice to have the people take a look and see and have him give us his resume.
[Robert Penta]: Two papers. 13-449. It was laid in the table on the 14th. Um, DPW parks department and Hormel commission. We get a report back on that.
[Robert Penta]: No, but he laid it for one week.
[Robert Penta]: Yeah.
[Robert Penta]: Why can't it be open all the time? I don't understand that.
[Robert Penta]: Why can't they be open, like, on Saturday and Sunday when they go? It should be. That's what I'm asking for.
[Robert Penta]: I know.
[Robert Penta]: What, on the track? I was just talking about the track, to walk around the track.
[Robert Penta]: Also, Mr. President. All right, which one? Put a request in there that we get our trash collection reports on a monthly basis. We have yet to receive that report back.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. Clark. Did you send that letter out?
[Robert Penta]: Did you send that to the mayor?
[Robert Penta]: He didn't send it?
[Robert Penta]: Yes. All right.
[Robert Penta]: Councilor Pater, the motion for approval. I think it's very unfair that Mr. Wood came to this podium and virtually attacked a city councilor on a resolution that is nothing more than a result of numerous, because we all received them, numerous resolutions of public safety issues in this community, whether it's signage, crosswalks, intersection, lights, speeding, not enough police protection at certain places. I think maybe Mr. Wood didn't get the issue. I don't think he understood the fact that Councilor Marks, in his resolution, did talk about pedestrian safety, did talk about bicycle paths. He made references to a long-term approach, and in this long-term approach would be inclusive, I would assume, of all the things that Mr. Wood would want to be talking about. The unfortunate part about it is you can't win in this council, because when you put a resolution, this isn't even my resolution, I don't even know why I'm talking about it, but I will talk about it, because it's one of my colleagues, and if I agree with one of my colleagues, I'll support it, if I disagree, I won't support it. But I support it only for one reason, because we all have been inundated over the last few months from resolutions of people throughout this community who just get absolutely no satisfaction from this administration on their issues. I have to assume that part of this resolution smacks with a sense of frustration because we are at a, this council as a whole is sometimes just handheld with inability to do anything because it's this mayor who just refuses to do anything. Now the best part about this most recent election, hopefully you got a wake up call. from someone who was brand new running for office and got almost 36% of the vote. That's a wake-up call. He's got to start listening to what's going on out there. Councilor Camuso, you brought up a good point about maybe consolidating the commissions. But before we get to the idea of consolidating or eliminating any of these commissions, look at all the people that are sitting there with terms that have been expired for months, if not years. That needs to be reviewed first. Why would somebody be sitting on a board that's been expired for months and years and you're worried about whether they're even capable of doing the job or consolidating or merging them? I think it's a good resolution. I think the unfortunate part, one correction to Councilor Langel. It was two years, not one year. Counsel Mark said on that traffic commission report, it was submitted in September, October of 2009, and this is now 2011, so two years after the fact, and the mayor is yet to act on that traffic commission report. You have traffic supervisors on the street right now being told that they're gonna lose their benefits because they don't work enough hours. So we're gonna figure out a way how to give you more hours to work it out. Maybe the game plan, they're going to be the new traffic enforcement division. I don't know, but you know that's going to stir apart with the unions around here. You know, it's very hard to make a conversation come to a life where everybody can understand what's going on, especially the folks who might be watching and the audience that's here tonight. There's absolutely no communication coming from this administration on these particular issues. And I guarantee you, this issue, this resolution wouldn't even be on the agenda if the concerns that have been expressed by taxpayers, when a phone call is made to City Hall, as a resolution that I have on later on tonight, from over a year ago, has yet to be responded to. That's frustration. That is frustration from taxpayers who are paying their taxes in this city for simple little things. If you can't accomplish it right away, at least return the phone call. Let the taxpayer know that they've been acknowledged. So I support it, Councilor Marks. I think it's a good resolution. I think in whole the council supports it. It's just a matter of fact that, you know, when is the mayor gonna wake up and understand that these resolutions all revolve around the taxpayers of this community. It's not about any one of us, singularly or collectively. It's about the taxpayers within this community who pay the bills every single day, every single week. And that's what this is all about. Well, you might have your agenda, Dr. Wood, and I know it's the green line that you're impassioned about. I don't think there's any one member on this council at any point in time that does not have the public safety at heart of the people in this community, whether it's a crosswalk, a sign, a policeman, speeding, fire, public safety, public works, whatever it might be. That's one thing I don't think you can take away from this city council, because that's been our public priority since I think all seven of us have served on this council. On the motion for approval, I'd like to speak
[Robert Penta]: dates, the dates of expiration.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, um, some weeks ago, a young gentleman who's sitting out in the audience right now, Mr. Capucci came and brought an issue before us, which was called agenda 21. It's a very, depending how you view it, It either can be complex, or it can be very simple, or it's cut and dry, depending on how you view it. To me, I find this to be somewhat complex, because the ingredients that make up Agenda 21 have a spillover effect, and that also, unfortunately, spills over into the whole educational philosophy of what Agenda 21 is all about. The IB program, the International Baccalaureate Program, it's hard to pronounce that.
[Robert Penta]: Baccalaureate Program. It's something that started back in 1968 and it came out of, it was a result of a United Nations type of activity where they were looking at the idea of where are we going as United Nations and how are we going to get our agendas, so to speak, better understood throughout the world, throughout the world and the world economy. And as a result of that, I mean, I've just spent oodles and oodles of times and hours getting this thing, trying to understand it. Because what I want to understand is after Agenda 21, I have been inundated with phone calls with people for and against Agenda 21. And then these phone calls have now diverted themselves to the educational school system here in the city of Medford, be it public or private, but leaning more toward the public school system. And if in fact, or does in fact, the public school officially or unofficially participate in any of the programming. And to some degree, I would have to assume it would, because some of the things that are in the budget for which the city of Medford pays for, for which the Medford city council votes on and approves as part of this international, um, baccalaureate, what'd you call it? Baccalaureate. Baccalaureate program. But anyway, It started off in the beginning years as a secondary level high school type of a level program. It's now got itself down from the third grade all the way up to the 12th grade. Strike that from three years old up to a 12-year-old person. And it's recognized it's a non-governmental activity. And its recognition is that it's not an advanced placement. It's not an AP program. And by not being an AP program, colleges are not accepting any of these classes or any of these courses. that unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on whether you're a supporter or a non-supporter of the program, takes place. I'm going to just quote some of the terminology that they use. It is basically, it's a transformation system of education, instructed to change the attitudes, values, beliefs, and behavior of the student to conform to the world government system. So if you watch anything about what the United Nations is all about, and part of their whole effort is to bring a world agenda together, and if this world agenda together is actually going to be successful, it has to go through an educational process, not a military or a political process, it's an educational process. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Education established a $1.2 million grant program for middle schools that are willing to participate in this program, which become feeder schools for the high schools throughout the entire country. And as a result of that, the programming consists of six questions. Who we are, where are we in place and time, how do we express ourselves, how does the world work, how do we organize ourselves, sharing the planet. These are the six themes that basically make up this whole idea of the agenda. And as a result of that, In 2004, the Washington Times reported the following, that the America's foundational principles of national sovereignty, national law, and inalienable rights are at odds with the IB curriculum, and they're not being taught as such.
[Robert Penta]: I think I just got through saying that, number one, the Washington Times reported in the newspaper article My other report comes from Newsweek. It also comes from Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica. It also comes from people who are well established. It comes from the United States Department of Education. Where do you want me to stop? I'll stop. Are you questioning the authenticity of what I'm saying? I hope you're not, Councilor, because this is a very serious program. And if the program is operating here in the city of Medford, we are paying for it in part, whether you realize it or not. And that's what I'm trying to find out. And as a Councilor, I'm trying to find out how this budget works and what incorporates itself into the taxpayers of this community. It's an important issue. So if you want to question me, go ahead and question me all you want. Everything I have here is verified. Aren't we have somebody from the school department here? Well, my agenda at the end will be asking a joint meeting, because there are many parents that would like to have a meeting with the school committee and the council, because they don't feel they're getting satisfaction from the school committee. Continuing on, Mr. President. You know, I just want to say something. Of all the things that this council is going to get itself involved in, whether you want to call it a school department issue or a city issue, there is nothing that's more valuable than making sure that the kids in this community are getting an education that talks about, that talks about whether it's in their social studies, their sciences, or their math, that they are individuals, and their rights as individuals are protected, and they should not be taught that they have to live as a world society person. There's nothing wrong with looking out for your fellow man, but there is something wrong when they tell you you have to share your wealth and everything that you've earned to take care of people that are in other countries that are impoverished. That's why we have our freedom of choices to make our donations whenever and whoever we want to make it to. The United Nations is ongoing right now, trying to do between now and the year 2020, they're going to be down in Africa, at a convention on November 28th, well it's already yesterday, to raise $100 billion a year to fight air pollution for which they want the United States to be the prime mover on because we are the richest country in the world. But that's not the way for us to spend our money and we shouldn't be told by people in the United Nations or 40 other countries We became successful for one reason. We worked at it. We used our brain. That's what we teach our kids in school to do. Use your brain. And if you use your brain to become successful, then your intellect as an individual will surface and rise. But if you want to go to this group world attitude that we have to think of ourselves globally as an individual and share whatever we have globally as an individual, we have now dumbed down upon ourselves and relegated ourselves to the same third world opportunities, or lack thereof, that those countries don't have. They can have the same world opportunities, they just need to get themselves and their political right of way, so to speak, in order. We did it some 243 years ago. And look what's trying to happen right now. They're trying to have, through the United Nations, couched this IB program to take away everything that our servicemen that we go and celebrate every Memorial Day and Veterans Day died for. The individual rights of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. not globally to take away your right of religion, to take away your right of making a living, and to take away the fact that you have to take care of the rest of the world because unfortunately your parents or grandparents made it for you and you've succeeded upon that. That's not what we're all about. We're all about a country, a group of citizens whose family and parents emigrated here, Mr. President. You detoured me. You did a good job of it, but I'm glad I got it out because I'm gonna finish what I have to say, Councilor Dello Russo. More importantly, Mr. President, partnerships. They talk about working in partnerships. Well, you can be partners with anybody you want politically or socially. And if you want to put a child in a classroom to be a partner with the student next to him, that's okay. I'll leave the name of the school, and I'll leave the name of the teacher, and I'll leave the name of the class that's out. But there's a program that's being distributed right now and implemented in one of our schools that talks about the fact that you should share that for what you have, which is your wealth and your right to have things that other kids and other families and other people don't have. That's okay to learn as a learning process, but don't indoctrinate a child at that age who has never, ever gone through the process of knowing what the difference is between right and wrong, because this is when they're their most, this is when they're their most informative. This is when their mind and their imagination takes place. And if this is all that they're hearing, that's what they're gonna grow up to think and believe. And where does that put us in future 10 or 20 or 30 years as a country? It takes away everything that we stand for. Our ability to stand alone, to be alone, and be that individual that our parents told us and taught us to be. Mr. President, We have in our public school system here, Medford is part of a $9.5 million National Science Foundation and it's called TERG, it's the other part of the Medford Public School math program for which unfortunately is causing a problem with some parents who believe that the program is not satisfying or completing the child and the MCAS scores and grades like they're supposed to be. At the elementary school level, the worst of the National Science Foundation funded programs is widely used in the K through five series. The program relies heavily on calculators and does not include textbooks in the usual sense. And as a result of that, there are parents who have addressed this issue before the school committee. And the school committee, through some of their members, leaving them nameless, just do not want to address it or accept that for which the parents are talking about. We are part of that $9.5 million programming. And therefore, Mr. President, it's well within our daily work to talk about it, and it's well within the school committee's department to talk about it. You're talking about the kids within this community. Also, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: Point of information, Vice President Del Russo.
[Robert Penta]: From my understanding and speaking with parents, they have addressed this to the school department. Certain individuals in the school committee, they have not responded in a like manner of concern. Has it been before the school committee? Yes, people have addressed it before the school committee. As a matter of fact, one of the issues that were addressed before the school committee some two to three weeks ago was the fact that the school committee might be considering taking algebra out of the eighth grade. I mean, these are one of the prerequisites for children to go to college if they want, if they want to be math folks, they want to succeed. If you start taking away some of these programs, once again, it goes to this whole IB program.
[Robert Penta]: Where are the principals in this? I can't answer that, other than the fact that parents are now starting to bring this up. And I want to thank Mr. Cappucci for bringing this thing up a few weeks ago, because this whole thing with Agenda 21, it's more than land, and it's more than smart growth, and it's more than that. It's the whole educational philosophy. And if this thing gets itself entrenched into the minds of these students, as I just said a few minutes ago, they're gonna know nothing different. They're not gonna know what we knew growing up. Let me ask you this from the chair. If it's so nefarious. I didn't say it's nefarious, no.
[Robert Penta]: Your inference is bad. No, my inference is this. Let me get to finishing what I'm gonna say. Finish what you're saying. Go ahead. All right. There's a critical review which comes out of Texas, the place where the It's called We the People, the Citizens, and the Constitution. It's a civic textbook written by the place in Texas that writes the textbooks for the entire country. And what they are doing, they are being taught that in the United States, number one, we are the number one terrorist nation. That's what it says. And they are being taught that the rest of the world is mired in poverty because of the greedy capitalists in the United States. That's what these kids are being taught. That's what's in these textbooks. Point of information. What textbooks have that? These are the history books that are coming out of Texas, which serve the entire country. When we buy our textbooks, the civics. This is already in print. It's already in print. They are in our schools. I can't tell you, it's in this school, but if it's coming in this school, it's in print and it's ready to go. These are the new textbooks that are now being printed and ready to go. Who's the publisher?
[Robert Penta]: Well, it's not that it's Marxism. Let me just go on. The United Nations Global Education Program took a major step in 1968 when they started this whole programming. And it basically said we're living on a planet that is becoming exhausted. A guy by the name of George Walker wrote this. He is the director in general. He comes out of Geneva, Switzerland. And he says that the program remains committed to changing children's values so they think globally, rather than in parochial national terms from their own country's viewpoint, okay? Mr. President, the IB program has been dropped. 550 schools have picked it up. 74 of the high schools that have picked it up have now dropped it because they have seen what it's done everywhere from California to Rhode Island. The goals and the methods of the IB program reach much further than the 502 U.S. schools now officially enrolled. The Center for Civic Education, which by law writes the curriculum for civics education in the United States, says, quote, in the past century, the civic mission of schools was education for democracy and a sovereign state. In this century, by contrast, education will become everywhere more global, and we ought to improve our curricular frameworks and standards for a world transformed by globally accepted and internationally transcendent principles. The global influence can be clearly seen in the new mission for the National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. This is the national curriculum. This comes right out of the United States government. This is their philosophy, which is now gonna be transcended into their new books.
[Robert Penta]: I don't know if we have the new books yet.
[Robert Penta]: The International Baccalaureate's philosophy? No, no. What I just read to you comes from the United States. It's in Washington. They print the civics books for the entire country.
[Robert Penta]: Well, that's part of the argument, and I'm not saying that it is. The whole idea of bringing this to the attention of everyone, I want to find out if in fact, what if in fact our Methodist public school systems are involved with this, if anything. The idea of an automatic cutoff. The United States cut off its financing because the United Nations decided to give money to Pakistan. And the argument in rebuttal by certain legislators and congressmen is that we should be cutting off this type of IB information being disseminated through schools. Now remember, as I told you before, the IB information is something, if I understand this correctly, it's something that does not garner college graduate credits or college accepted credits. So it takes away from the AP programs if kids are taking this. with the 502 schools that have already accepted and the 74 that have opted out, they've opted out because they found out what this programming entails, which basically allegedly is diminishing the value of the individual and making the individual feel that he or she needs to transform their way of thinking globally. The question then becomes, if you read Read what they have. Their whole program is revolved around environmental, multicultural, and citizen global world agenda. That's their agenda. This isn't my agenda, this is their agenda. And my question that needs to be asked, and through the Medford Public Schools system, are they in fact participating in any shape, manner, or form? We accepted this in 1999, September 2nd, 1999. The city of Medford accepted this. Mayor McGlynn signed off on it. And at that point in time, none of us probably had any idea what it was. And if you signed off on it and you're a participant, they pay you. Anyway, it's up to $135,000 a year to be a member in this particular program. And if you are and you're getting inundated or indoctrinated with that type of philosophy, that can cause a concern. Whether it's the sciences that talk about believing and worshiping the earth, or whether it's the multiculturalism and believing that we should be a hyphenated society of one, or whether it's the extreme belief that we should be echo green for everything because that's gonna save the world, There's more to the educational process than those three agendas, and that's the concern that I have, and I believe that's the concern that's been translated to me from folks, and I hope I've said it somewhat clear, but I think I've got the point out that needs to be addressed. I think we need to have a review of what the Medford public school system has in their civic books, what are they teaching in their sciences, in their social studies? Does it follow any of this philosophy of the United Nations IB program? And if it does, I think it needs to be reviewed. When parents bring these up to the school committee, as they did some two to three weeks ago, and they're ignored, or it's not what you're saying it is, you can't do that. I mean, last week was the best example. We had people come up here who for months and months and months complained about George and Winthrop Street. They finally came here, the council heard it, and it got itself corrected. This is a multiplying issue. This is so recent as of today in California. It's a big issue, and the issue is this. Are and is the United States gonna conform to the wishes of the United Nations, whether it's their political or their educational agendas, and if it's an educational agenda, how is that gonna reflect upon we as a country? Keeping our sovereignty, keeping our nationality, and keeping our individuality. because those three things they do not teach. And if they take that away from the kids that are being taught, then they've taken away everything that this country stands for. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Yes. Vice president Dela Rousseau.
[Robert Penta]: Okay. Yes, Councilmember. There's a gentleman that I alluded, and I really didn't want to allude him, and his name is Thomas Sowell. Thomas Sowell is a very well-known, renowned, and respected gentleman, especially in the area of ethnic background and issues regarding ethnic backgrounds of certain individuals. And he wrote a column in the Jewish Review, it's a newspaper, and this is regarding the IB programming, and one of the parents of his students basically put it in a very different way for which he accepted. And this is what it says. It says, one of the parents, critical of the program, put it quite differently for which he supports. She said, quote, it promotes socialism, disarmament, racial environmentalism, and moral relativism in attempting to undermine Christian religious values and national sovereignty. Now, anyone? If you don't know anything about Thomas Sowell, read up on him. He's another one, Jim Moss. He's well known, he's well respected from Stanford University. Writes in the column, he's syndicated. This is not an attempt to scare anyone. As I said, I've spent all week on this. Trying to get my head revolved around the fact, if we get ourselves to the middle of the road in this, what is the value of the program if in fact, It is operating here in the city of Medford. Are they paying us for it? And what are the programs that are being taught under it? And if some of the programs or if any of these programs are being taught under it. that take away the individuality, the right of religion, the right of free speech is already in this program, because it's obvious, it's in 500 schools throughout the country, so that's not the point. And as a lot of these quotes from a lot of these folks will say in some of these schools, and I went into all 74 of the districts, and all 74 of those districts, the end results from the parents that met, they were sold a bill of goods, they really didn't check into it, they didn't really get into the whole thing, until the subject matter was taught. And this is where we're going. The subject matter has to be taught in the school system for someone to understand this is what it's all about. The philosophy has to be spread. It has to be taught. The kids have to bring it home before the parents finally get to it. You know, they're hitting, as I told you before, they're hitting the brightest children at their weakest time and age because they just don't really know how and where this government came from before it all started. So if they're being indoctrinated or entrenched with this type of philosophy, through education, not through politics, smart way to go to education, they're not going to know the true values that we talk about and they're not going to know the real values of why and what our veterans have died for over and through the years. You know, if we decide to become a world citizen and become that collaborative, become that collective and not become we as one, then we have basically lost this whole idea of why do we send our children to school. You know, I'm not a fan of corporate greed, and I think I have stated that on a couple of occasions when I have given my Memorial Day address. But the corporate greed that I'm talking about is how it maneuvers itself through Washington through the legislative process, not how it's taking America and making it a third world country, so to speak, by making it become global. And that's what's gonna happen. So, anyone who might be watching, if you just wanna send me some more information, I'd be happy to. What I would like to do, Mr. President and Councilors, I would like to call for a roll call, no, strike that, I want a roll call vote. I'd like to call for a joint meeting with our school committee. I'd like to announce it to any and all parents throughout the city of Medford that have children in the public school, whatever your concerns might be on any of these issues that have an IB attitude or an overview, to bring it, and let's address it, You know, I think even between and amongst ourselves, we're probably not gonna grasp some of these issues. What happened? Tree fell. We're not going to be able to grasp these issues right away, but then again, you might because some of these social studies issues are very succinct. But as I alluded to in the beginning, we do participate in a math program for which part of the money has come from the Commonwealth of Mass, part of a grant, and that in and of itself presents a concern because it's part of the national science. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'd like to move the question.
[Robert Penta]: Uh, counsel Penta. Well, Mr. President, uh, first of all, before we got to the joint meeting, I would want that joint meeting to be prefaced by the fact of what a report back from the superintendent and his director of curriculum are, is the city of Medford officially or unofficially partaking in any of the UNIB programming and does the city of Medford participate in the receipt of any monies for many of these programs? And does in fact the city of Medford participate in a math program, That basically is part of the National Science Foundation and the TREC program. And if that's the case, Mr. President, you know, these are leading principals that are going to get this. So when we have our discussion with the superintendent and the school committee and the directors of curriculum, let me just say this to clear it up. You say you're not going to have a meeting because you don't have enough information. I've heard that before. When are you ever going to have enough information? The whole idea of bringing the information forward is to go to the next step. They'll have enough time to get their act together, whether the programming is taking place or isn't taking place. And I hear what you're saying, Councilor Camuso. It's a school committee issue if it was a school committee issue, but it's not. It's before this council. We vote on the entire budget, which also includes the school department. And if the school committee is not satisfactorily answering the questions of parents and taxpayers, and they have to broach councils with it, I being one of them, that I'm bringing it forward because this revolves not around the education, this revolves around the life of an individual who doesn't have a chance to grow up and understand, understand what and how this country got to where it is. He or she is being told that she globally has to become part of a conglomerate, a conglomerate, a collective whatever it might be. And she's losing that sense, or he's losing that sense of being the individual with a brain that God gave him to use. Not to share everything he has with people less fortunate because that's the guilt that this whole programming, if that's what it's all about, is trying to devise. It's not gonna take place overnight. it's gonna take place over a period of years. As I said, you may have spent 100 hours, I'm reading it, I have some concerns, some questions, but my real concern is if in fact we are to any degree, and Mrs. Benedetto, she's on there, and I'm glad she's here, and I compliment her for being here, because that's how serious she is about her job. Well then if there's a smidge of it taking place, then that's what's gotta go, the smidge that's in there. Because it doesn't speak well for the Medford public school system, if in fact it's in there. Now if it's not in there, and as Councilor Dello Russo has alluded to, I heard that we don't have civics anymore and this and that, we can get into this whole issue of what is being taught in behalf of the welfare and the education of the kids in our school. Why maybe is algebra gonna be taken away out of the eighth grade? I mean these are all quality courses to make kids become a better person. to become a better person in society for his life. In this country, in the United States of America, not in a third world nation, not to support some other underprivileged country that can't make it on its own, but the guilt trying to make we in this country pay for everyone else's either mistakes or inability to go forward because they haven't gotten to that point yet. And if we relegate ourselves to that position in life and to this world, we might as well hang up 234 years 43 years of what we were, because we won't even last another 25 years at the rate we're going. Thank you. Councilwoman, go current.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, once again, for 58 years, I have the opportunity. to go and watch the Medford High School game on Thanksgiving Day. The boys did a great job, the band did a great job when they were allowed to play, and the cheerleaders did a great job when they were heard, or seen, let's put it that way. It's just unfortunate that it's the game of the year that everybody waits for. The boys had a great year. They worked their hearts out. Didn't make any difference whether you won or you lost. It's Thanksgiving Day. It's a teenage game. It's a game for kids. It's a high school game. It's not a game for the Patriots or professional football. And the sad part about the whole thing, Mr. President, a band who waits all year long to play a big game of the year, never have the opportunity to play. They were drowned out by some crazy music that kept playing over and over and over again during the course of the game. And it just really made no sense at all. And I think it was just a complete insult to the whole football day activity. The kids worked their hearts out to play, tried to win. The band waited for this day to make sure that they have that opportunity to do at least their halftime presentation, completely drowned out. The only time you actually heard them was at the end of the fourth quarter. And then the cheerleaders, it's unfortunate, Mr. President, everything that you would normally go to see on Thanksgiving Day just didn't make it. I don't know who's responsible, who's in charge, but I would hope the message goes back loud and clear that this does not happen next year. This is a game for the kids. This is not about professional football and acting and playing like it and playing the same music they play in Foxborough. Who cares about that? This is a kid's game and it's the game of the year that everybody waits to go for and to see and watch. But let me underscore all of that by saying they played their hearts out this year. It's just, Maybe it's just a tough business being in football, a lot like it was years ago, but it's neither here or there. The coach and the team did a great job, the cheerleaders did a great job, and the band, they did a great job under the circumstances. But putting that aside, Mr. President, I would expect that something is done and this does not happen again because it just took away from the whole The whole excitement of the day, waiting for the halftime, waiting for the band to play, waiting to see the cheerleaders and do what they do. And they were just drowned out by that crazy, stupid music. That's no other way to explain it, because that's what it was.
[Robert Penta]: You know, they have a, they have a band director too. And you just jog my memory. You go and you have the dinner the night before these kids get all prepped up. The band gets all excited. How does this happen? And then when you go to find out and you ask the question as you were there, nobody know who everybody was blaming everyone else for doing whatever it was. There was absolutely no coordination on that football game for how the activities were supposed to take place. It's a shame. It really is a shame.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, I had the opportunity this morning to watch a Medford policeman on detail for almost two hours, walk every single person with the baby carriage, student, person going to the hillside, hardware, anyone trying to walk across that street, because the blinking lights weren't working. The big one wasn't working, the one right there at the corner of Boston Avenue and Winthrop Street. A lady came into the store, the policeman brought her over to me, he says, there's the Councilor, you tell him. She told me she called that guy's office over that hall over a year ago. Nobody has ever done anything about it. She's just thoroughly disgusted with state government. Strike that, with city government. And she says, but you know, the policeman was very nice. He brought me over. And she seemed like a very nice person. This, again, It's an issue, Mr. President, that should be resolved tomorrow morning. The same way they took care of Winthrop Street in George Street, they should go right up there. You've been up there. You've seen it in the past. You've got speeding cars up there. You have people driving through red lights. You have people that don't park eight feet away from the intersection. You have traffic lights that don't work. You have streets that don't get striped. So, Mr. President, if this is just part of this collective activity, the council can do, I think tomorrow morning, the mayor should go up there post haste and fix that light. Fix those lights, that four-way intersection. Because you can't have a policeman there every day directing traffic, he just happened to be there because of a detail. And he should be complimented. He walked every single person. He didn't stop the cars, he walked them from one side of the street to the other. Get the name of the police officer? No, I don't want to embarrass him because he knows who he is. I told him I wouldn't do that. He should just be complimented, and he was for doing his job, period, that's what he said.
[Robert Penta]: I know you're calling for Committee of the Whole meeting next Tuesday, but I think we really need to have a committee meeting on the school technology part of it because we are a part of that component to give our opinions and to forward them before any finalization comes in that. So I would hope that you call it within the next two weeks.
[Robert Penta]: No, no, no. I believe if we, you were there at the mayor's press conference, he said he was going to be waiting to get input from the community, from the school committee and the city council, and then once he has all that together, then he would be making his recommendation.
[Robert Penta]: Well, take it from the table, then. Move to take it from the table.
[Robert Penta]: So keeping in concert, Mr. President, with the mayor's request that the school committee, the council, the technology committee, and any other citizen, quote, any other citizen who wants to give their input, I just think we should. The mayor's requested this meeting? The mayor stated in his press release on a Friday afternoon, the ones that only certain councils were invited to, that he would be making a request for $2 million at some point in time in the future. But that would be subject to change upon review by the school committee, the city council, the technology committee, and any citizen or group of citizens who want to give input. So I believe the city council has an opportunity to give its input.
[Robert Penta]: You have the report. You have the report that was given to each councilor, and take that report and add a subtract to it. That's what the revision's going to be.
[Robert Penta]: In two weeks.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President?
[Robert Penta]: Mayor, as quoted from the day the press release took place, Mayor McGlynn said the plan is subject to change based upon public input and the approval of the school committee and the city council. The technology upgrade should begin before the school year is over and is considered phase one of the upgrade. What we're talking about is what's in this report. It's a voluminous report.
[Robert Penta]: I've read both reports too. The paper to go to the Committee of the Whole is for what purpose? The purpose to discuss, discuss that which is before us. If in fact we are going to accept any part of it to discuss, are we going to, listen, are you going to wait for someone to turn around and say, okay. I'm asking you a question. I'm giving you an answer. Will you wait a minute? What is it with you tonight? No, it's what's with you. Calm down. There's nothing wrong with me. Just give me an answer. Yeah, your answer's very simple. Are we gonna discuss refurbished computers or new furthers? Are we gonna talk about leasing them or are we gonna talk about buying them? That's what's in the report. And once the city council gives this recommendation, once the school committee gives this recommendation, once the technology committee gives this recommendation, then the mayor will give his recommendation.
[Robert Penta]: But you can't give approvals, Councilor. This isn't just coming up with money for a bond. This is coming up with, number one, you're going to do the infrastructure first. And I would assume as a group of level-headed individuals, we'd be looking at the proposal and indicate, well, if we go to the infrastructure, we'll do the infrastructure for us, because you have to have that before you go forward. And then if the next phase, excuse me, if the next phase is, are we gonna buy new or used, and let's make that decision, and then however you get to that decision, are you gonna have the one-for-one programming? And if you're gonna have the one-for-one program, is it gonna be in the lab, or is it gonna be in a cart that takes it away from one class to another the next day that has the same one-for-one programming? And we can go on and on and on. Are we gonna go out and seek outside vendors, or are we gonna take the ones that are already in the proposal? If you read it and you have it all broken down, you'd have your, all your questions ready to go. And at least we'd have some kind of uniform way of going. Then the mayor can do whatever he wants for 2 million, 3 million, $4 million and plug it in. You see where it goes. My suggestion is, is there a chairperson of this committee? Yes.
[Robert Penta]: So like I said, I just don't want to step on their toes. We also have, Mr. President, another part of this component. And the other part of this component, while we're talking about the school department, the resolution entails entirely the entire community. It talks about municipal building, the police, and the fire, and the school department. So if we're going to do it, we're not going to piecemeal it. Let's find out where in this wonderful world of a mind that the mayor has how he figures to put this all together. That's all. If we're going to talk about it, let's talk about the big picture, not the small little picture.
[Robert Penta]: There's no chairman listed by name. It's just 24 members. So no one's identified as a chairperson.
[Robert Penta]: Well, he's the first name on there.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President?